What is a complete set vs master set

[Tomman1961]

i posted something along this line on the pre-WW side. I still have my Topps from the 1980's but I have purged everything after 1989 as junk. I was born in 1961 and i have a Master Set. All the variations. I chased it only because it was the year I was born. I completed the 1955 set in 1980, and now there are these weird variations of signatures on the front?Do I have to go back and chase those? So-a Master Set is every card, with every card's variation. That is clear. A Complete Set is every card number in a set regardless of what the variation is that you happen to have.
My frustration lies in the Diamond Star set. Cards 1-96 are the Low numbers. 97-108 are the High Num,bers. The fronts of these 12 highs depict the exact same picture as these 12 in the lows. Bill Dickey in the lows, has the exact same picture as in the highs. So why collect these HIGH PRICED high numbers, if you already have the player cheaper in the lows? Not like in 1952 Topps, where we can agree that you must have the Highs to have a complete set.
My frustration also goes into T206. I have a nice handful of HOF'ers' BUT I could never go after what many feel is a complete set of 520, because a complete set would have to include Wagner, Plank, Magie, etc.
My therapist gets $250 an hour to help me with this.
So......Bottom line. Can you sleep at night "truncating" and calling your set a "complete set"? (yup-she gets $250 an hour for this)

[ALR-bishop]

I wouldn't worry about it. I collect Topps sets and have them all --48 and 51 to 2012. Up until 1994 ( when I stopped putting my sets in binders) I tried to assemble "master sets". For me, this simply meant all "variations" listed in the SCD Standard Catalog of Baseball cards. But for others it may be only those variations listed in the PSA Registry, or maybe Becketts.

Many variations listed in such publications/forums are not variations at all, but mere print defects that have caught the fancy of the hobby, such as the 57 Bakep or the 58 Herrer. Some are real variations, such as the 59 Spahn DOBs or the 59 traded/option cards.

I assume for 55 you may be referring to the fact the Williams card can be found with or without a dot on the i in the signature, or with various degrees of the dot present. That made it into SCD, as did the 3 59 Sullivans with out a circle on the CR, or without the period in USA. Are these mere print defects or corrected defects. Who will ever know ?

Collect what you like. I like my SCD parameter because almost all sets are listed there and with Bob Lemke retired, the list is likely to be fixed ;)

But I still sometime collect non listed oddities, which my friend Doug would call "glorified print dots"

[BearBailey]

Yes I see a master set as everything, every variation etc. But to me a complete set is 1 of each card number that is intended for the set. So for 1954 bowman regardless of Williams or Piersal one 66 equals a complete set. If it is a mis-number such as 61 topps you need both numbers to have the complete set because they should have had seperate numbers. In my opinion for the diamond stars you need the high numbers as well for a complete set. Or you can say you have a low-numbered set. Most importantly collect what you like!

[ALR-bishop]

...and a collector knows he has every "variation" to a set at any particular time how ? And, what is a variation ? Do you believe it to have some standard definition, and if so, what is the source of it ?

Not rrying to be argumentative. I think the OP has raised a good question about how a collector knows he has a master set...and just saying he needs all variations I think does not answer it. Now if you are a PSA Registry collector the answer is easy at any given point. But, I'm not one.

Come on Doug, straighten us out

[doug.goodman]

...and a collector knows he has every "variation" to a set at any particular time how ? And, what is a variation ? Do you believe it to have some standard definition, and if so, what is the source of it ?

Not trying to be argumentative. I think the OP has raised a good question about how a collector knows he has a master set...and just saying he needs all variations I think does not answer it. Now if you are a PSA Registry collector the answer is easy at any given point. But, I'm not one.

Come on Doug, straighten us out

My definition of a "complete set" is one of each card listed in the SCD, which as Al (ALR-bishop) points out, is probably never going to change now that Mr. Lemke has retired.

The definition of a "master set" is, I think, more of a moving target. As Al mentions, having "all" variations really only means have all variations at the moment. Variations are constantly turning up, and always will. And, just because some people think a card is a variation, does not mean that all people agree that it deserves status as a "needed" card for your master set. And vice versa.

As an example, if you believe that all print dots are variations, then you will have a massive set, because I guarantee you that if you have 100 copies of a given card, you will find 100 tiny little print variations.

There are numerous threads on the forum regarding what does and does not constitute a variation. All of the ones that I have written are correct and complete, those written by others may not be.

Insert smiley face here.

Also, I don't consider the registries of third party graders to be relevant, just as I don't consider third party graders to be relevant.

I'll bet that every collector of master sets has at least one card that he believes to be a valid variation, that nobody else has on their list, and probably has at least one card that most people believe to be a valid variation, that he thinks shouldn't be. For me those cards are the 1958 Aaron blue background, and the 1958 Herrer.

Al and Dave are the kings of Topps baseball variations, although Al likes to avoid the title.

Doug

[doug.goodman]

My frustration lies in the Diamond Star set. Cards 1-96 are the Low numbers. 97-108 are the High Num,bers. The fronts of these 12 highs depict the exact same picture as these 12 in the lows. Bill Dickey in the lows, has the exact same picture as in the highs. So why collect these HIGH PRICED high numbers, if you already have the player cheaper in the lows? Not like in 1952 Topps, where we can agree that you must have the Highs to have a complete set.

I treat the Topps 1952 set like it is two sets : Lo and Hi

You could do the same with the Diamond Stars.

Doug

[GasHouseGang]

I treat the Topps 1952 set like it is two sets : Lo and Hi

You could do the same with the Diamond Stars.

Doug

I agree with you Doug, and that could apply to several nonsports sets too. Some of the sets have very expensive high numbers. I can live without them until I can afford the cards I want/need.

[ALR-bishop]

Doug-- you need to say what you mean and quit beating around the bush :)

[doug.goodman]

Doug-- you need to say what you mean and quit beating around the bush :)

Sorry Al, sometimes I'm a bit on the shy side.

[tonyo]

So......Bottom line. Can you sleep at night "truncating" and calling your set a "complete set"?

Short answer: Yes

I consider my self a set collector - I just define my own "sets".

For example my 58 topps "set" consists only of the members of the 500 hr club. My "58 topps members of the 500 hr club" set is complete. If somehow a random 58 topps that isn't a member of the 500 hr club found his way into my hands, I would get rid of him as quickly as possible because my tendency is to try for "complete" sets. Ok, we can call them sub-sets if we want, they are still complete :)

Same with my "56 topps hall-of-famers" set (or sub-set). It's complete and I don't want any more 56 topps....if I had a non-hall of famer, THEN I couldn't sleep at night.

I did complete the 52 bowman, 72 topps, and 73 topps within the last two years. One of each card number. I don't really even care if variations exist. But same principles apply; if I ended up with a variation, I'd pick the one I liked best and get rid of the other one as quickly as possible.

I did venture into a pre-war type collection. I'm up to 78 different types. It's been fun and I've learned alot about pre-war cards, but I've recently started trying to define a "set" so I can have a target to "complete". I'm leaning toward 100 different pre-war types.


Anyway, maybe you can ask your therapist if that approach would work and let you sleep better. Collect a set of "one of each low number diamond stars" and convince your self that is indeed a complete set!


Tony

[steve B]

I think that of you don't want to collect the High numbers for the diamond stars that's just fine. Some people wouldn't think of the set as complete, but that's ok too.

What you'd have is a complete low number set.

When you think about it, the lows were issued then the highs, so each is its own set.

A couple of the Topps sets I collected as they were issued, in series. So for 1970 I have a lot of series one, and fewer of the others.

I'm fine with not completing a set, it's nice if I can, and if I get close I'll put a bit more effort on, but it's not a big deal (Probably a mix of ADD and habit from always being on a tight budget.)

I do collect all the odd variations, recognized or otherwise. But I don't get crazy if I don't have them all.

That's part of the fun of any hobby, you decide what to collect.

Steve B

[doug.goodman]

That's part of the fun of any hobby, you decide what to collect.

Exactly.

There are no rules.

Doug

[ALR-bishop]

Spoken like a true anarchist...

[mintacular]

I can see avoiding some variations and considering your set done but let's not go too far with that concept i.e. saying that you have a 1952 Topps Set complete without the high #'s--now that's going overboard (pun intended)

[Volod]

"...I do collect all the odd variations, recognized or otherwise. But I don't get crazy if I don't have them all. That's part of the fun of any hobby, you decide what to collect...."

Agreed, but, hobby fun aside, aren't most of us here because we are crazy?

[darkhorse9]

I learned the hard way that you can't collect everything. I'm working on a set from every year 1941-2012. Regarding variations, I've decided to only go with ones that have a dramatic difference on the front of the card (every set is in a binder.

I collected the photo variations of 1962 Topps but not the green tint. I didn't bother with trade/option varieties of 1966 or 1959 etc. I don't worry about DOB or statistic variations either.

That seems to help a bit.

[ALR-bishop]

Darkhorse---sounds like a great collection and a very sensible approach.

Now lets see, what would constitute a "dramatic" difference ? I guess you know it when you see it :D

[doug.goodman]

I can see avoiding some variations and considering your set done but let's not go too far with that concept i.e. saying that you have a 1952 Topps Set complete without the high #'s--now that's going overboard (pun intended)

I don't consider it a "complete set", I consider it a "complete low number set"

Doug

[ALR-bishop]

And I have seen auctions listing such low number "sets" for sale. I guess someone who has all the low numbered cards can call it anything he wants. That seems a logical extension of Doug's No Rules principle

[darkhorse9]

"Dramatic Difference" = 1962 Hal Reniff pose variations, 1962/63 rookies in 1first series 1963 set

"Not Dramatic Difference" = 1973 coaches backgrounds, dot variations in signatures

kind of like that.

Truthfully I haven't yet worried about dated/centered team variations in the 1956 set yet. Maybe someday I will