Set Collectors - Is "except for" ever good enough?

[darkhorse9]

I'm a lifelong set collector and therefore quite a completist. It seems to be in the nature. But there are some sets that have a card or two that would simply make collecting a complete set financially or physically impossible.

I'm not talking about master set collectors or errors and variations. They're a different breed. I'm taking about base set collectors. I've got several sets that I know will never have every card and there are other sets that would fit.

1952 Topps (complete without high numbers)
1952 Topps(complete at 406 without Mantle)
1951 Current All Stars (complete without Roberts / Konstanty/ Stanky)
1959 Fleer (complete without #68)
1954 Bowman (complete without Ted Williams)
1933 Goudey (complete without Lajoie

there are many other examples.

Personally I hate "except for". If I knew how to set up a poll I'd do that, but the choices seems to be

1 - Fine with calling a set complete with missing cards
2 - Nope. It's not complete until it's complete
3 - I don't even start a set if I can't complete it
4 - I'll start a set, and maybe someday finish it. But it will bother me.

[Leon]

If I am a set collector then I don't think "except for" is acceptable for me, if I am considering a set complete. Fortunately I am not a set collector. However, as a type card collector I recognized 2 "except-for" in my first collection/sale (as it was time to sell)....D351 and D355.. I never thought it was complete..it is what it is.

[Hxcmilkshake]

Im a set collector as well, every major set since 72 (and working backwards) for the 4 main sports.

I agree with #2 and 3.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[Vintagevault13]

Greetings from a fellow set collector. For me, there are no “except for” scenarios that are acceptable. I choose not to spend a tremendous amount on cards so this limits my choices. I have started the 1952 Topps Set three times, only to sell them because of the high #s. I knew that my OCD-tendencies would never allow me to be content. The last time, I had over 200 low series so I was making serious progress. All of this is just my opinion, of course, but I think I would struggle with incomplete sets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Griffins]

2 and 3 for me. And for post war sets I have to have all the variations, an empty box, penny and nickel pack, and salesman sample (for sets '52-'67). Used to need to have an uncut sheet or panel as well, but I'm wavering on that.
Complete means complete.
I'm hoping some sort of medication is developed that doesn't have 4 pages of side effects.

[JTysver]

I have no problem with an exception.
I really don't expect to ever get a '52 Mantle, hence, no desire to complete the high numbers.
I have 54 Bowman without the Williams, but since there is already a #66, I'm not sure the Williams makes the set complete.
Probably won't go after the 72 High Footballs either unless I find some type of break on it. I'm fine with that.

Essentially, some of the cards in these sets are worth more than the rest of the set. Collect the sets if you want to. Having a bunch of sets and a couple near complete sets is pretty good if you ask me.

[rats60]

I don't think these all fit in the same box. My answer would be it depends. For example, the Lajoie really isn't a 1933 card. It was printed in 1934. It has a slightly different design. As far as the current all stars, those cards were never issued. So I would say

1952 Topps (complete without high numbers) NO
1952 Topps(complete at 406 without Mantle) NO
1951 Current All Stars (complete without Roberts / Konstanty/ Stanky) YES
1959 Fleer (complete without #68) NO
1964 Fleer (complete without Ted Williams) ????
1933 Goudey (complete without Lajoie YES

[commishbob]

Probably as many different answers as there are set collectors. I collect the sets I have the fondest memories of as a kid. Began with 1959 and am building around that. Currently working on 1962 and I'll attack 191 and 1963 one day and call it a day.

I don't concern myself with minor variations/small errors. For example, I'm not going to try for every green tint among the 1962 Topps, only the pose variations.

I don't have the 1959 Spahn DOB variations nor did I chase the other numerous 'transaction line' variation cards. I consider that set complete.

My general guideline is to put myself in my own nine-year-old shoes. The two '62 Wally Moon poses...I'd have wanted them both then so they are part of my current set. But the '58 yellow/white letter variations? I wouldn't have cared as a kid so I don't care now.

Having said that I do add 'type cards' to the back of my set binders which is where you'll find a couple of green tint '62s and a '58 Billy Pierce letter variation.

And finally, I won't begin any set I have no hope of completing. I do go after sub-sets though. I'd never dream of chasing the T206 but I did track down the Baltimore minor leaguers.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by rats60

I don't think these all fit in the same box. My answer would be it depends. For example, the Lajoie really isn't a 1933 card. It was printed in 1934. It has a slightly different design. As far as the current all stars, those cards were never issued. So I would say

1952 Topps (complete without high numbers) NO
1952 Topps(complete at 406 without Mantle) NO
1951 Current All Stars (complete without Roberts / Konstanty/ Stanky) YES
1959 Fleer (complete without #68) NO
1964 Fleer (complete without Ted Williams) ????
1933 Goudey (complete without Lajoie YES

I agree with this.....to obtain the Mantle for my 52 Topps set, I parted with some less enjoyed portions of my collection to be able to fund a lower grade copy. I did this because, at the time I acquired the Mantle card, I was only about 60% complete and having this card for the set has helped to motivate me to complete it(the it is all downhill from here theory). Having this tough card in the set makes if feel like a realistic goal to complete it. I am 33 hi #s away from finishing the set.

I do not think I would ever have made it as far as I have or to 406 if I did not have the Mantle card.

I am about 60% of the way on the 33 Goudey set and I have no plans to add the Lajoie to the set and will consider it complete sans that card.

[ALR-bishop]

I am a set collector. I always want the entire set and at a minimum all variations listed in SCD, Beckett and the Registry. I also, like Anthony, want an unopened pack. He also forced me against my will to do the Salesman samples, but I resisted the boxes.

For Bowman I have done all the regular sets and variations but settled for wrappers rather than packs.(I think Mark meant the 54 Williams) I did not undertake the 1949 PCL set or the 52 and 53 Proof sets, because I did not think I could finish them.

For Fleer I used SCD and the Fleer Sticker Blog as a checklist and except for a couple of very scarce Quiz cards and two of the 3 # 80 Martin backs from the 60 set think I am pretty complete. But, probably will never complete the 1923 set

For Topps I am done with the base sets. Still one short on the 67 Stand Ups and two on the 55 Hocus Focus. I have settled for types for the 55 Stamps, 61 Dice, 66 Punch Outs, 70 Cloth and 71 Rookie Artists proofs since completing those seems impossible for me. I have about half of the 68 Discs but will likely stop there since I do not think I can complete that one either. Otherwise think I have anything listed for Topps in SCD through 1994 ( Just base sets, updates and Heritage after that.

My need for variations ultimately required me to go for both Mantles, Thompsons and Robinsons in the 52 set since SCD now lists both.

I Have the 5 sets from 1951 but not the 3 unissued proofs from the Current All Star set. Have settled for reproductions of those as I think those 3 will cost about $ 100 K or so.

With the exception of the 1923 Fleer set I have not ventured into pre war

[egri]

I think it depends on the set. I would consider a T206 set complete even without Wagner, Magie, Doyle NY NAT’L, and Plank, because of the extreme rarity of those cards. Same with a 1933 Goudey set sans Lajoie; it wasn’t issued until the following year and has a 1934 design. OTOH, the 1952 Topps high numbers are expensive, not rare. I don’t know enough about the other sets the OP mentioned to weigh in specifically on them. The gray area for me is where to draw the line on rare vs. extremely rare, but I guess that’s a different topic.

[geosluggo]

In building sets back to 1956 I have been a completist with no exceptions but one -- the 1963 Topps Pete Rose rookie card. I've never really liked Rose and his card is ridiculously expensive, so when I completed that set a couple years ago I bought a Rose reprint. Please don't judge me.

[BearBailey]

As a set collector as much as it might bother me, it is not complete until it’s complete.some sets maybe I’ll never complete t206 and the Wagner comes to mind but it is what it is. I’m also not a person who would get a beater just to complete the set, I may have a range but the set needs to be the same throughout.

[the 'stache]

I'll get back to the T206 set. I won't ever get the big four, likely, but I knew that going in.

If you enjoy a particular set, collect it. Why the worry over a silly label? If you love the '52 Topps set, but can't afford to drop $10k on a nice Mantle, go for it.

Are you collecting for yourself, or to impress somebody else?

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I'll get back to the T206 set. I won't ever get the big four, likely, but I knew that going in.

If you enjoy a particular set, collect it. Why the worry over a silly label? If you love the '52 Topps set, but can't afford to drop $10k on a nice Mantle, go for it.

Are you collecting for yourself, or to impress somebody else?

Where I can get a nice Mantle for 10k please

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by hcv123

Where I can get a nice Mantle for 10k please

Cooperstown Sports Cards sold this one for $11,500 on March 11th. $10k is completely realistic is you're patient.



Perfectly acceptable for a set completionist.

[Jwkeen]

I think that in general it is not complete without everything there, but there can be a few exceptions. The 33 Goudey was mentioned. Since the Lajoie was actually produced with the 34s, I feel you could count it as complete without it. There are also some sets considered complete without certain cards because of the extreme rarity. One example would be the 1932 U.S. caramel with the Lindstrom.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by geosluggo

In building sets back to 1956 I have been a completist with no exceptions but one -- the 1963 Topps Pete Rose rookie card. I've never really liked Rose and his card is ridiculously expensive, so when I completed that set a couple years ago I bought a Rose reprint. Please don't judge me.

Plus, that is one fugly card (don't mean to offend anyone).

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by geosluggo

In building sets back to 1956 I have been a completist with no exceptions but one -- the 1963 Topps Pete Rose rookie card. I've never really liked Rose and his card is ridiculously expensive, so when I completed that set a couple years ago I bought a Rose reprint. Please don't judge me.

Plus, that is one fugly card (don't mean to offend anyone).

[Butch7999]

We're OCD completists, so, no, a set is not "complete" unless it is actually in fact complete (it is Ape-Law!).
However, we also have an unparallelled ability to rationalize and fantasize, so for those of our sets yet incomplete
because of the rarity and/or, for us, current unaffordability of a few key cards, there is always
the undeniable fact that we could win the lottery next week, and then...

[pokerplyr80]

I can understand calling the Goudey set complete without Lajoie because of the way it was issued and the cost relative to the other cards. But for the most part no, a set is not complete with missing cards. If I ever attempt a complete set again I will take the cost of the big cards into consideration.

I would also understand going for the t206 set with no intention of picking up a Wagner or Plank.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I can understand calling the Goudey set complete without Lajoie because of the way it was issued and the cost relative to the other cards. But for the most part no, a set is not complete with missing cards. If I ever attempt a complete set again I will take the cost of the big cards into consideration.

I would also understand going for the t206 set with no intention of picking up a Wagner or Plank.

But who decides what is complete? If a set is numbered, then is one of each number the complete set (except in cases where cards weren't actually issued such as Lajoie or 51 Current All Stars)? Or do you have to collect each and every variation? Does that include print variations? And who decides which of those apply?

If you are only going with one of each number, then how do you apply that to sets such as t206 or t205? Do error cards such as Doyle or Magie apply? Team variations like O'Hara and Demmitt St. Louis? Back variations on t205?

[Rickyy]

I have or am attempting to complete Topps BB set from 70 -79 and I include the variations (72 green letters, 74 Washington, Alou no pos etc.) too. I also try to add one unissued proof variation card to the set as well. Some years during this span didn't have anything of note, while other years like 77 is full of never issued proofs (e.g. Reggie Orioles). I also try to get samples of harder and more expensive Topps sets (like 69 super, 74 deckle, although I do have a VG-EX 71 Greatest Moments set complete).

Ricky Y

[Marchillo]

Originally Posted by geosluggo

In building sets back to 1956 I have been a completist with no exceptions but one -- the 1963 Topps Pete Rose rookie card. I've never really liked Rose and his card is ridiculously expensive, so when I completed that set a couple years ago I bought a Rose reprint. Please don't judge me.

I am less than 30 cards away on this set. I had a bunch of eBay gift cards from my birthday and the 15% off. I was offering $500 plus on a nice psa 4 and over $400 on a very ugly SGC 3. Not even a counter offer. I decided to scrap that plan for now and grab Banks and Kalines rcs and save over $100 on my Rose offer that wasn’t even countered. Just insane. I’ll own a real one at some point but today wasn’t that day. Sigh

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by rats60

But who decides what is complete? If a set is numbered, then is one of each number the complete set (except in cases where cards weren't actually issued such as Lajoie or 51 Current All Stars)? Or do you have to collect each and every variation? Does that include print variations? And who decides which of those apply?

If you are only going with one of each number, then how do you apply that to sets such as t206 or t205? Do error cards such as Doyle or Magie apply? Team variations like O'Hara and Demmitt St. Louis? Back variations on t205?

I suppose that's one of the appealing aspects of collecting. There isn't just one way to build a set, or collect in general. I don't consider error cards or variations necessary for a complete set. But might consider adding them if I do ever finish a set. Like 52 topps for example, I wouldn't need red and black backs for the low numbers. A t206 set might never be completed if one needed to obtain every front and back combo in existence.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I collect a lot of different sets from prewar to 1981. I honestly don't care if I end up with every card in any of the sets. I just like collecting them. Condition means nothing to me either. So I just plug along and add cards when I can and since I'm working on so many sets I don't run out of options very easily. I have completed several sets. And I love getting that last card to kill the set. Some folks collect all the variations and some people collect miscuts and some people collect for a set registry. There's no wrong way to collect and that's why this hobby is so great.

[Nick55]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

I collect a lot of different sets from prewar to 1981. I honestly don't care if I end up with every card in any of the sets. I just like collecting them. Condition means nothing to me either. So I just plug along and add cards when I can and since I'm working on so many sets I don't run out of options very easily. I have completed several sets. And I love getting that last card to kill the set. Some folks collect all the variations and some people collect miscuts and some people collect for a set registry. There's no wrong way to collect and that's why this hobby is so great.

This best expresses my view and style as well.

I buy mint cards, ex cards, and poor cards; whatever comes my way. They are all cool to me. I build complete sets and partial sets. I collect singles. For example, I'm working on a low grade '57 set and I am about 2/3rds of the way through and intend to "complete" it "with the exception of" the checklist cards. Will it truly be complete without the checklist cards? I don't know and don't much care. I don't want to pay big $$$ for marked up checklists, and that's ok. As another example, I'm "collecting" 1969 and 1972 Topps baseball in mid to high grade. I don't intend to complete either of those, because I don't care to. I don't like hatless headshots on some of the 1969's, or the trophy cards and boyhood photos of the 1972's. It's all good. They won't be "complete" sets and I won't call them that. I won't call them anything but my "1969 and 1972 baseball card collection." I really like the designs, with the mentioned exceptions, and will just collect a few hundred of each of the ones I really like. That's plenty to look through and enjoy from time to time.

So, I 100 percent agree with the statement, "There's no wrong way to collect and that's why this hobby is so great." Amen to that!

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Nick55

This best expresses my view and style as well.

I buy mint cards, ex cards, and poor cards; whatever comes my way. They are all cool to me. I build complete sets and partial sets. I collect singles. For example, I'm working on a low grade '57 set and I am about 2/3rds of the way through and intend to "complete" it "with the exception of" the checklist cards. Will it truly be complete without the checklist cards? I don't know and don't much care. I don't want to pay big $$$ for marked up checklists, and that's ok. As another example, I'm "collecting" 1969 and 1972 Topps baseball in mid to high grade. I don't intend to complete either of those, because I don't care to. I don't like hatless headshots on some of the 1969's, or the trophy cards and boyhood photos of the 1972's. It's all good. They won't be "complete" sets and I won't call them that. I won't call them anything but my "1969 and 1972 baseball card collection." I really like the designs, with the mentioned exceptions, and will just collect a few hundred of each of the ones I really like. That's plenty to look through and enjoy from time to time.

So, I 100 percent agree with the statement, "There's no wrong way to collect and that's why this hobby is so great." Amen to that!

Ah c'mon, you don't like those hatless headshots from the 1969 set? You mean the ones that gave me nightmares as a kid? I still look under the bed at night to make sure 1969 ZOILO VERSALLES isn't there. LOL

[G1911]

Depends on the set for me. My 52 Topps is just incomplete until I do the high numbers and get a Mantle.

T206 is plain incomplete without Wagner and Plank. Doyle, O’Hara, Demitt and Magie’s expensive versions are not needed, as they are variations for a master set, which would be thousands of cards and include all front/back combinations. Blank backs, Lenox brown, and other unissued scraps are not needed for a master set.

My 54 Bowman set is complete without Ted Williams, as their is another 66 variation. Williams is a master set card

The 33 Goudey is complete at 239, as Lajoie wasn’t issued, wasn’t released until the netext year, and doesn’t even have the same design. It’s more of a cool extra related card than part of the actual set.

[ALR-bishop]

For me 54 Bowman would not be complete without Williams and Piersall. The Williams card was produced 1st and then dropped due to the Toops exclusive contract. Piersall was not really a variation but rather a substituted player. I am not a graded collector but the PSA Registry includes both in the base set

But each of us "sets"our own collecting parameters and I think your view is entirely valid

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

For me 54 Bowman would not be complete without Williams and Piersall. The Williams card was produced 1st and the dropped due to the Toops exclusive contract. Piersall was not really a variation but rather a substituted player. I am not a graded collector but the PSA Registry includes both in the base set

But each of us sets our own collecting parameters and I think your view is entirely valid

No right or wrong answer! If they have the same number in a continuously numbered set, I give that precedence over the front. Only need one card 66 in my book. Unfortunately, I was dumb and bought all the stat variations as well, so now I have to get Ted for my master set. I never learn!