Sets vs. Singles [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

10-25-2005, 07:07 AM

Posted By: James Feagin As a collector on a budget, I am always curious what everyone else is collecting. Particularly, with the rapid escalation of pre-war cards, has anybody else given up on sets and settled on collecting type cards? I was musing starting the 1934 Goudey set, however, after HOFers, I was astonished what the "commons" would cost me. After this, I realized that set collecting probably isn't in my collecting future. Collecting sets has long been the bread and butter of this hobby, I wonder if more people aren't even attempting them and settling for either team sets, player collections, or type cards. Thoughts on my rantings would be appreciated. -James

Archive

10-25-2005, 07:19 AM

Posted By: Marc S.because I can collect my favorite team [Philadelphia Nationals] - over a time series of their history - from the beginning of their team through the 1940s. Keeps things very interesting for me. I've recently completed a post-war set in top grade, and am not presently building any active complete sets. If and when I would start to put together a pre-war set - I would probably want to save up and dive in - e.g. purchasing one of those huge lots or near complete sets in an auction house, and I don't think I would be so interested in piecemeal accumulation. Marc

Archive

10-25-2005, 07:26 AM

Posted By: Daniel McCarthyI am focusing on teams and players. I started to put together a 56 set and stopped when I saw all the money I was spending on cards of players I cared nothing about in order to complete the set. Dan

Archive

10-25-2005, 07:29 AM

Posted By: ChadAs a teenager, I managed to put together a Topps redbacks set and, now that I'm older, I still work on those kind of sets--small and relatively affordable. I'm one card away from completeing my Remar 1949 Oaks set and I've been plugging away on a few others. I bought a lot of W512's on the cheap and so I'll probably work on that set, too. I'm not going to impress anybody with these sets, but they're fun and it's not hopeless for me to try. I also buy cards from sets I'll never even get close to completing--T206 etc., just because I like the cards. I also make up my own "sets" to collect, like all the catchers from the T206 set, or, and this is my main focus, cards of Negro Leaguers. --Chad

Archive

10-25-2005, 07:35 AM

Posted By: James FeaginI am proud to be a collector who collects on a whim. My basis for collecting is if I think the card is pretty or fits a random whim.

Archive

10-25-2005, 08:02 AM

Posted By: Rob (NYC)I just started to create a T206 team set of the Cardinals (yes, James, you inspired me because I remember your Orioles team set and liked it very much). I chose the Cardinals because I like the contrasting colors of their uniform. I will upgrade as much as my budget will allow. I will probably pass on the O'Hara card for two reasons - out of my price range and doesn't have the "St.Louis" team logo on the uniform. As for singles, I will see if I can collect one nice card of each pre-1911(deadball), single-season statistical leader.

Archive

10-25-2005, 08:31 AM

Posted By: identify7Like the fortworthcollector, I never tried to assemble a complete set of cards because of the money I would spend on cards which I did not want. Instead, I started collecting cards which represented to me the highlights in baseball for selected years. For example, the year 1920 had John McGraw continuing his relative dominance of the NL - which continued beyond the 20s. So kicking off that decade in 1920 one of his cards was a must. Additionally due in part to Babe Ruth, the Yankees began their string of successes which are unparalleled. Plus in 1920 he established the meaning of "Ruthian" with the first 50+ HR, .800+ SA performance. So his card should be included. Also this was the year that the Black Sox got thrown out of baseball, the year Slim Sallee matched Mathewson's more "wins than walks given up", and the first year in which a team had four pitchers with 20+ wins. So although there are a lot of cards for 1920 (and lots of other years), with patience a person can complete his 1920 collection. Then pick another year which interests you. I enjoy the research, the "discoveries", the selection, comprimizes, accomodations, extravagances, and the ability to make this assembly a type set (almost) too. And a person can afford it. And each year is small enuff that you can accomplish completion within a reasonable time frame.

Archive

10-25-2005, 08:34 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI've bought sets, but never built one.

Archive

10-25-2005, 08:44 AM

Posted By: James FeaginI have been pondering putting together the 1956 Topps set. Last night, I bid on a Mickey Mantle card, which I did not win. After the auction, I asked myself "Do I even care about Mickey Mantle? Why do I want this card? Just to start a set?" Your responses have helped me resolve, or support to spend my money more wisely, on cards I will truly value. Complete sets for that sake only be damned.....

Archive

10-25-2005, 08:48 AM

Posted By: Bryan LongI am now a player collector of Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson. I am actually quite a lot of fun at this now. It gives me a purpose to collecting and for the first time in a while I am really having fun at collecting.

Archive

10-25-2005, 08:52 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisFrom an early age I have always enjoyed a challenge. So, for 30 years I've put together most major BaseBall sets from the years 1888 to 1985. Also, 6 additional sports sets....1948 and 1952 BOWMAN FootBall; 1948 LEAF Boxing-both White & Gray cardboard versions; 1948 BOWMAN and 1961-2 FLEER Basketball. In recent years I have sold or traded most of my BaseBall sets....Anyway, here are my favorites that I have kept: N162 Goodwins 1941 Play Ball 1948 Leaf BOXING (2 sets) 1948 Bowman BB & FB 1949 Leaf BB 1949 Bowman (2 sets w/55 Variations) 1950 Bowman 1953 Bowman (color & B/W) 1955 Topps DoubleHeaders 1959 Fleer Ted Williams 1966 Topps I am now starting another T206 set. I somewhat regret selling my first T206 set (521 Cards).

Archive

10-25-2005, 08:55 AM

Posted By: James FeaginTed, I know you are a pretty old school collector. As a 30 year-old guy with a mortgage, and average salary, it's way hard to complete vintage sets now. I would love to complete sets if I could, but it's way too hard now. Maybe I'll just work on my 1978 and 1979 Topps sets <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> James

Archive

10-25-2005, 10:06 AM

Posted By: Lee BehrensI believe set building gives a collector focus. It took about 4 1/2 years to finish my T202 & T206 (I did have 80 cards when I started hitting ebayin Oct. 2000). I have to laugh about the 56 mantle story, I built a 57 Topps set without Mantle for the same reason as you give for not buying yours, didn't care if I had it and didn't want to pay the price for it. I have been thinking about finishing my 56 set without mantle. 50's cards actually are relatively cheap compared to vintage cards. My best advise is to find a focus and go for it. 10 years ago I thought the price of vintage cardss were too high, I don't think they will ever get any cheaper. Lee

Archive

10-25-2005, 10:47 AM

Posted By: Ted ZanidakisJames and Lee Having collected the 1956 & '57 Topps sets when these Mantle cards were only $50 -100; my advice to you is wait. I fully expect 1950's high-priced star cards to become more affordable in due time. We have already seen this with similar 1960's star cards. Its just a simple matter of "supply and demand". The big spenders in this hobby are putting their big bucks more and more into vintage cards. Consequently, these Mantle's (and Ted Williams, May's, Aaron's, etc.) will inevitably decline in price. What goes up will come down; just a matter of time........Anyhow, that is my prediction.

Archive

10-25-2005, 11:02 AM

Posted By: tbobI know, it makes no sense to spend way too much money on the blue background E94 Lord to try and complete a master set of color variations, especially when you could use the money toward a decent Lajoie or Speaker, but... I have built many sets and sold them, plowing the profits back in to more cards. I've built the T207 set twice and this time I kept it. I have built the T206 set, less 4 (guess which ones), T205, E98, E90-1 less Joe Jax, 1909, 1910, 1911 Obaks, etc, all of which I have hung on to this go round. I am working on the M116 Sporting Life, D311 Pacific Coast Biscuit (hopeless), 1911 Zeenut, and a couple of others. The only discouraging thing for me in this hobby is to find after a couple of years of searching that one card you need to complete ot get you closer to completing a set, only to see it is a PSA 7 and have the slab hounds, fixated with registry numbers like Pavlov's dogs, driving the price in to the stratosphere. That's what makes the M116s especially tough toward the end. I have also built and sold in exmt to nrmt the 1956, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 Topps baseball sets and 1955 Bowman bb set and also 1954 and 1955 Bowman football sets, 1955 Topps All-American football set, and 1961, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 Topps football sets. There are a few I regret selling, like the 1951 Topps Magic football set, but they furnished the funds to collect all the caramel and tobacco cards.

Archive

10-25-2005, 11:04 AM

Posted By: Lee BehrensI don't what a Mantle card at any price. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> that's my final say on now vintage stuff.

Archive

10-25-2005, 11:13 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJames, I have a complete 1956 set, including the checklists. I can tell you that the Mantle card really is a prize for a number of reasons. First, it was his Triple Crown year; next, it's easily the most visually appealing card in the set. The guy has a look of happiness on his face that is unparalleled in any of his cards. He's at the top of his game so to speak, and it shows. Next, he was not included in the 55 Topps set so it is the first and only time he's available on the larger, horizontal Topps cards of the 55-56 variety. Both sets are great and very interesting. My advice is to buy a raw one and submit it for grading (his cards really are expensive when graded and draw a premium). You can't have the 56 set without Mantle in my opinion - he IS the 56 set...

Archive

10-25-2005, 11:15 AM

Posted By: Geoff LitwackI was going to post a similar topic. I'm a set collector - I built and sold 1965 Topps, then 1955 and 1954 Bowman. After that I did the Diamond Stars and 1941 Play Ball, which I kept, and now I'm working on '33 World Wide Gum and T207. Of late I've been thinking about changing up and becoming an HOF collector - it's sort of frustrating to me to have capital locked up in commons, many of which I don't really care about. Argh!

Archive

10-25-2005, 11:21 AM

Posted By: Keith O'LearyI've always been a set collector, didn't know any other way back when I started. When I did start on vintage, I tackled one of the biggest....T206. After collecting them to the tune of 470 some cards (pre ebay), the buying got very slow and I slowly sold them off thinking smaller 50 and 100 card vintage sets were the way to go. I've been at the T3s and T9s for 30 years now (I'd hate to start them now), N28s, N29s, N184s for 20, tried the N43s and N162s for just as long but recently (within the last 2 years) stopped looking for them. Vintage sets are tough (maybe the T200 set is an easy one, but its one of the few and even that one has its rarities).If I was starting out all over again and had a budget I had to conform to, I'd be a type collector. It gives you soooo much more buying room. I'd have a different HOFer from each set and laugh at all those set registry chasers that spend 10X more than what a particular card is worth and one that I don't need anyway  <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. Keith

Archive

10-25-2005, 12:15 PM

Posted By: James FeaginI don't have an affinity for Mantle though. Great player, pretty card. However, when I think of my potential 1956 set, I think Ted Williams. Probably the prettiest card I've ever seen.

Archive

10-25-2005, 01:15 PM

Posted By: warshawlawThe only sets I have any passion for as sets are the ones I actively bought as a kid. My 1971 set will be finished some day. For vintage cards, I just cannot see buying three-figure commons. I will buy the occasional popular player (e.g., Kling, Pelty, Lobert, Wood, etc.) but not commons unless I think I can resell or trade them.

Archive

10-25-2005, 01:40 PM

Posted By: robert aNice topic. Whether one is a set collector or type collector, you have a huge challenge ahead of you depending on what sets/types you're going after. In fact, type collectors are collecting sets of types (tobacco types, W types etc.). Hardcore type collecting is just as tough on the pocket book and takes just as much patience as set collecting. Another similarity is that both type collectors and set collectors must concede some types/sets as unattainable. I collect t206 and t205 as sets, but will never fully complete both of them. However, complete, in my mind, doesn't include every card. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Other sets that I collect such as t209 color and d304 are completeable, but might take me forever even though they don't have that many cards in the set. Either way, I think that sometimes I type collect with the small hope in the back of my head that it could turn into a set adventure in the future. But, overall I'm a set collector. Right now though, I'm still trying to complete a few small ones. I've been working on e90-3 for 6 years (down to one left) which is funny when you think of how many cards are in the set. Almost there with e96 and I just finished e95 and e98. Getting close to t206. The challenge for me is holding onto the cards long enough to complete the set. robert

Archive

10-25-2005, 01:42 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI do my best to avoid paying above market value for stuff I want. It would be against my fibers to pay double for a common just to finish a set.

Archive

10-25-2005, 01:44 PM

Posted By: jay behrensI've always been a set builder. Part of the reason I enver went for caramel cards in the 80s was that the sets were so small, I didn't feel they were a challenge. Now that I am in my second incarnation as a collector, as much as I would love to start building sets again, I simply cannot afford it. I also have an overriding desire to have type cards from different sets which makes set building on a budget very tough. My player set gives a major challenge and also satisfies my need for type cards. With this project I am planning on using a complete set of Delongs for those players in that set and Colgans for the players from that era. Jay I'm incompetent at being incontenent.

Archive

10-25-2005, 03:01 PM

Posted By: Al CrisafulliI build sets, and I work on a HOF set to take care of my whims. I'm working on a run of sets from the 26 years the Yankees won the World Series. For me, choosing a set to build is as much fun as building the set itself. I try and pick sets that are interesting, then I learn about the history of the set and where it fits in the time period. I learn about the availability of the cards, and then I decide how I'm going to collect it: raw, or graded? SGC, or PSA? High-grade, mid-grade, or beater? Any companion pieces? How will I store/display it? What kind of prices am I willing to pay for the cards? Then I go to work. Right now, I'm working on the following: -1938 Goudey - I have the set, in PSA slabs stored in Ultra-Pro sheets in two Roop binders. I'm looking for upgrades. -Diamond Stars (I'm cheating and using this set for 1936) - I'm about 25% done, looking to buy it raw in EX-MT+, then I'm putting them in SGC slabs in a Roop archiver box. -1939 Goudey R303 A, B, and C premiums - I'm collecting these three sets raw, EX or better, and am not sure how I'm going to display them yet. I just started this set. -1961-62 Fleer (Cheating again and using this set for 1962), PSA-8 or better, and will store them in a Roop archiver box. I just started this one as well. I've also just started to build a low-mid grade T205 set that I'm buying either raw or graded, with the goal of putting them all in SGC holders. I really, REALLY enjoy building sets. You discover so much about the issue by getting to know all the cards. And you make great friends by getting to know the other collectors of that set. -Al

Archive

10-25-2005, 06:28 PM

Posted By: Bruce BabcockI'm all over the map. Some sets, some type cards, some tobacco cards, some caramel cards, some photographic cards. It is fun to search for and complete a set. It's also fun to obtain really tough type cards. It's certainly getting more expensive to do either. The sets I have completed are relatively small. For example, N526. Only 15 subjects, and still not that expensive, with several HOFers. I'm working on T207, which I thought would take decades but I'm getting close after only a few years. "Only" 200 subjects. And I have had to severely overpay for some of them. But I enjoy the chase.