Sets that aren't worth completing

[darkhorse9]

Have you ever started a set only to realize that putting the effort and cost wasn't worth it?

I'm a set collector and have accumulated hundreds of them. I started working on a Salutation Exhibit set and got down to just right left including variations.

I realized that the eight I needed would take several thousand dollars to complete. That set isn't really bought and sold that way, so I bailed.

I did the same thing with 1960 Leaf. The low numbers were no problem, but spending $20 each for the 72 high numbers just didn't add up.

[bbcard1]

The last few years as my finances improved, I buy full sets or near full sets in collector grade. I usually pick up one or two a year and if they are missing a few cards, I fill them out. Works fine for me. I know I'll never spend a ton of money on grading fees, but on the other hand, I know I'll never spend a ton of money on grading fees.

For several years I have been in the process of finishing a 1961 Topps sets. The common high numbers are expensive and painful. I could have bought two complete sets for what I've spent putting together this one one card at a time.

[clydepepper]

The 'Poster-Child' for sets that aren't worth completing is the 1952 TOPPS set.

I am content to have the first 310 cards.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

The 'Poster-Child' for sets that aren't worth completing is the 1952 TOPPS set.

I am content to have the first 310 cards.

But the best 2 cards are high numbers, you have the rookie of Eddie Mathews and some scrub named Mickey.

I have debated the OPs question for decades.

At this moment I would say all of them. In the past I have really enjoyed putting a set together. Other times I have hated it. Usually both several times while putting together the same set.

[Rookiemonster]

Not a fan of completing any set really, but if I ever was to complete a set it would be 1951 Bowman .

[ALR-bishop]

Topps 1951 Current All Stars

[conor912]

Depends on what you mean by “worth”. If you mean worth more as a set than the parts, then the answer is all of them.

[brafcauknid]

Most of them fall into that category for me, I was a set collector as a kid but just doesn’t interest me much now. Compiling tons of commons to Complete sets just sounds like a chore to me. Only exception at the moment is I’m halfway to a all Psa graded ‘54 Bowman football set, year my dad was born so really only reason I’m doing that.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

The 'Poster-Child' for sets that aren't worth completing is the 1952 TOPPS set.

I am content to have the first 310 cards.

T206 would take the cake. Without the big four, it ain't done!

Do the 52 topps with a mantle reprint? Its about the challenge, the first 310 , meh

[buymycards]

It isn't always about what a set is worth. It is more about the enjoyment of putting the set together, one card at a time. In some cases, full sets are not available. In my case, I have been working on my T213-2 set for nearly 10 years, and I have 128 of the 185 cards. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any full sets available to purchase, and if I do complete my set, there probably isn't anyone out there who would buy a full set of T213-2's. But, I don't care. I look for cards at shows, I look for cards on eBay and Net54, and I love the chase.

Financially, I look at it as if I am playing golf or going fishing. If I spend $10,000 over a 10 year period playing golf, I don't expect to sell anything to recoup my "investment", but if I enjoy playing golf, the cost is worthwhile. If I enjoy fishing, and I have an assortment of fishing poles and tackle, and I have an $8,000 boat, and travel expenses for travel to and from fishing, I don't expect to recoup my investment. I use the same "logic?" for my Louisiana cards. I enjoy collecting them because I love Louisiana, and I realize that I will never sell the cards for the amount of money that I have in them, but that is OK.

I take the complete opposite view when I am purchasing cards to resell on eBay or to sell at cards shows.

[mq711]

I agree with Rick 100%, to some/most of us this is a hobby which is supposed to be fun and allow a diversion from life. I spend thousands a year on my other hobbies with no expectation of any return on those "investments," much rather hand down golf clubs than sell them.

As far as set building its similar, the fun is looking for cards you need and working through the process. I feel its what true collecting is all about. For investment purposes it is different but I don't see any fun in buying a complete set and storing it away on a shelf just to say you have it.

[Econteachert205]

I would echo those who suggest buying a set with a few upgrades needed and then slowly upgrading it from a financial standpoint. The only set I ever built that made me money re selling after was my t205 set and that mostly had to do with timing. Generally speaking set building is a fun but losing proposition money wise. Still one of the best parts of the hobby though.

As far as from a set disappointment stand point the most disappointing set I built was probably 1971 topps baseball. It’s huge, there’s a lot of expensive high numbers of guys I don’t feel like paying for and at the end I found out I had like 50 sharpie retouches in a set I thought was exmt. That was pretty much a downer. I chose about 30 cards I really liked from the set, like the Munson and vida blue and dumped the rest and won’t ever consider rebuilding it, even though there was a great set that was just listed here a few days ago at a great price that was very tempting.

[Johnny630]

For the past 10-15 years I’ve noticed the younger generation whom is Mostly re sellers for Profit or investors only want the stars. They do not put sets together....most are only interested in the stars and or high numbers in certain years, as they know that’s What usually sells well, or is more liquid.

Sadly I think set building in anything higher then Exmnt is a thing of the distant past. The high end common market hit the skids years ago. Off shape is another thing those set builders will always be there because the accomplishment of putting something together cheaply will always be attractive to cheap people. No shortage of cheap people who love cards.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I disagree about the expense of putting together a set. It all depends upon approach. As a reseller I actually still enjoy the process, but I buy "bulk" lots and sell off what I don't need. I completed a 1971 set for a net cost of under $100 that way once. Started with a 500 different lot and anytime I saw a good price on 50 or 100 or 200 cards I grabbed it as long as it had a few I needed. Took what I needed out and resold the rest.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

T206 would take the cake. Without the big four, it ain't done!

Do the 52 topps with a mantle reprint? Its about the challenge, the first 310 , meh

I would strongly disagree with this. It isn't complete with the Wagner and Plank, but the other two are variations with one or two different letters. Where do you stop with variations, then backs? Is 1952 Topps not complete with both Mantles, Jackies, Page and Sain variations, black and red backs, grey back 2nd series, etc.?

No set is worth completing. They are all worth less than what it takes to complete them. Why else would dealers buy sets from AHs and break them up? I spent the last 4 years completing a t205 set that I started 30 years ago. I will never do another set again. And I didn't bother doing all the variations, again because it would never end. If you enjoy putting together sets, then just consider your lost value the cost of entertainment. I guess after 50 years of chasing cards for sets, the work is no longer enjoyable for me.

[Republicaninmass]

Sorry, I didn't realize those were the big four.


Ain't complete without the big 2!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Sorry, I didn't realize those were the big four.


Ain't complete without the big 2!

You missed my point. Why are Magie and Doyle N.Y. part of the set and not Nodgrass or Sweeney no B? What about Cobb/Cobb?. Where does the set end and the master set begin? What do you consider a complete set of 1952 Topps? Is it one of each number or every possible variation or just selected variations? There are a number of errors that have been corrected in Topps sets through the years and yet I see sets called complete with just one. Why would it be any different with t206? 1969 Topps even has 2 different pictures on the Clay Dalrymple card, but I have never seen it said that you have to have both to have a complete set. You can have your opinion of what is a complete t206 set, but it is only an opinion, not a fact. I just don't understand why people's opinions are inconsistent from set to set. I have no desire to chase down endless errors and variations, I will leave that to you.

[brianp-beme]

T206 certainly isn't worth the time, effort or money to complete, but it sure is fun trying to get oh so close.

Brian

[keithsky]

I used to try to put sets together every year from wax boxes starting in the 60's until PSA came along and ruined that with their graded cards. When I was collecting it didn't matter if you had a great looking card it was just a great looking card none of this PSA9 or 10 crap to jack up the ridiculous price for a common card into the thousands. After they came along and cards got graded I gave up. Wasn't worth wasting my time and more importantly my money for a bunch of common cards in the set with ridiculous graded inflated prices. My God it's a piece of cardboard.

[Case12]

Originally Posted by keithsky

I used to try to put sets together every year from wax boxes starting in the 60's until PSA came along and ruined that with their graded cards. When I was collecting it didn't matter if you had a great looking card it was just a great looking card none of this PSA9 or 10 crap to jack up the ridiculous price for a common card into the thousands. After they came along and cards got graded I gave up. Wasn't worth wasting my time and more importantly my money for a bunch of common cards in the set with ridiculous graded inflated prices. My God it's a piece of cardboard.

More heresy - I take common cards out of the plastic containers to fit in my book...

[mr2686]

The sets that aren't worth completing are the ones you just don't care about or don't like the design. It's supposed to be fun, it's a hobby.

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by buymycards

It isn't always about what a set is worth. It is more about the enjoyment of putting the set together, one card at a time. In some cases, full sets are not available. In my case, I have been working on my T213-2 set for nearly 10 years, and I have 128 of the 185 cards. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any full sets available to purchase, and if I do complete my set, there probably isn't anyone out there who would buy a full set of T213-2's. But, I don't care. I look for cards at shows, I look for cards on eBay and Net54, and I love the chase.

Financially, I look at it as if I am playing golf or going fishing. If I spend $10,000 over a 10 year period playing golf, I don't expect to sell anything to recoup my "investment", but if I enjoy playing golf, the cost is worthwhile. If I enjoy fishing, and I have an assortment of fishing poles and tackle, and I have an $8,000 boat, and travel expenses for travel to and from fishing, I don't expect to recoup my investment. I use the same "logic?" for my Louisiana cards. I enjoy collecting them because I love Louisiana, and I realize that I will never sell the cards for the amount of money that I have in them, but that is OK.

I take the complete opposite view when I am purchasing cards to resell on eBay or to sell at cards shows.

I am a hopeless set builder and I think we all know that set building for profit is something that does not happen. I am in agreement with what Rick said above....building the set is about the experience and not the financial return. I have been building a '56 Topps baseball set for two years and have probably spent more on it so far than I would have buying a full set outright but I enjoy the hunt and knowingly realize I will likely never recoup my investment. But I cannot put a price on the enjoyment I received in building the set so there is that.

[trambo]

For me, I'd say 1960 Fleer ATG provided the comment with "worth" relates to value. I'd say that about any most sets, really, if you're referring to resale value if you're buying one card at a time,. Then again, if you're plan is to hold them for the long-term and you're buying most vintage or pre war stuff, then it may make some sense.

From a value perspective, if you're patient, I do think you can both build and sell as set and make a return on the investment, even in the short term. In the past two years, I've put together a 41 Play Ball and 48 Bowman set. In both cases, I've sold them as complete sets and returned more than I paid for the parts. Patience and a little good luck on both ends of it was what paid off. I didn't buy at full value on all the cards but did on a few. In both sales, they were purchased to either upgrade an existing set or break up. Not sure how either ended from the buyer's perspective but do know they got pretty good stuff (48 Bowman was an overall 7 and 41 PB was a low 5 overall grade).

[seanofjapan]

I'm a set builder, its just how I get enjoyment from this hobby. My vintage sets are all "mid grade" and raw. I can't be bothered to care much about condition, except for not wanting true beaters in my sets, which helps given my limited budget for cards.

My general rules before starting a set project are:

1) No sets with insanely high value cards in them (if I can't get, or at least aspire to one day getting, the key card in the set for under $300 in mid grade, the set is off my radar completely. If it has multiple key cards in that price range its also going to be off the list).

2) No sets with series that are scarce enough that mid grade commons are going to cost more than 10$ each, unless the overall number of cards in those series isn't too big, in which case I could go a bit higher.

3) No sets where the scarce series make up more than about 25% of the total.

4) No ugly sets.

[rocuan]

Reqalizing you all are talking about baseball. I have been collector since i first started collecting 39 Play Balls ( gives my age awy.). But There was something else that has been on my mind all these years. Whilea young boy Iwould occaisionally see a card called Horrors Of War and G-Men. The art work fascinated me as a young boy. As I got older and more involved in baseball cards. I never forgot about those 2 sets. I would see a few at shows over the years but the condition was usually bad and expensive. I always wanted to have both of those sets but realized that to get a decent set the price would be way out of my range. Then one time at a local show some guy had a reprint set of the Horrors OF War set. I walked around a bit and thought " You'll never get that set, what are you waiting for". Went back and bought it, and have been pleased with it ever since. If I could ever find a reprintset of the G-men & Heroes Of The Law. even at my age. J'll do the same. Maybe the moral of this story is, if the set you like and want is too expensive and time consuming, and a reprint set is available ?????????
Roland

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by rocuan

Reqalizing you all are talking about baseball. I have been collector since i first started collecting 39 Play Balls ( gives my age awy.). But There was something else that has been on my mind all these years. Whilea young boy Iwould occaisionally see a card called Horrors Of War and G-Men. The art work fascinated me as a young boy. As I got older and more involved in baseball cards. I never forgot about those 2 sets. I would see a few at shows over the years but the condition was usually bad and expensive. I always wanted to have both of those sets but realized that to get a decent set the price would be way out of my range. Then one time at a local show some guy had a reprint set of the Horrors OF War set. I walked around a bit and thought " You'll never get that set, what are you waiting for". Went back and bought it, and have been pleased with it ever since. If I could ever find a reprintset of the G-men & Heroes Of The Law. even at my age. J'll do the same. Maybe the moral of this story is, if the set you like and want is too expensive and time consuming, and a reprint set is available ?????????
Roland

Great point, I have several reprint sets and love them.

[topcat61]

For me personally, putting together any English sporting set by hand is a true challenge. Worth the value, probably not, worth the time and effort and challenge -for sure! The 1910 T225 is much easier and and still affordable at 25 cards.

[KMayUSA6060]

Isn't this exact topic part of the appeal of set registries - not so much the generic annual sets, but the custom player/era sets? i.e. 1960 Decade HoF set (every card from the 1960s featuring a HoFer(s)).

It's a hobby. Collect what you love. I love T206s, but I'm not sure I'll ever complete The Monster due to my lack of interest in the commons.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by mr2686

The sets that aren't worth completing are the ones you just don't care about or don't like the design. It's supposed to be fun, it's a hobby.

^^^^^When I first read the first post, this is what I thought ^^^^^


Last three sets I completed were 73 topps, 52 bowman, and 51 bowman football. I thought all three of those were worth the time and effort I put into it. It was fun!


I also tried to complete a run of topps/ bowman regular issue hofers thru 1979. Never could pull the trigger on 52t Mathews and Wilhelm, or 67t Seaver. Not a big fan of the way those cards look, Didn't think the cost was worth the card. Finally lost the ambition to complete the run........ I've stopped even looking for those cards

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

T206 certainly isn't worth the time, effort or money to complete, but it sure is fun trying to get oh so close.

Brian

I finished a better-than-beater T206 set in probably 2014 which I completed to 520, and have no desire to go further. At one time I thought I would make a play for the Plank be it never transpired. I figure I had $8,000 or so in the set, but I had worked on it for years before at about 350, I said, Hey, you can finish this thing (at least as close as I wanted to).

It was worth it at the time for sure. I consider the T206 a "relationship" set. I learned at least a little about every player, the seasons, and the teams. I upgraded, traded, and made a lot of relationships with other collectors. I made some trades I'm proud of and some I regret but it was an adventure.

[packs]

I know the T207 set is beloved by some but I could never imagine paying the outrageous prices commons bring in. You end paying more for Mike Donlin than you will for Walter Johnson.

[drcy]

My collecting oddity is that, as someone who started collecting perhaps 45 years ago, I've never done a set. I've bought whole sets, but never one from scratch.

[rjackson44]

Texas tommy ...oh well

[wdwfan]

I started my first vintage set in 2012. Traded for a single 1958 Topps card at the LCS, and then I decided I wanted to build that set. Slowly traded for some, bought here and there when I found good deals and started putting it together.

Over a year later, I finally finished it. A year. I said never again. There's no sense in something taking so long. But once I finished, I was proud of it. I wound up spending about $500 and put it together in Ex-Mt type condition.

I sold it a year or so later for $1,500, so I tripled my money. Probably could've gotten more, but I got 3x what I had into it. So I was satisfied. Plus, I used the money for my first trip to Disney World.

I know I said never again, but I guess that's why they say never say never. I've started a 1962 Topps set, a 1957 Topps and a 1975 Topps set. I also bought a complete NM 1974 Topps set for under $100 two years ago.

I guess I just enjoy the vintage aspect of collecting so much that it's making the chase as fun. Plus, I try to trade as much as possible so that keeps the cost down. I don't mind working on vintage sets so long as they don't take a year to complete.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by wdwfan

I started my first vintage set in 2012. Traded for a single 1958 Topps card at the LCS, and then I decided I wanted to build that set. Slowly traded for some, bought here and there when I found good deals and started putting it together.

Over a year later, I finally finished it. A year. I said never again. There's no sense in something taking so long. But once I finished, I was proud of it. I wound up spending about $500 and put it together in Ex-Mt type condition.

I sold it a year or so later for $1,500, so I tripled my money. Probably could've gotten more, but I got 3x what I had into it. So I was satisfied. Plus, I used the money for my first trip to Disney World.

Wow, that's pretty awesome.... I would think putting together and exmint 58 set for $500 net would be way out of the norm that could be expected. -

My only basis for comparison is: my 73 topps set cost me $300 net and my 52 Bowman set cost me $1000 net.
Both starting from scratch, in VG/G condition, buying lots, selling the dupes etc.

My guess on a 58 set in exmt wouldve been maybe about $1000 - $1200 ? Good job!!

maybe your trades were for cards already in your collection from other sets, and their value wasn't included in the $500. ?

[wdwfan]

It was all cards I had in my collection over time or that I had pulled out of packs. I don't open hobby boxes. But I open a few packs each trip to the LCS and the occassional blaster from Walmart/Target.

I used those to trade for probably 80%-90% or more of the set. I know I had to buy the Aaron and Mays. But I was able to trade for most of the other big stars. I also traded with friends in the community who had nice vintage extras if I had stuff for their sets. They traded BV for BV and not 1/3 BV like the LCS does.

Originally Posted by tonyo

Maybe your trades were for cards already in your collection from other sets, and their value wasn't included in the $500. ?

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by wdwfan

It was all cards I had in my collection over time or that I had pulled out of packs. I don't open hobby boxes. But I open a few packs each trip to the LCS and the occassional blaster from Walmart/Target.

I used those to trade for probably 80%-90% or more of the set. I know I had to buy the Aaron and Mays. But I was able to trade for most of the other big stars. I also traded with friends in the community who had nice vintage extras if I had stuff for their sets. They traded BV for BV and not 1/3 BV like the LCS does.

Nice, so effectively you got 80-90% of a 58 topps sets by opening packs from you LCS or Walmart/Target!

[wdwfan]

I had probably 3k cards each of the Cowboys and Rangers as well as guys like Brady, Rodgers, some of the bigger baseball stars in my PC when I started the set. I traded a lot of my PC items.

I'd trade those plus stuff I broke, and I traded over the course of about 16 months (the length it took me to put the set together). Stuff I traded broke down to about 10% of stuff I pulled from packs/boxes and about 90% from my PC (Rangers, Cowboys, lots of other vintage, stars, RCs, etc).

Didn't mean to make it sound like I traded for 80-90% of the set with stuff I pulled out of boxes. It was a ton of PC stuff (lots of Rangers, Cowboys, vintage baseball and football and stars).

[tonyo]

I considered my 33 Goudey Set complete at 238. Missing Lajoie and #160 Gehrig.

for me personally, that set wouldn't be worth completing to 240 because my financial situation wouldn't justify me to have that much cash tied up in one card (the Lajoie).

The extra Gehrig wasn't really worth the cost since the two are identical (or practically identical). Now if the whole Lajoie issue didn't exist, I'd probably have sprung for the Gehrig so I'd have a complete set.

The "238 card set" was worth the time, cost and effort. I enjoyed the set, the artwork, most of the poses, the card stock, it's a classic set, etc. Plus I decided to break it up last year and have sold 200 of them, mostly (if not all) here on the BST, and ended up recouping what I had spent. I assume I'll at least break if I sell the remaining 40.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

A few years ago, I completed a '53 Topps set. Yes, I spent way too much on it, but I loved that set, and it was a fun journey. That set represents about the only time in my collecting life when I was really zeroed in on completing something without going off in different directions. This past spring, I broke it up and sold off most of it. I did keep Mantle, Jackie, and Mays. I did pretty decent on what I sold off. Sometimes I find myself missing it, but in looking at the cost of many of the cards that I would have to re-purchase, I just can't make myself do it.

I also have considered completing something like a '62 Topps or a 70s set, but after having that '53 Topps, they just don't seem as exciting to me, and I end up not building another set. Not sure where to go from here...

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Still considering this topic. Have any of you guys rebuilt a set after breaking one up and selling?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[jayshum]

Years ago, I sold off a run of Bowman sets (kept the 53 Color set) along with some pre-war sets (Play Balls, Diamond Stars, Delong) to raise money for work we were doing on the house. I then took a long break from collecting, but it always pained me to have sold the sets. About 5 years ago, as money became available again. I got back into collecting. I had always been a set builder so I decided to rebuild what I had sold. While I definitely spent more to rebuild them than I had sold them for, I had a great time doing it and was very happy to restore my collection to what it had once been. As others have said, if you aren't in it to make money as an investor, do what makes you happy. If you miss having the set you sold off, go ahead and build it again.

[jimmer77]

I am currently working on a 71 and 60 topps baseball. The71 is proving to be difficult, as I am down to 90 cards and it just doesn't seem worth it now like the enthusiasm I had when I started