Which Would You Rather Have?
 

Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>A couple of years ago I started the 1933 R305 Tattoo Orbit set. I have since completed it and it's soon to be #2 on the SGC Registry. It's nice to have such an interesting set, and I do really like the designs. However, I've always been a minimalist at heart and have always wanted to do a very small star-laden collection which packs a nice punch. Additionally, I have found that set collecting can stifle a lot of flexibility.<br><br>From your perspective and your own collecting interests. Which would you rather have for the money? A nicely graded complete set like the Tattoo Orbit complete set....OR a themed set like a &quot;Class of 1936&quot; type card set? I've also mused returning to signed pre-war Hall of Famers or Baltimore players.<br><br>I look forward to your opinions.<br><br>James

Which Would You Rather Have?
 

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>My preference would be a core &quot;big&quot; name collection, like representatives of the first HOF class.<br><br>BUT it sure is fun putting together vintage sets!

Which Would You Rather Have?
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>from time to time, I become fascinated or driven to try to assemble a set, but as you cite, the irritation of having to spend money on cards you would otherwise not want eventually eats away at me and I become disenchanted with set collecting again...<br><br>The freedom of choose your own cards is appealing when colecting type cards of particular players...<br><br>I found that the best of both worlds was going after team sets of my beloved Cubbies,...that way, I want most of the cards, it's usually achievable in terms of value and the sets aren't so large that I become discouraged too quickly...<br><br><br><br>

Which Would You Rather Have?
 

Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>Jason,<br><br>That sounds appealing to me as well. I don't love the players in the Tattoo Orbit set. I mainly did the set just to prove I could do a pre-war set. I do love Baltimore, the Orioles and it's baseball history. I am thinking of a Baltimore-centric collection which could be expanded to include those with ties to the franchise or Marylanders...such as Ruth, Gehrig (ties to Ripken), Foxx, Grove, etc. Plus, when I move away from Maryland, it will keep me tied to a state I love. If I do another set, it will have to have a ton of HOFers such as 1933 Delong. Team sets and subsets is definitely the &quot;best of both worlds&quot;.<br><br>James

Which Would You Rather Have?
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>For a beginning set builder, two things going for the 1938 PM8 pin set is it's small and its about half Hall of Famers, including DiMaggio, Feller, Gehrig, Dean, Ott, Foxx. The DiMaggio and Feller are early 'cards' for those players, and this has to be one of the one few Pre-War sets that has both DiMaggio and Gehrig. Granted, the pins aren't T206s in the looks department, but you'd be mostly hunting for stars.

Which Would You Rather Have?
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Your last post here rang a bell with me instantly, as I just happened to crack a new (for me) book open last night and I think I have a very cool, but eccentric (spelling?) idea for you!<br><br>The book is: The Old Ball Game: How John McGraw, Christy Mathewson, and the New York Giants Created Modern Baseball. by Frank Deford<br><br>I think it's in Chapter 3, it talks briefly about how the &quot;old Orioles&quot; of the 1890s were a really close group of guys..., -and in fact, several of them roomed together during the season in Baltimore, went to church together, and became lifelong friends. <br><br>Anyhow, your love of the Orioles made me think that this might be a neat little weird &quot;set&quot; to put together, if you can find cards of all the guys in the apartment...and should have plenty of cards to pick from, since the guys were stars, including Hanson, Keeler, McGraw, etc,...you could be done after 4-5 cards (I forget how many it says lived there at the time)<br><br><br><br><br>

Which Would You Rather Have?
 

Posted By: <b>Donny Muth</b><p>Kinda off topic from the original post, but I just wanted to say that book is excellent! Reading about McGraw's antics, Mathewson's dominance and popularity, and just good old baseball in general was great. Deford's weekly radio spot is pretty good too. <br><br>---Donny Muth<br><br>

Which Would You Rather Have?
 

Posted By: <b>Anthony N.</b><p>Donny, I agree- I love his segments on NPR on Wednesdays. Here's the link to the podcasts<br><a href="http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=4985914" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=4985914</a><br><br><br>James, I think a collection of Old Orioles would be great- McGraw, Keeler, Robinson. The Alpha's might be a bit tough <img src="/images/wink.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="wink.gif"> but if you went for any issue they occured in you'd have T-, E-, Fan Craze, even '40 Playballs if you were so inclined. You could expand it to Baltimore natives as well, adding in Ruth and others.<br><br>

Which Would You Rather Have?
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>The guys on Hanlon's &quot;old Orioles&quot; team that lived in the same boarding houseon York Road, -all HOFers, so a type card set should offer plenty of potential material:<br>Muggsy McGraw<br>Wee Willie Keeler<br>Hughie Jennings<br>and pretty boy Joe Kelley<br>funny collection of &quot;nicknames&quot; for one of the roughest groups of ballplayers documented...