Panels or singles?

[darkhorse9]

When it comes to cards issued in panels (Hostess, bazooka, Johnston Cookies, Transogram etc.) do you prefer to collect them as complete panels or singles.

I've always been a panel guy. The singles look odd to me. Panels just seem like a more logical way to collect them.

[steve B]

I collect them all those ways, and more.

My preference
Full box with product - Only at all realistic for Transogram and other stuff issued with toys instead of food.

Full box without product, not flattened. - If only I had the space... Totally unrealistic for stuff like Hostess and the ones with a lot of large boxes. I still have a few things this way, although I think I may have flattened the hostess boxes.

Full box flattened. - My overall preference. Anything after this really shouldn't grade as anything but trimmed.

Panels - second choice.

Individual cards - hey, I won't pass up a nice single or not add it to the collection if I get it in a lot.

[ALR-bishop]

I built the 51 Topps red and blue backs in singles but did end up with a second set of reds in panels. I did the 67 Stand Ups in singles too but have 3 three card panels.

I have the 48 and 56 Hocus Focus baseball sub sets in singles, and all but 2 of the 55s, but have a couple of undeveloped panels

So I guess I lean to singles with panel examples

[hcv123]

not partial to flat or not, but definitely complete boxes - a SUPER challenge, but hey what's collecting without a want list? I know another collector with I believe a majority of the 1963 Jello set on complete boxes - WOW!

[bswhiten]

I know I am probably more than likely in the minority, but I prefer singles. Especially when there are dashed cut lines for the singles...

[ALR-bishop]

Also did the 1981 Topps Scratch Offs in singles and Panels. Did the 86 Tattoos in panels/strips

Speaking of Tatto(o)s, anyone wonder why Topps called them Tattoos in 1960 and Tatoos in 1964 ?

I prefer cards to be in panels as they were issued such as the 1951 Berk Ross

[ALR-bishop]

SimLar discussion taking place on main board in regard to Topps baseball stamps issues.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Speaking of Tatto(o)s, anyone wonder why Topps called them Tattoos in 1960 and Tatoos in 1964 ?

My assumption has always been that they purposely misspelled it in order to create a trademark branding. My guess is that it resulted in an annoying repetition of answering to the question as why it was misspelled with " I know, we meant it that way" so much that the idea was abandoned.

[skil55voy]

I collect Post Cereal and Jell-O cards. My preference has always been to single cards with a box and panel from each year as an example. I also have a run of Detroit Tigers in which I collect the Hostess panels as opposed to the single cards and I buy oddball panels such as the Burger Chef, M & M's etc.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JustinD

My assumption has always been that they purposely misspelled it in order to create a trademark branding. My guess is that it resulted in an annoying repetition of answering to the question as why it was misspelled with " I know, we meant it that way" so much that the idea was abandoned.

That sounds plausible.

I wonder though if they might have gotten some pushback in states where actual tattoos weren't legal. A change to make clear that theirs were just a sticker of sorts might make sense.

There was actually someone who sued froot loops because they had no fruit. it got tossed because obviously there's no such thing as froot. (I think she also tried suing over crunch berries, also with no success. )