Quote:
Originally Posted by ALR-bishop
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!
