Is my collection complete?

[jgannon]

I think an answer to that question also would depend on what you consider to be a complete set. In my opinion for instance, if you have a particular 1952 Topps player, it doesn't matter if the card is a red back or black back.

But I wouldn't consider a 1969 Topps set complete unless you had both the Houston and Montreal versions of Don Clendenon.

[ALR-bishop]

Why ?

[hcv123]

It is complete.......... unless or up to the time you find another variation

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by hcv123

It is complete.......... unless or up to the time you find another variation

This bears repeating. It goes to the core of your collecting personality, IMO. How important is it that you have every variation, even if the differences are almost imperceptible or would be meaningless to 99% of even collectors, much less the man on the street? Example, 1961 Topps with some green bleed into the baseball surrounding the card number on back-- a relatively recent discovery or acknowledged variation on some cards. Or a newly discovered stray line, or missing copyright symbol, or an obscured number under the stat line.

I've been fascinated by the approach taken by collectors when these new "discoveries" are made. Do you put most or all of your collecting energy into acquiring the new variation? Do you feel incomplete, in the collecting sense, without it? Do you look at your set as somehow less worthwhile as these new "holes" are brought your attention? Do you worry at all that as soon as you acquire the latest variation someone will point out a new one? For some, maybe the thrill of the chase actually makes them hope there is still something out there for them to sleuth and conquer. Others may become frustrated that their efforts in acquiring what they thought was everything in a "set" are now less fulfilling or satisfying.

I guess I have no answers for you, other than to suggest, as many others have, to collect what you want and take satisfaction where you find it. I collect mostly m101s-- I chase them to the point of mania. I will never complete the set. The card I will always need is frequently available--a Babe Ruth rookie. It ain't never comin' my way. I accept that and it takes nothing away from my enjoyment. So too I'm sure for T206 collectors who will never own the Wagner. C'est la vie. Best of luck whichever way you choose to build your collection.

[sflayank]

Chris
Checking you out
1 1952...I'll go with that
1 1959 Venezuelan....I'll go with that
1 pittsburgh? Cant go with that..2 different cards
Do u have?
Dads cookies? A must
Yamakatsu? Not a must
Japanese bromide? Not a must
3 different auravisions? A must
5 different HI matchbooks? A must
64 sports heroes sticker? A must
Opc tattoo 1960? A must

[AustinMike]

Hey Chris, we've discussed Mantle collecting before, so I think you know where I stand as far as a "complete" collection goes. In regard to your question, I'd say if you aren't sure there is a variation out there and have seen no proof that there is, I think your collection is complete. However, should you get definitive proof that the variation you think might exist actually does exist and you want it, then your collection is not complete.

And to follow up and what Larry wrote in regards to Mantle collecting,

1 1952...I'll go with that I disagree. I think both are needed. (full disclosure, I have neither)
1 1959 Venezuelan....I'll go with that I disagree. I think both are needed. (full disclosure, I have one)
1 pittsburgh? Cant go with that..2 different cards I agree (I have neither)
Do u have?
Dads cookies? A must I agree (Thanks to Fred, I have it)
Yamakatsu? Not a must I agree
Japanese bromide? Not a must I agree
3 different auravisions? A must I agree
5 different HI matchbooks? A must I agree
64 sports heroes sticker? A must I agree
Opc tattoo 1960? A must I agree
1965 Bancroft Tiddlers Not a must (Butt ugly cards)

So yeah, there are difference of opinions on what constitutes a complete set.

[Bestdj777]

Checking you out
1 1952...I'll go with that
1 1959 Venezuelan....I'll go with that
1 pittsburgh? Cant go with that..2 different cards - fair point. I’d certainly buy the second if I saw it at a good point.
Do u have?
Dads cookies? A must - if money weren’t an object I’d view this as essential
Yamakatsu? Not a must - I’d money weren’t an object I’d view this as essential
Japanese bromide? Not a must - agreed. None of these larger items really are
3 different auravisions? A must - agreed. And owned
5 different HI matchbooks? A must - agreed. I have them and a few additional variations
64 sports heroes sticker? A must - don’t consider stickers essential for a card collection
Opc tattoo 1960? A must - agreed. Have the tattoo ball; will never find the portrait and couldn’t afford it. I’m fairly certain there are Venezuelan versions of each that were made, although likely none still exist since only that random one has shown up.

A real complete set for me would include all of the non-test issued cards, coins, postcards, and bottle caps ever made, including the Armour coin color variations. Budget doesn’t allow for that so it’s as complete as it will be for now.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

This bears repeating. It goes to the core of your collecting personality, IMO. How important is it that you have every variation, even if the differences are almost imperceptible or would be meaningless to 99% of even collectors, much less the man on the street? Example, 1961 Topps with some green bleed into the baseball surrounding the card number on back-- a relatively recent discovery or acknowledged variation on some cards. Or a newly discovered stray line, or missing copyright symbol, or an obscured number under the stat line.

I've been fascinated by the approach taken by collectors when these new "discoveries" are made. Do you put most or all of your collecting energy into acquiring the new variation? Do you feel incomplete, in the collecting sense, without it? Do you look at your set as somehow less worthwhile as these new "holes" are brought your attention? Do you worry at all that as soon as you acquire the latest variation someone will point out a new one? For some, maybe the thrill of the chase actually makes them hope there is still something out there for them to sleuth and conquer. Others may become frustrated that their efforts in acquiring what they thought was everything in a "set" are now less fulfilling or satisfying.

I guess I have no answers for you, other than to suggest, as many others have, to collect what you want and take satisfaction where you find it. I collect mostly m101s-- I chase them to the point of mania. I will never complete the set. The card I will always need is frequently available--a Babe Ruth rookie. It ain't never comin' my way. I accept that and it takes nothing away from my enjoyment. So too I'm sure for T206 collectors who will never own the Wagner. C'est la vie. Best of luck whichever way you choose to build your collection.

I keep even more obscure varieties than that. But rarely pursue them actively. If I buy a box of random cards and they're in there I keep them. If not, I'm ok with not having them. At least now at one time I really did want everything.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I think an answer to that question also would depend on what you consider to be a complete set. In my opinion for instance, if you have a particular 1952 Topps player, it doesn't matter if the card is a red back or black back.

But I wouldn't consider a 1969 Topps set complete unless you had both the Houston and Montreal versions of Don Clendenon.

I agree...AND the two Clay Dalrymple cards (I prefer the harder Philly card to the hatless portrait card). I have three complete sets, all have both cards. I haven't chased the white letters or any of the airbrush variations...but I do feel you need those two cards....

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

I agree...AND the two Clay Dalrymple cards (I prefer the harder Philly card to the hatless portrait card). I have three complete sets, all have both cards. I haven't chased the white letters or any of the airbrush variations...but I do feel you need those two cards....

Right, and the Dalrymple!

Yeah, the red and white lettering are to me like the red and black backs of the 1952 set. My approach would be that if I got the 1969 Mickey Mantle with the white lettering, then that would be the one I'd have. If it had the yellow, that would be just as nice. Either way, I would have a 1969 Mickey Mantle.

Of course, it's totally cool if someone wants to get all the variations. We all approach collecting differently, which helps make the world go 'round!

[ALR-bishop]

What is the rationale for including some cards intentionally produced differently from a complete set while excluding others ?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

What is the rationale for including some cards intentionally produced differently from a complete set while excluding others ?

It really all depends on what your approach to collecting is. For me, it's enough to have as I mentioned above, one version of the Mickey Mantle, even if I were going for a complete set. Other people want to take it further. To me, the two Clendenon or Dalrymple cards are worth pursuing, because the differences, to me, are much more substantive.

But I can absolutely see why someone would want all of the variations. It's just an approach, and is based on how each of us wants to collect.

[ALR-bishop]

Personally I think a set is complete without any variations...a "basic" set. A "master" set would include variations, but which variations. You could use the PSA master checklist, SCD's, Beckett's, or your own. There is no official hobby definition of a variation or a master set as far as I know, beyond using one of the above or other on line checklists.

The question I was raising is, if you include some variations in a "complete" set, how do you draw the line in excluding others ? Off course everyone can collect anyway they want. I was just raising the question as a point of discussion, not as a criticism.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Personally I think a set is complete without any variations...a "basic" set. A "master" set would include variations, but which variations. You could use the PSA master checklist, SCD's, Beckett's, or your own. There is no official hobby definition of a variation or a master set as far as I know, beyond using one of the above or other on line checklists.

The question I was raising is, if you include some variations in a "complete" set, how do you draw the line in excluding others ? Off course everyone can collect anyway they want. I was just raising the question as a point of discussion, not as a criticism.

Oh yeah, I know what you are saying. Ultimately, it's a personal thing. What I was trying to say to the OP was, would getting the item he was talking about, in his eyes, be necessary to complete the set? I certainly wasn't trying to introduce any kind of criteria for what would or should constitute having a complete set of anything.

I think that over the years, as the hobby got bigger, concepts such as "basic" set vs. "master" set became more of a thing. I may be wrong, but I think that the criteria for collecting a full set would have been seen as satisfied years ago just by having that 1952 card whether it was the red back or the black back. Or maybe, it was just me as a kid, not really caring about it, or even knowing that angle. But as an adult, it still isn't important to me.

Somewhat related to this (perhaps), I am on an audio site and one time one of the members posted an LP I wasn't aware of by a pianist I really love. So, I went and got the LP and thanked him for posting it. We got to discussing the album, but he told me that the reason he really got it, was because he wanted to collect all the JazzLand LPs, the label which this LP was on. I thought that was interesting, because even though I collect records, I would never buy a record just to complete having a certain series. In that sense, I am not as much a record collector, as I am someone who wants to get records of music that I love. Nor would I have to have a first pressing, although I certainly wouldn't mind, or all the different versions of the record, such as foreign pressings, etc. Ultimately, I just want to get a good sounding record of something I want to hear. And if the album is way too expensive, I'll get the CD.

Now, I WOULD want to get all the players of a baseball set to complete a set. But again, personally for me, my criteria to complete that set would not entail getting what could be termed a "master" set. I guess the above story about the LP just illustrates the idea that while I'm a collector, I don't have to have each and every thing. The central purpose of completing a 1969 set for me, would be to have the two players mentioned on their two different teams. But I'll draw the line at the print. For me, that's just not important. Similarly, with records, I only want the music I want, and having one good sounding recording of it is enough.

And I don't mean to say that collecting black backs and red backs is a fetish or anything. We all have different goals and approaches, which is one of the great things about collecting. Having both versions of a 1952 card, is to accentuate and document the history of that set in a more complete way. And that might be more important to another collector. For me, just having one good card of the player is enough.

Now, I COULD see having both Joe Page's - one with the correct bio, and the one with Johnny Sain's!