Ebay question on what constitutes a complete set.

[steve B]

If someone doesn't know that a 74 set is 660 cards.... should they be buying it?

How much handholding do new collectors really need?

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by steve B

If someone doesn't know that a 74 set is 660 cards.... should they be buying it?

How much handholding do new collectors really need?

Why not apply this thinking to the whole situation?
By your logic, the seller shouldn't be selling on eBay either if he can't even list the number of cards included.

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Why not apply this thinking to the whole situation?
By your logic, the seller shouldn't be selling on eBay either if he can't even list the number of cards included.

I guess the seller should list every name too just so there's no confusion. And might as well provide description of every card while you're at it.

Pretty sure every price guide in existence is very clear on how many cards constitute a complete set. It's in black and white. No room for misinterpretation is there?

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

I guess the seller should list every name too just so there's no confusion. And might as well provide description of every card while you're at it.

Pretty sure every price guide in existence is very clear on how many cards constitute a complete set. It's in black and white. No room for misinterpretation is there?

You can make every excuse in the world you want, if sellers on eBay can't do what they're supposed to and list basic information about what they're selling, then you have no place blaming any buyer for the lack of information in the description.

What's next? No photos, with "Guess" the only thing listed in the description??

Just describe what you're ACTUALLY selling....
Rocket science, I know.

[bigfanNY]

Reading through this thread what sticks out is I think most agree 1- The traded cards are not part of the Base set 2- The seller could have listed the number of cards and not had this issue.
Now to the real world issues 1- He got an overmarket price for a set so he knew if he told buyer No, that a real possibility would be the Buyer would return the set. So I think 100% of us who sell on Ebay like me would have sent along the set exactly like the OP.
My opinion the 74 traded cards were inserted in packs but are not part of set. They were by definition an insert set like 1965 Embossed , 1969 Deckel edge, 1970 books,
But I thank the OP and all who responded because I will be more vigilant in my item descriptions.

[Steve D]

I say the Traded sets, regardless of year, are not a part of the regular sets; and a 1974 Topps "basic" set is complete at 660 cards, without the separately numbered traded cards. Next thing you know, someone will come around and say the 1974 set you sold them isn't complete because it doesn't have both the San Diego and Washington NL cards, or both Jesus Alou variations, or the two Dave Friesleben San Diego variations (not including the Washington NL).

Now, an argument could be made that a "master" 1974 Topps set would need to include the Traded cards, along with all the variations in the regular set.

For those who think the set is not complete without the traded cards, since the traded cards were included in the same wax packs as the regular cards, consider this:

What about 1969 Topps Deckle Edge.....they were included in the wax packs with the regular 1969 Topps cards. 1970 Topps booklets were included in wax packs with the 1970 cards. Should a 1969 or 1970 Topps set not be considered complete without these other cards/booklets? I think not.

Steve

[icollectDCsports]

Were the 1974 Traded cards an additional card in a pack or was there one less of the base cards in a pack that included a Traded card?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Steve D

What about 1969 Topps Deckle Edge.....they were included in the wax packs with the regular 1969 Topps cards. 1970 Topps booklets were included in wax packs with the 1970 cards. Should a 1969 or 1970 Topps set not be considered complete without these other cards/booklets? I think not.

Steve

Those cards look nothing like the regular issue cards, 1974 Traded card fronts are identical to the regular cards, except the Traded banner. They were clearly meant to update the original card to show a transaction.

If you look at a 1974 Topps Factory Set, it says "Official 1974 Complete Set, over 700 cards" the box does not say "660 cards plus bonus traded cards" I believe that shows Topps intended the Traded to be part of a complete set and however PSA or price guides list them is irrelevant.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Steve D

I say the Traded sets, regardless of year, are not a part of the regular sets; and a 1974 Topps "basic" set is complete at 660 cards, without the separately numbered traded cards. Next thing you know, someone will come around and say the 1974 set you sold them isn't complete because it doesn't have both the San Diego and Washington NL cards, or both Jesus Alou variations, or the two Dave Friesleben San Diego variations (not including the Washington NL).

Now, an argument could be made that a "master" 1974 Topps set would need to include the Traded cards, along with all the variations in the regular set.

For those who think the set is not complete without the traded cards, since the traded cards were included in the same wax packs as the regular cards, consider this:

What about 1969 Topps Deckle Edge.....they were included in the wax packs with the regular 1969 Topps cards. 1970 Topps booklets were included in wax packs with the 1970 cards. Should a 1969 or 1970 Topps set not be considered complete without these other cards/booklets? I think not.

Steve

Bob Apodaca called. He's hurt you left him off your list...