What is a set?

[HercDriver]

My wife's family is here, so I took the dog and a couple beers for a long walk. While I was wandering, I was thinking about how we define sets. Somewhere along the way, it seems we changed how we define it. Bear with me...

Let's use T205s and 1978 Topps as examples. We could use most any T-set to make the point, such as T206. Or any modern set combo, like Topps/OPC/Venezuelan, Hostess/Twinkie, etc.

If we use the T205 model, then a "set" is a basic 208 cards, with a bunch of different backs. The fronts are all the same, so that's the "set." Collecting variations and back combos are fun, but those are subsets. The "set" is not determined by distribution methods, just fronts. If we collected 1978 Topps cards like that, then the "basic" set could include OPC and Burger King cards...they'd just be subset backs. As a matter of fact, the 1978 "basic set" would HAVE to include the Burger King poses that did not appear in the Topps set. Those cards would be equivalent to the rare backs of the T205 set, like the Hoblitzells and the Matty Cycle cards. Again, distribution wouldn't matter.

Let's change gears and use the 1978 methodology. We'd have a 1978 Topps set, a 1978 OPC set, and a 1978 Burger King set (like we do today). They are defined by the backs (distribution), with no concern given to their fronts. For T205, we'd therefore have a bunch of smaller sets, not the T205 set as we know. For instance, we'd have a 123-card 1911 Sovereign set. It was distributed in packs of Sovereign cigarettes, and is defined by the ads on the back. We'd also have a 1911 Polar Bear set, a 1911 Honest Long Cut set, etc.

I'm not proposing anything changing, but it was an interesting thought after pondering one of the other threads about the recent rise in T-card back subset collecting. I guess it depends on your viewpoint if those collectors are doing subsets, or it they are just like any other set collector.

Uh oh, my wife found me...

Geno