What is a set?

[HercDriver]

My wife's family is here, so I took the dog and a couple beers for a long walk. While I was wandering, I was thinking about how we define sets. Somewhere along the way, it seems we changed how we define it. Bear with me...

Let's use T205s and 1978 Topps as examples. We could use most any T-set to make the point, such as T206. Or any modern set combo, like Topps/OPC/Venezuelan, Hostess/Twinkie, etc.

If we use the T205 model, then a "set" is a basic 208 cards, with a bunch of different backs. The fronts are all the same, so that's the "set." Collecting variations and back combos are fun, but those are subsets. The "set" is not determined by distribution methods, just fronts. If we collected 1978 Topps cards like that, then the "basic" set could include OPC and Burger King cards...they'd just be subset backs. As a matter of fact, the 1978 "basic set" would HAVE to include the Burger King poses that did not appear in the Topps set. Those cards would be equivalent to the rare backs of the T205 set, like the Hoblitzells and the Matty Cycle cards. Again, distribution wouldn't matter.

Let's change gears and use the 1978 methodology. We'd have a 1978 Topps set, a 1978 OPC set, and a 1978 Burger King set (like we do today). They are defined by the backs (distribution), with no concern given to their fronts. For T205, we'd therefore have a bunch of smaller sets, not the T205 set as we know. For instance, we'd have a 123-card 1911 Sovereign set. It was distributed in packs of Sovereign cigarettes, and is defined by the ads on the back. We'd also have a 1911 Polar Bear set, a 1911 Honest Long Cut set, etc.

I'm not proposing anything changing, but it was an interesting thought after pondering one of the other threads about the recent rise in T-card back subset collecting. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if those collectors are doing subsets, or it they are just like any other set collector.

Uh oh, my wife found me...

Geno

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by HercDriver

My wife's family is here, so I took the dog and a couple beers for a long walk.
Uh oh, my wife found me...

Geno

This may not be a couple of beers, but would qualify as a couple of sets IMO. If this is what you meant, I'd forget the dog on your next walk.

[travrosty]

a full set is a full set regardless of backs. some collectors call all variations a master set.

[drc]

Set and master set, like Travosty says. A master Topps set would include the various variations.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

This may not be a couple of beers, but would qualify as a couple of sets IMO. If this is what you meant, I'd forget the dog on your next walk.

Frank, whether you call these a set or not, I don't think the blonde could be graded Authentic.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Sean

Frank, whether you call these a set or not, I don't think the blonde could be graded Authentic.

Agreed, I think multiple alterations to the one on the left... But hey, once you're condemned to the authentic holder, you may as well go all in.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Sean

Frank, whether you call these a set or not, I don't think the blonde could be graded Authentic.

Sean,

Wishful thinking on my part, I was concerned about the "marks" on the right thigh as well.

[HercDriver]

So you're saying a Master Set of 1978 Topps includes the Burger King cards and the OPCs? That would be the case if we call a T205 or T206 set a Master Set if you had all the backs. The fronts are all the same, but the different distribution sources make the backs different. I guess my point is that somewhere along the way, the definition changed.

[frankbmd]

Geno,

I think your point is valid, but

The ad backs on the T206s might be analogous to Burger King putting different promos on their cards for burgers, fries or milk shakes.

I think the more valid argument would be to compare the difference in set designation between the T206s and the T212s. Why don't we consider the 1909 150 subjects as T206-1, like the T212-1 Obaks, etc. It seems like the definition was arbitrary back then (or in Burdick's time) with sets that were contemporary, leaving the modern set definition out of the argument.

I find the Obak comparison more germane to your argument than the 78 set. Topps defined their own sets. ATC never did, we define them (or Burdick did) and obviously not all the same way.

Please accept my apology for my initial post, but it was late and I was thirsty.

By the way in the late 1930s my Dad worked for the same company in Syracuse where Burdick worked, Crouse Hinds. They made all the switches for traffic lights back then, I believe. Now there's a hobby connection that may be unique.

Cheers!

[Gmrson]

I feel a set is just one issue. 1978 Topps (726) has really nothing to do with OPC, Hostess or Burger King. I am fairly ignorant the the nuances of the T-206 and others but the backs could be classified as separate issues. Did a single "printer" offer these to various tobacco companies? This is similar to what MSA did with their 76-77 discs. They were offered to different companies to put their logo on the back.

One of the many great things about the hobby is that we can dictate whatever we want and how we want to collect it. Calling it a set, set with variations or a master set or Bob is basically semantics

[HercDriver]

Frank --

I didn't have a problem with your post...I was thirsty too! I was just thinking out loud after a couple Fuller's ESBs. Did your Dad know Burdick? He should have asked him about it over the 'ol lunch pail!

I realize the 1978 set is a strange comparison, but I used it to make a point. Nobody would ever think of including Burger King cards in a set of 1978 Topps. But some how we include Polar Bears, Piedmonts, and Hindus in a set of 1911 Honest Long Cuts.

Just something to think about. I'm done thinking now...it's time to get my playoff beard going for the Blackhawks.

Take Care,
Geno

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Wishful thinking on my part, I was concerned about the "marks" on the right thigh as well.

That's a variation

[familytoad]

Geno,
I got to thinking about this concept earlier this year during the "400 subjects" topic on T205 which had some interesting debate.

With Topps, or any other typical numbered set, it's pretty obvious where the set starts and begins.

The backs of T205 and T206 hint to the amount of cards there should be, yet as mentioned , most in the hobby have'nt restricted those sets to just the same back and a unique front.

I don't know how I feel about the theory of T206-1 to include just the 150 subjects, as that would still indicate mixed backs.

I think maybe our beloved T205 should be 11 sets, not one.

Seven of those sets actually claim 400 subjects while Broadleaf, HLC, Polar Bear and Drum only claim "assorted designs".

So you've convinced me that while I thought I had a complete t205 basic set, I don't have anything except maybe 8 partial sets.
It also means I haven't started the Broadleaf, Hindu or Drum sets yet...

T206 Monster needs to be split into 15 sets, discounting Ty Cobb back.

This means we've all got a lot of work to do...heading to BST now to get crackin' on my sets

[dabigyankeeman]

When it comes to the old cards, i go by variations on the front only, i dont care about back variations. Thats me only though, and i can see where many people would want all the back variations also.

For instance, if a player has a card with a white hat and one with a dark hat, to me i need both of them. The same if he has cards with different poses. I have a Yankee T206 team set which for me is 28 cards which as far as i know includes all the variations on the front. Whats on the backs? I dont care!!

As to modern sets, its insane, and i would not consider Burger King or similar things to be part of a regular Topps set. I feel bad for modern set collectors, how can you put together a set with a million cards, blue and purple and gray borders and upside-down inside-out chrome refractors and so on. Its moronic already. Thank God on my modern Yankees i only collect cards i like, i dont bother trying to put team sets together.

[Leon]

Back in the old days many collectors only collected fronts. When I have seen a few old collections, such as in E92, the backs were all mixed. The front design was the same and they saw no reason to have the same front pose twice.

As for any ACC designation, I still adhere to my position. Had Burdick wanted to include T213-1 or T215 into T206, he would have. He didn't and he definitely thought about it because he even said, in the catalog "similar to T206".. And if we are going to change those, which we aren't, then we would need to look at hundreds of other issues that don't make exact sense....such as W600 (Sporting Life) and H801-7 (Old Mill Tobacco).

A complete set definition is really up to each collector to decide. Have fun and enjoy it ...with cream or without, it's ok.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

This may not be a couple of beers, but would qualify as a couple of sets IMO. If this is what you meant, I'd forget the dog on your next walk.

Funny you posted this because I was in New Orleans this past week (of course no cards for sale in the entire state) and noticed the sudden number of girls on Bourbon Street with body paint on but otherwise naked from the waist up. Not complaining! Just struck me as strange because except for the occasional "boob exposure" for beads, things were always a little more conservative in past years, even on Bourbon Street. Apparently the law is more inclined to wink and look the other way now adays......

[ullmandds]

The term "set" has definitely been bastardized over the years...people call groups of unrelated cards a set. I find it amusing when someone advertises 40 T206's as a partial set?!?! I'd say it's partial!!!!!!!!