1968 Topps Milton Bradley help

[G1911]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

From the SCD article above: "No game, therefore, has a full set of 132 cards."

Just saying....notice no mention of "basic" or "master" in that statement.

From the SCD article above: "Therefore, the two checklist cards in the Milton Bradley set are not variations of each other but rather come from the same proof sheet as the regular 1968s."

Just saying again....notice no mention of DP.

You are welcome to redefine a complete set to mean a master set with variants if you wish. This is a tiny issue of your personal definition. I am going to use the traditional hobby terminology. You don't have too. What is left to do?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by G1911

You are welcome to redefine a complete set to mean a master set with variants if you wish. This is a tiny issue of your personal definition. I am going to use the traditional hobby terminology. You don't have too. What is left to do?

???? Not sure I have re-defined anything.....I simply agree with the author of the article on these facts. He appears to have done significantly more research and has demonstrated far more understanding of this set than you, I or anyone else for that matter.

And if you check PSA's registry, you will also see that they show two copies of this #107 card, differentiated by the designations of "brown Fine Mesh" and "Tan Wide Mesh", on this registry. As with most all of PSA's set registries with variation cards (including the 1968 Topps set) like this, PSA identifies the set with the variations as a "Master Set". Here is the PSA's title of the baseball portion of the MB set: "1968 Topps Milton Bradley"

Clearly missing is the word "MASTER"....obviously for a reason

So, between PSA and the author of this article, it seems like you may be the one redefining this set.

Again, I am in agreement with both sources just as you are welcome to have an opinion different than PSA and SCD's article.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

???? Not sure I have re-defined anything.....I simply agree with the author of the article on these facts. He appears to have done significantly more research and has demonstrated far more understanding of this set than you, I or anyone else for that matter.

And if you check PSA's registry, you will also see that they show two copies of this #107 card, differentiated by the designations of "brown Fine Mesh" and "Tan Wide Mesh", on this registry. As with most all of PSA's set registries with variation cards (including the 1968 Topps set) like this, PSA identifies the set with the variations as a "Master Set". Here is the PSA's title of the baseball portion of the MB set: "1968 Topps Milton Bradley"

Clearly missing is the word "MASTER"....obviously for a reason

So, between PSA and the author of this article, it seems like you may be the one redefining this set.

Again, I am in agreement with both sources just as you are welcome to have an opinion different than PSA and SCD's article.

How many times do you want to have the same exact debate that was already had? What do you want?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by G1911

How many times do you want to have the same exact debate that was already had? What do you want?

Doesn't look like I am the one who keeps bring it up:

Originally Posted by G1911

From the SCD article above: "The number of cards per game ranges from 86-105 cards...". A 131 card basic set nor a 132 card master set would be present in a game.

Originally Posted by G1911

The master set is ALWAYS the correct answer .

Perhaps, if you let it go, then it does not keep getting brought up.......just saying.

[G1911]

As said, multiple times, I am going to maintain the classic hobby definition of a unique card and a variation. I am not going to use your new definition that treats the MB's unlike every other set ever issued, including the 1968 Topps regular release where nobody thinks the Marichal checklist variation, resulting from it's different sheet slots, is necessary for a basic set.

I do not know why you want to do this again and are upset that I use the traditional standard when talking to other people. There's no point in having this loop over and over again. We disagree, who cares? You want to call it something else, that's fine. You do your thing. You are free to bitch about this every single time I post, I suppose.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am not going to use your new definition that treats the MB's unlike every other set ever issued

Not clear as to why you are not comprehending the fact that I don't have any type of "new" definition for this set.

I merely share an opinion with an author who had an article on this topic published....this shared opinion dates back to well before his article was published. I also agree with PSA's defining of this set via it's registry which for this set has been around since 2013. However, I guess in the scheme of card collecting 9-10 years is "new".

You're welcome to use whatever definition you like........I could give a flying flip less.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Not clear as to why you are not comprehending the fact that I don't have any type of "new" definition for this set.

I merely share an opinion with an author who had an article on this topic published....this shared opinion dates back to well before his article was published. I also agree with PSA's defining of this set via it's registry which for this set has been around since 2013. However, I guess in the scheme of card collecting 9-10 years is "new".

You're welcome to use whatever definition you like........I could give a flying flip less.

If you don’t give a flip, then stop