Defeated by the Monster?

[MacDice]

Back in late July / early August I decided that my T206 Mathewson needed some friends so I decided to attack the “Monster.” Now a few months in it and 68 low grad raw cards later, I am starting to lose my motivation plus cash flow. I am trying to determine if I should give in and let the “Monster” beat me and liquidate or continue the fight. I know that a lot of you on this board have done both and would be interested in hearing what was your rational on the direction you took.

[PolarBear]

Do a Polar Bear back set.

[Cerberus]

I would suggest taking a second (third?) mortgage on your home, selling whatever scrap gold you or your wife may have laying about, taking a quick equity loan on your car, scouring your neighbors' recycling cans at 2 a.m. on trash day for cans and bottles, and then take all the funds and continue to buy cards

[Kenny Cole]

There isn't ever a set that can defeat you, you can only defeat yourself. If you want it, you'll get there. If you decide that fighting the monster isn't for you. there's only about 1000 other sets out there to look at. Its all good, whatever decision you make IMO. Find what you like and go for it. Best,

Kenny Cole

[T206DK]

I would not get discouraged. My brother and I had the same thing happen when we had around 160 cards but we patiently kept going. Putting this set together is a labor of love

[chris6net]

The Monster wants you to quit, I have over 400 different cards including most Slers and the O,Hara variation. Since I am a NY Rangers Hockey Fanatic and season ticket holder (6 seats) which is quite expensive as well as a partial NY Giants holder with my brother I have gotten into the habit of only looking for cards to finish my set in the off season. I just started looking last Sunday. CN

[ethicsprof]

Be guided by the almost famous dictum:
The Monster wants you quit; don't listen to it.

It's okay to go about the taming slowly; it took me nearly a quarter of a century. It's well worth it.

all the best,
barry

[E93]

Originally Posted by ethicsprof

It's okay to go about the taming slowly; it took me nearly a quarter of a century. It's well worth it.

all the best,
barry

It only took me 23 years. It is ok to take periodic rests. Just put them aside for a while and come back when motivation strikes.
JimB

[E93]

I think one could make a legitimate argument that Magie and Doyle N.Y. Nat'l are not necessary for a basic set since they are error cards. It is like a '79 Topps basic set does not need Bump Wills/Rangers.
JimB
P.S. That does not solve the Wagner and Plank problem.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by E93

I think one could make a legitimate argument that Magie and Doyle N.Y. Nat'l are not necessary for a basic set since they are error cards. It is like a '79 Topps basic set does not need Bump Wills/Rangers.
JimB
P.S. That does not solve the Wagner and Plank problem.

I'm glad you brought that up.


Personally, I'd solve the Plank and Wagner problem with another coin analogy. It's my belief, and I think most in the hobby agree, that these two cards were never issued in Piedmont packs. They would be kind of like proofs in the coin realm, that is, they were never issued for circulation. I realize proof in the card realm means something totally different.

It's like the 1895 Morgan Dollar, circulation strikes were made, but all of them were melted, only proofs, which were never released into circulation, still exist today. No one considers a Morgan Dollar collection incomplete if you don't have an 1895. Many people want one, but it isn't required for a complete collection because only coins released into circulation are part of the set.

Now, I realize that Plank and Wagner were released into "circulation" via Sweet Caporal packs.

However, defining your T206 set as Piedmont only will eliminate that problem since all Piedmont Plank and Wagners are "proofs", that is to say, they were never released into "circulation", and are therefore not required.

So, if I were chasing the monster, I'd define it as an all Piedmont set, which not only eliminates the big 4, but actually eliminates the big 6.

Now you have a legitimate "monster" of 518 cards (or more if you include factory 42 varieties).

Collecting T206 by back sets would be like collecting just a single mint from a series of coins. MANY coin collectors do this, and it's an established way to define a "set" of coins. For instance, some people only collect Carson City Morgan Dollars, or Dahlonega gold coins, or New Orleans Seated Liberty Halves.

I think T206 back sets are the future of T206 collecting. As complete sets become more and more expensive, and now that much of the back research has been published, people are going to take more interest in defining the "monster" in a way that not only appeals to them but makes completion a real possibility.

[bbcard1]

Granted this is sort of like using a corked bat...but...here's what I am doing about Mr. Wagner.

Years ago (two decades plus five), I met an old collector who had actually accumulated his collection by hanging around duckpin bowling alleys as a boy and gathering cards from cigarette packs discarded in the streets. He had a few hundred cards.

He told me about how all his friends were looking for a Wagner because everyone had heard of him. He finally found a picture in a magazine, pasted it to a Piedmont card and traded it for a bunch of cards to one of his buddies.

Years later, I consigned a collection from Lynchburg, about 50 miles away. Among it was a picture of wagner pasted on a Piedmont back. Have always wondered if it could have travelled boy to boy over the 50 miles to get into the collection. It is no doubt from the same period. I eventually procured the card for my own collection and have had it ever since.

That will my T206 Wagner and I am very cool with that. Not sure a real one would mean more to me.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by E93

I think one could make a legitimate argument that Magie and Doyle N.Y. Nat'l are not necessary for a basic set since they are error cards. It is like a '79 Topps basic set does not need Bump Wills/Rangers.
JimB
P.S. That does not solve the Wagner and Plank problem.

+1

[ethicsprof]

wow, 23 years!
i bet you finished your dissertation faster than i did,too!!
all the best,ole prof. buddy
barry