Is my collection complete?
 

Would love everyone’s thoughts on something. I just got the last known item I needed for a run I was working on. Problem is, I’d imagine there is another variation out there that I still need. Haven’t ever seen or heard of one, just speculation on my part. So, the question is, is my set complete?

Without telling anyone what you're talking about
How do u expect an answer

Am I right in assuming that you're keeping the information close to the vest, so you don't needlessly leave a carcass lying around, attracting vultures to the card you very much think might be out there??

If yes, then your collection is probably not complete.

I think an answer to that question also would depend on what you consider to be a complete set. In my opinion for instance, if you have a particular 1952 Topps player, it doesn't matter if the card is a red back or black back.

But I wouldn't consider a 1969 Topps set complete unless you had both the Houston and Montreal versions of Don Clendenon.

Why ?

Keep it simple
 

It is complete.......... unless or up to the time you find another variation

It’s not exactly specific to my set, so was hoping to get thoughts more generally. Basically, I collect any postcards and matchbooks from any Holiday Inn in Joplin, Missouri (I started just getting stuff from when Mantle owned a hotel there but have since added some stuff that pre and post-dates his involvement). In collecting, I have noticed some trends across the different chains. For example, they all had a generic, black postcard featuring a sign. And, they all seem to have had a generic white postcard of a girl by a pool. I searched and found both for the hotel in Joplin. Now, I also noticed generic black matchbooks picturing a sign and a generic, Christmas themed matchbook. I’ve got the black one. I found a black one for the Joplin hotel but have never seen a Christmas themed one. It probably exists but, if I haven’t actually seen or heard about one in three years of searching, is my collection complete?

The one I need, if available, would go for about $3.00 :). I’d be happy to pay a “vulture” $20 if they found it :)

Playing devil's advocate here, I would suggest you dive into The Encyclopedia of Vintage Baseball cards (Krauss) as I have in the past - finding more and more intriguing possibilities that I never knew existed.

...on the other hand, yes, your collection is complete.


It's your choice: Take the red pill or take the blue pill.


.

Without knowing what was made, it's not possible to really be complete.

I'd suspect that if they had matchbooks that went with postcards, there should be a matchbook for each postcard.
I forget how Holiday Inn di those things. I may have stayed in one 40+ years ago.
If it was souvenirs they sold there might not be a matchbook for each postcard.
If they did what most places do with stationery, and left a couple in a drawer or on a table, I'd expect there would be matching sets.

There are probably people who collect Holiday Inn stuff. And they probably know exactly what was available.

I should also say that when I sort of let go of the idea of completeness I got a lot happier with my collecting. The stamps I focused on have some catalog listed items that haven't been seen since the 1930's if they ever existed at all and aren't a misinterpreted random misprint. Being complete is impossible!*

On the other hand, I have found one that was last described in 1932, and probably a cover that was last seen in the 1930s. And have potential examples of two of the never seen but cataloged varieties. I just need to find a second copy to confirm that they're not just weird misprints. That could be a LONG search....

* completeness in that specialty is also for me impossible from a practical standpoint, a couple items were sold in quantities less than 10, and the most recent sale was in 2016 for 150,000.

I agree...AND the two Clay Dalrymple cards (I prefer the harder Philly card to the hatless portrait card). I have three complete sets, all have both cards. I haven't chased the white letters or any of the airbrush variations...but I do feel you need those two cards....

Right, and the Dalrymple!

Yeah, the red and white lettering are to me like the red and black backs of the 1952 set. My approach would be that if I got the 1969 Mickey Mantle with the white lettering, then that would be the one I'd have. If it had the yellow, that would be just as nice. Either way, I would have a 1969 Mickey Mantle.

Of course, it's totally cool if someone wants to get all the variations. We all approach collecting differently, which helps make the world go 'round!

What is the rationale for including some cards intentionally produced differently from a complete set while excluding others ?

It really all depends on what your approach to collecting is. For me, it's enough to have as I mentioned above, one version of the Mickey Mantle, even if I were going for a complete set. Other people want to take it further. To me, the two Clendenon or Dalrymple cards are worth pursuing, because the differences, to me, are much more substantive.

But I can absolutely see why someone would want all of the variations. It's just an approach, and is based on how each of us wants to collect.

Personally I think a set is complete without any variations...a "basic" set. A "master" set would include variations, but which variations. You could use the PSA master checklist, SCD's, Beckett's, or your own. There is no official hobby definition of a variation or a master set as far as I know, beyond using one of the above or other on line checklists.

The question I was raising is, if you include some variations in a "complete" set, how do you draw the line in excluding others ? Off course everyone can collect anyway they want. I was just raising the question as a point of discussion, not as a criticism.

Oh yeah, I know what you are saying. Ultimately, it's a personal thing. What I was trying to say to the OP was, would getting the item he was talking about, in his eyes, be necessary to complete the set? I certainly wasn't trying to introduce any kind of criteria for what would or should constitute having a complete set of anything.

I think that over the years, as the hobby got bigger, concepts such as "basic" set vs. "master" set became more of a thing. I may be wrong, but I think that the criteria for collecting a full set would have been seen as satisfied years ago just by having that 1952 card whether it was the red back or the black back. Or maybe, it was just me as a kid, not really caring about it, or even knowing that angle. But as an adult, it still isn't important to me.

Somewhat related to this (perhaps), I am on an audio site and one time one of the members posted an LP I wasn't aware of by a pianist I really love. So, I went and got the LP and thanked him for posting it. We got to discussing the album, but he told me that the reason he really got it, was because he wanted to collect all the JazzLand LPs, the label which this LP was on. I thought that was interesting, because even though I collect records, I would never buy a record just to complete having a certain series. In that sense, I am not as much a record collector, as I am someone who wants to get records of music that I love. Nor would I have to have a first pressing, although I certainly wouldn't mind, or all the different versions of the record, such as foreign pressings, etc. Ultimately, I just want to get a good sounding record of something I want to hear. And if the album is way too expensive, I'll get the CD.

Now, I WOULD want to get all the players of a baseball set to complete a set. But again, personally for me, my criteria to complete that set would not entail getting what could be termed a "master" set. I guess the above story about the LP just illustrates the idea that while I'm a collector, I don't have to have each and every thing. The central purpose of completing a 1969 set for me, would be to have the two players mentioned on their two different teams. But I'll draw the line at the print. For me, that's just not important. Similarly, with records, I only want the music I want, and having one good sounding recording of it is enough.

And I don't mean to say that collecting black backs and red backs is a fetish or anything. We all have different goals and approaches, which is one of the great things about collecting. Having both versions of a 1952 card, is to accentuate and document the history of that set in a more complete way. And that might be more important to another collector. For me, just having one good card of the player is enough.

Now, I COULD see having both Joe Page's - one with the correct bio, and the one with Johnny Sain's! ;)

If you're happy where it's at, it's complete!

I guess if you are a Mantle collector you have to decide if you need both versions of his 52 card. The last published SCD Catalog listed them as variations. The PSA Registry does not. As a set collector I had to have both towards a complete set, even though the gray backs will likely keep me from ever having a full master set.

I don’t consider a Mantle collection really complete without both 1952s. I had to part with one of mine to assist with a down payment and miss that card. Such is life. With my general collection, I’ve had to decide what level of completeness I was comfortable with. Ultimately, I decided that having one of each imagine would have to be good enough for me. So, I’ve got one of the two 1952 Topps, one of the two 1959 Venezuelans, one of the Pittsburgh Exhibits, etc. I also had to pass on the test issues. So, my master set won’t ever be complete. I have tried to complete subsets like the Holiday Inn matchbooks/postcards, so this was one of the last big projects for me. Hopefully it’s complete, but hard to feel confident with that.

This bears repeating. It goes to the core of your collecting personality, IMO. How important is it that you have every variation, even if the differences are almost imperceptible or would be meaningless to 99% of even collectors, much less the man on the street? Example, 1961 Topps with some green bleed into the baseball surrounding the card number on back-- a relatively recent discovery or acknowledged variation on some cards. Or a newly discovered stray line, or missing copyright symbol, or an obscured number under the stat line.

I've been fascinated by the approach taken by collectors when these new "discoveries" are made. Do you put most or all of your collecting energy into acquiring the new variation? Do you feel incomplete, in the collecting sense, without it? Do you look at your set as somehow less worthwhile as these new "holes" are brought your attention? Do you worry at all that as soon as you acquire the latest variation someone will point out a new one? For some, maybe the thrill of the chase actually makes them hope there is still something out there for them to sleuth and conquer. Others may become frustrated that their efforts in acquiring what they thought was everything in a "set" are now less fulfilling or satisfying.

I guess I have no answers for you, other than to suggest, as many others have, to collect what you want and take satisfaction where you find it. I collect mostly m101s-- I chase them to the point of mania. I will never complete the set. The card I will always need is frequently available--a Babe Ruth rookie. It ain't never comin' my way. I accept that and it takes nothing away from my enjoyment. So too I'm sure for T206 collectors who will never own the Wagner. C'est la vie. Best of luck whichever way you choose to build your collection.

Chris
Checking you out
1 1952...I'll go with that
1 1959 Venezuelan....I'll go with that
1 pittsburgh? Cant go with that..2 different cards
Do u have?
Dads cookies? A must
Yamakatsu? Not a must
Japanese bromide? Not a must
3 different auravisions? A must
5 different HI matchbooks? A must
64 sports heroes sticker? A must
Opc tattoo 1960? A must

Hey Chris, we've discussed Mantle collecting before, so I think you know where I stand as far as a "complete" collection goes. In regard to your question, I'd say if you aren't sure there is a variation out there and have seen no proof that there is, I think your collection is complete. However, should you get definitive proof that the variation you think might exist actually does exist and you want it, then your collection is not complete.

And to follow up and what Larry wrote in regards to Mantle collecting,

1 1952...I'll go with that I disagree. I think both are needed. (full disclosure, I have neither)
1 1959 Venezuelan....I'll go with that I disagree. I think both are needed. (full disclosure, I have one)
1 pittsburgh? Cant go with that..2 different cards I agree (I have neither)
Do u have?
Dads cookies? A must I agree (Thanks to Fred, I have it)
Yamakatsu? Not a must I agree
Japanese bromide? Not a must I agree
3 different auravisions? A must I agree
5 different HI matchbooks? A must I agree
64 sports heroes sticker? A must I agree
Opc tattoo 1960? A must I agree
1965 Bancroft Tiddlers Not a must (Butt ugly cards)

So yeah, there are difference of opinions on what constitutes a complete set.

Checking you out
1 1952...I'll go with that
1 1959 Venezuelan....I'll go with that
1 pittsburgh? Cant go with that..2 different cards - fair point. I’d certainly buy the second if I saw it at a good point.
Do u have?
Dads cookies? A must - if money weren’t an object I’d view this as essential
Yamakatsu? Not a must - I’d money weren’t an object I’d view this as essential
Japanese bromide? Not a must - agreed. None of these larger items really are
3 different auravisions? A must - agreed. And owned
5 different HI matchbooks? A must - agreed. I have them and a few additional variations
64 sports heroes sticker? A must - don’t consider stickers essential for a card collection
Opc tattoo 1960? A must - agreed. Have the tattoo ball; will never find the portrait and couldn’t afford it. I’m fairly certain there are Venezuelan versions of each that were made, although likely none still exist since only that random one has shown up.

A real complete set for me would include all of the non-test issued cards, coins, postcards, and bottle caps ever made, including the Armour coin color variations. Budget doesn’t allow for that so it’s as complete as it will be for now.

Mike, what’s the deal with the Bancroft? Ugly as can be but why is there an argument about including it? Never understood that.

Mantle
 

Bancroft
It's a drawing not a picture and looks more like stan musial

Dont understand the sticker comment
Ypu have the peel offs? Action all star stickers?

I thought it looked exactly like him :). Fair enough though. I get the drawing versus picture distinction. For the stickers, I have the peel offs and the All Star action stickers, both in individual sheet and complete panel forms. As a baseball card collector, I just don’t think these non-baseball card items are really a necessity though. For that reason, I wouldn’t call a set, even a master set, incomplete for not having the yellow basepath pin (I have it), the bottle caps, the coins, or the stamps. I like them and get what I can - I don’t have all the factory variations with the Coke caps or all the Yoo Hoo variations yet (some day I will get those)—but do get what I can. Still, not technically cards (neither are the matchbooks or auravision records so I should probably revisit my prior statement on them). To each his own.

Here, I just thought it would be fun to discuss whether, as a variation collector, you’d consider your collection complete if you suspected, but couldn’t confirm Cm, there was another variation out there. I guess I know your position as I think you were after the red Armour coins for a while without knowing whether a Mantle existed.

I appreciate the welcomed distraction from all that is going on in the world and hope you all are safe.

As said in Jerry Maguire, "You complete me." lol

Haha

I keep even more obscure varieties than that. But rarely pursue them actively. If I buy a box of random cards and they're in there I keep them. If not, I'm ok with not having them. At least now at one time I really did want everything.

+1

I would have a hard time saying that a set I collect is not complete if it is missing something that there is no proof it exists.

Enjoyed reading all the posts...appreciate that...

I believe in Base and Master like others for sure...and do have several variation cards through the years, especially some of the 67 Topps variations...but in the case of the Dalrymple and Clendenon in the 69's, they literally have different words and pictures...I have to have those. If there is an extra dot, missing or added ink, a green part of the bat...I'm interested and want them, but not a priority.

Man, not saying a 52 Topps set isn't complete without the Mantle A and B is rough! :) If I had both, I would agree with you, if I only had one, I probably wouldn't...haha. I think I'll work on just getting one first...

Hi again,

My Jerry Maguire comment was made just prior to starting saturday's dinner. Meant to just get grins.

But in all seriousness, I go through emotional waves. I have one of the lowest if not the lowest basic Mantle set registry rankings. But my long term goal as a kid (before PSA was even invented) was to get all of #7's base cards. For perspective, I'm 53yrs old--never saw him play. But I was happy when I completed that--took 40+ years but I got all his Bowman and Topps cards which I read about in the 80's when the Becketts were published.

But every now and then I think about upgrading. I actually can cross over my SCG's and move up, and actually have a few raw that are nicer than what's in the registry. But for what? To rise up to #140 or something like that?

I do think about going after the Mantle Superset--but then I also want to complete some Topps sets I'm working on, working on my basketball 86-90 Fleer Mega set, getting more Jackie Robinson cards....goes on and on.

Same goes for the 1962 green tints and 1969 white letters variations. I've complete both sets and have some of these variations, including the 69 WL Mantle. There are times when I'm bored and scour ebay or here for hours late night night looking to add these variations. Then when I get them, I think, I should focus on finishing my Topps run, or I should be upgrading my 61 set. Another tangent: many of these highs which were given to me (free of charge) have back damage as they are glued to a scrapbook. Mind you, I can't even read the 61 backs even when I put in my reading glasses :)

Anyhow, all these distractions nonetheless make the journey interesting.

You have one of the lowest rank base sets only because my cards aren’t all graded and up there :). My 59 Topps is literally just a cut out of Mantle’s picture with all of the sides now missing—it’s funny because my 59
Venezuelan, by comparison, is in fantastic condition for the issue.

As Larry said, it looks more like Stan Musial than Mantle. Couldn't they at least have put a Yankee uniform on the figure?

If I collected only Mantle baseball cards, I wouldn't bother with any non-baseball card item either. But like you, I am a Mantle collector. Therefore, I try to get all the items you have listed plus photo premiums, games, point of display advertisements, pins, bobble heads, etc. And no, my collection will never be complete. I'll never get all of the Armour coins for instance. And I can live with that.

Chris, no doubt you will track down that elusive "Holiday Feeling" book! If you feel the collection is complete then that is all that matters. Who cares what someone else says it should be. There will always be something to add though imo.

Personally, I wouldn't consider a record, sticker, postcard, tattoo, matchbook, premium, pin, and others as a must for a "card" collection, but collectors should collect what they like. I just picked up a couple NYY fan club premiums of Mick that I had never seen before. I doubt they are on any Mick list, but I like them :)

Good Luck!

Thanks Ben! I’m assuming you have that matchbook in your collection already and will take pity on me at some point and pass it along like you did with the old house matchbook :) Can you show the premiums? Curious if they are something I have/need :) I don’t think a collection of premiums is ever complete...

Glad you figured out that dance hall one! haha
Did you do all of the stationery from HI? Love the brochures too...

These are the fan premiums - from 64 and 67. Have the original envelopes too.

Also pictured is a $20 matchbook I would like to add to my pc :) Other than the 9 different Country Cookin' variations it is one that I have struggled to find.

Ben

It’s bizarre—I’ve felt the needy collect any matchbook or postcard ever with Joplin and Holiday Inn on it, but I’ve never been a completionist with the other items. I’ve got a copy of the magazine and a piece of stationery or two but have gotten the rest of the items. My one regret is not picking up a really cool employee service award from the hotel...

I like that matchbook and will keep an eye out for you. Unfortunately, it is a lot like what I collect and doesn’t have a strong enough visual collection to Mantle that most people would know what it is and clearly list it as such.

Nice Yankee fan premiums. That’s great that you got the envelopes too. Did yours come with a letter as well? I have a version of the one on the left - same image but an extra line or so of text after the line about his injury. Mine was mailed in August 1967 I believe — it came with a generic letter from the Yankees but did not come with an envelope. I’ll have to look for the two versions you have as well.

Any chance you have any of the team Christmas cards? I picked up two but trying to get a sense of what else is out there. Saw a third from 1951 or 1952 but couldn’t pull the trigger at the list price.

I like those fan premiums too. I have 6 of them and know of 2 others. I like how they have a date at the bottom to help differentiate between them. Mine are dated:

12/63
7/65
8/66
12/67
8/70
and one with no date but 1500 at the bottom. I think it came after the 8/70 one.

The two I don't have but know exist are 2/63 and 5/67. And there are probably others as well, I would imagine. From 68, 69? Maybe 64.

Ben, I can't quite make out the date on the bottom of yours. What are they? And Chris, what is the date on yours?

Mine is 5/67. I thought I had two but must be mistaken. If I find it I’ll let you know the date on it as well.

Mike, the image on the left is 12/67 and the one on the right is 12/64. Sorry, I guess I just added another one for you to look for :)

Chris, mine came from the original owner and he did not recall an additional letter, but there certainly could have been.

I like those Christmas cards too...especially the ones that have the entire team photo and facsimile autos. Would love to have the one with the 52 Team photo inside. Do you have that one?

I have 1957 and 1962. I’m assuming there were other Christmas cards but have only seen the 1952 (I wasn’t confident enough these weren’t fantasy items to spend $500 on it or whatever it was listed for) and I think a 1963 Mike owns.

Been a while Chris. good to see your still collect Mick. I dont regret selling most my Mick and turned to RC's and pre-war. I still take time to view my 51's &52 ..I catch myself wanting a high-end 53 or 56 at times. The 53 has that appeal i like. I still remember that time i messaged you about seeing that 53 Yakamatsu in Brockelman. Sure was unique at the time. Sure dont know how you store all those items. Maybe a U-Haul storage unit, sure be fun when the young-in grows up and shares the interest.

Mike, do you mind posting or emailing me photos of the ones you have? I just found two more in my collection—one with an identical text/image to the one on the left that Ben shared (someone trimmed the bottom off so cannot tell the date) and one that pictures Mantle and Maris that is undated but presumable from 1962.

Haha, I bid like crazy on that 53 Yamakatsu and really appreciated the tip. Still disappointed I lost out but didn’t know how I’d come up with the money to bid higher. I’m glad you are enjoying the prewar rookies!