Question for set builders

[39special]

I'm trying to put together a '47-'66 Exhibits set.I have about 20 that I had signed.Would you count them as part of the set,or put together the set unsigned? Would like to get some set builders thoughts.

[Tomman1961]

Steve:
I have asked myself many times what makes "a set". I am collecting 1934-1936 Diamond Stars right now. Do I need all variations to make it a set?That would set me back some big bills.Back colors. Name errors, Team changes. In my 1973 Topps I have all the obvious variations of the Managers and Coaches cards. I have posted this question many times. Is my set not "complete" until i have every possible variation? The answer has always come back the same from members here. The "set" is as you want it. There are always opinions. Mine is, if you have the card -it is part of the set. Signed adds to the collection. And not in a $ way. I finished the DoublePlay set from 1941 and had the Enos Slaughter/Johnny Mize card signed at a show on the same day. I love the card. I love the story behind it. I have no desire to get the card again-unsigned.

[ALR-bishop]

I do sets. After finishing my Topps sets I started to do known and unknown variations or variants to the sets. Some refer to such sets as "master" sets. I think most folks feel the sets are complete without the variations.

I know some collectors who strive to get each card in a set that thet are working on autographed. I have never gotten into autographs, but my preference would be to have an autographed set or a regular set, but not mixed, but agree with Tom that whatever pleases you is all that counts

Is this card necessary to have a complete Topps 1984 set ?

[Bestdj777]

Are the autographed cards expensive or rather cheap exhibits (autos excludes)? If they are only 5-10 dollar cards, I would buy them again and do the complete set unsigned. However, if they are expensive cards no point in spending the money twice. Just my opinion. I should add, my Mantle master set has changed in composition about 100 times since I started it. So, I might not be the best for advice.

[7nohitter]

I'm currently putting together a '57 set and I have included a few signed cards...they look good amongst the others!

[39special]

Thanks for the input guys.Most of the autos are on less expensive cards.I am probably going to build the set and then get the ones I need unsigned.I have gone back and forth and wanted some ideas what other people thought.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I agree with the thought that a set is what you say it is. If you have the card then it can be part of the set whether it's autographed or not. I don't think you need a second unsigned example.

Now, how about this scenario. If you have a player collection and collect sets, then do you need two of the same card for each year? One for the player collection and one for the set. Or can the same card check off the need from both of your checklists? I'm still not sure of how I feel about this one.

Thanks,

AndyH

[39special]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I agree with the thought that a set is what you say it is. If you have the card then it can be part of the set whether it's autographed or not. I don't think you need a second unsigned example.

Now, how about this scenario. If you have a player collection and collect sets, then do you need two of the same card for each year? One for the player collection and one for the set. Or can the same card check off the need from both of your checklists? I'm still not sure of how I feel about this one.

Thanks,

AndyH

Thats a good question Andy.I guess its up to the collector.Now I'm leaning toward just counting the signed cards as part of the set.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I agree with the thought that a set is what you say it is. If you have the card then it can be part of the set whether it's autographed or not. I don't think you need a second unsigned example.

Now, how about this scenario. If you have a player collection and collect sets, then do you need two of the same card for each year? One for the player collection and one for the set. Or can the same card check off the need from both of your checklists? I'm still not sure of how I feel about this one.

Thanks,

AndyH

IMO - once you have the card, you have it and it would fill both set needs. However, I like my sets in binders and tend to look at them from time to time so it would bother me to have an empty space in the binder. When I have graded cards that I don't want to free from the plastic. I'll make a nice photo quality picture of a scan and insert it in the binder page so I don't have an empty space when flipping through the set. Just hate those empty spaces!

[Zach Wheat]

Bill,

I was thinking the same thing exactly as you outlined above. I keep most of my sets in binders. I have a '68 Topps set with approx. 35 autographs and it bugs me that they aren't all autographed or all blank. Some day I will finish the set and replace the autographed ones.....

Z Wheat

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Bill,

I was thinking the same thing exactly as you outlined above. I keep most of my sets in binders. I have a '68 Topps set with approx. 35 autographs and it bugs me that they aren't all autographed or all blank. Some day I will finish the set and replace the autographed ones.....

Z Wheat

That's funny...I have some of that in my 69 set. I will be replacing them as well.



I am a binder guy...and on all my sets in binders I put a Harmon Killebrew of that year in the plastic holder on the outside. I also have a framed, matted set of Killebrew base cards by year on my wall. So...I HAVE to have 3 of each Killebrew card so there are no holes anywhere. Funny thing is I think I have about 10 of each...haha. In my sets in binders after 1975, I use Reggie Jackson. In my 52, 53, and 54 sets I used reprint mauk-ups of Killebrews. Not really sold on that...but can't decide who to use for those three years that I can afford to have doubles on. These are the crazy things as a set collector that I think about...hahaha...I even have a 63 Fleer Killebrew for that binder...