Questions for Set Collectors

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

So I wouldn't hijack the current SC thread...

A few questions for set collectors:

What is the best part about collecting a set?

The feeling of accomplishment when completing it?

The thrill of the chase?

The ability to see a visual theme emerge in having them all in view at once?

Do you tend to learn more about a set because you are collecting it (eg, read N54 threads regarding that set a little more closely)?

Do you learn more about a set just by having them all in one place (eg, tendency toward miscuts, patterns of backs/factory numbers, etc)?

Finally, I noticed that set collectors often will consider a set complete "Minus --- ". Minus the Big 4 for T206's, etc. Is there anything missing when you consider a set complete minus one or two abnormally expensive cards from that set? If I wanted to add a small set as a side-line goal, I wouldn't want to set a goal that's financially unreachable. OTOH, I have this little, well, PERSONALITY QUIRK, lolol, that might nag at me forever if got that close to complete and didn't close it out. That could get expensive!

Thanks for the input and answers.

BTW, my goal is a Detroit player from every set before WWI or 1920 or so (or for minor leaguers and team-only sets, a player that played in Dtw at some point). I think there is definitely a "thrill of the chase" in that I not only have to find a set, but also a Dtw player in that set and (as a practical matter) a Dtw player that is not Cobb or another HOF'er. Is there a difference in the feeling of filling a needed slot between a set collector and a type or quasi-type collector? Just curious from anyone that has done both.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

To answer your questions, many set collectors work on 1 set at a time, while others are busy working on several sets. The ultimate goal is completion, which is what makes set collecting so great, Type collecting is so much easier as all you have to do is find 1 card. Set collecting requires you to do so much work and learn so much about the set and it's intracacies, varieties and rarities. You learn so much about a set and it's so enjoyable, completion is a milestone.

As to "complete missing etc" that might fly with T206 but very few others, as they are mostly attainable.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I would say T206 (minus the big ones) is the main set where it's okay to consider it complete without some key cards. I don't know much about T210s, but I would think that might be another one. There are a few others, but like Scott says, not many.

I might be the only person on earth who thinks this, but I consider 1933 Goudey complete without the Lajoie, since it didn't come out in 1933.

Then again, I consider the 1934 Goudey set complete without the Lajoie, too.

Maybe I'd think differently if I were building a 1933 Goudey set.

Perhaps I'm just insane.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

the lajoie card almost falls into a subset category, I completed 33 and 34 goudey and never felt the need to get one.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

I enjoy collecting sets...usually several at one time. I get more enjoyment out of collecting than completing, but I never consider a set complete....there's always room for upgrades!

Knowledge of the intricacies of a set are vital for success. You have to know which cards are condition sensitive and which are scarce.

I have no problem considering my T206 HOF set complete without the Plank and Wagner!

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: T Engle

My dad and I have now been working on the T205 set for nearly 5 months. We completed the regular set, and it felt great to know that we accomplished something that we worked hard on for hours and hours. To me the best part of collecting is the chase of the specific card you are looking for.

As I thumb through the cards almost every night, I enjoy reading the bio's they offer on the back of each player. The variations also intrigue me as I learn how they are different (Crandall "t" crossed and not crossed, and Moran stray and no stray). For us we would probably say the master set is complete minus the Hoblitzell no stats, because we will never get one. Unless we get it at a great price!

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Joann

Scott beat me to a lot of points I was going to answer you with. So, I will simply
describe a serious set collector with two words "discipine" and "patience".

One of the aspects that I have really enjoyed in putting together numerous sets
over the years is the challenge of a given set's Series breakdown, fully understanding
it; and then, really "digging" in and first going after the tougher series cards.

And, I get the impression you are a "perfectionist" and when it comes to set building
99% of the time you want to complete it. However, this for the most of us does not
apply to "Monster" sets like the T206. The 1st set I put together (521 cards) I came
within 2 (at that time) of having a complete set. But, with a young family and more
important priorities back in 1985, there was no way I was going to spend big $$$$$
for those last two cards.

Ted Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Joann: I am a collector who fits in the (its not a) void between set and type collectors. I deliberately chose this status based on my experience in coin collecting. This can quickly be reduced to the undesireable status of "having" to obtain a coin which you have no interest in, solely because there is the ever present "hole" in your coin book. I saw baseball set commons as likely to fall into the same catagory and worse, set rarities (who really wants Lou Loudermilk?) also constituting "holes" of cards which were of no interest, and potentially costly.

I get the same feeling of accomplishment + the additional rewards of creativity in my own "set" design.

Edited to add: I imagine that in your quest, aside from all of the player research and set research, one of the rewards is the accomplishment of closing out each year of cards.

This is really quite a task, Joann. It is a type set with a common theme, and an expandable scope of years.

Further edited to add: But why not make it interesting - and just do catchers in gear?

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Al wrote: "I might be the only person on earth who thinks this, but I consider 1933 Goudey complete without the Lajoie, since it didn't come out in 1933."

Al, you aren't alone, I think a good number of people agree with you.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn Adkins

For me, the most invigorating part of set building is the chase. There is something about searching everywhere for those last few cards (or card) to fill out your album. Of course this is quite a bit easier now with the mighty internet than it was in 1980 when I first started collecting cards.

Background information on any set that I chase is a must which is just a personal preference on really getting to know what I am spending so much time (and money) to create. Fun is defined differently for each of us but I enjoy the little things about the cards themselves, their background, their elusiveness and every detail in between. Understanding each variation and trying to determine each minute detail in their creation from an era that has long passed.

While browsing my completed work is quite enjoyable it is not uncommon for me to break down a set just to rebuild it again, especially one I really enjoy as much as the T205 set. Turner, send me an email, I have the cards you need to complete your set. Don't give up on that Hoblitzell no stats card, it's not as unreachable as you might think.

Shawn

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

King and Al: I also don't considser the Lajoie necessary to complete the 33 Goudey set; however, when I finally finish the set you can be damn sure the next large purchase will be that card....

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

the thrill of the hunt seems to drive me, although i have felt very satisfied by completing sets over the years....must be why i am working on over 35 card sets, some needing but one or two cards to complete, some just need a few upgrades, some have no hope of advancement ....fortunatly i no longer feel compelled to complete any of them

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

I started working on about 12-15 sets at once, usually determined by buying a large lot. Then when I started getting close to completing a couple sets I started getting rid of some of the sets I wasn't progressing well on (and helps the cash flow). So now I am extremely close to completing about 5 sets and am starting the same process over again.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

One thing that's super-rewarding about collecting sets is the amazing amount of knowledge you pick up over time.

Even with a small set like the one I like, 1938 Goudey, there's a ton to learn, and it seems like no matter how long you collect it, there's new stuff to learn. For instance, after I was almost two years into the set, I found out that there were two different wrappers for the cards (I have both). After handling lots of copies, I realized that the high number Joe Vosmik card is almost always found off-center and tilted. There have been a number of other revelations like that, and when you discover them, you feel like you just discovered another planet or something.

As stupid as it sounds, I was blown away when I found the second wrapper. I was on Cloud 9 for about a week.

I don't get those kinds of feelings when I'm working on my type set.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

There is a collector who participates on this board who collects the set of all of the Old Judge cards of a single player. When he first showed me the 18 or so scans about a year ago - it was breathtaking! The existing cards are in far better condition than you would think, and they look awesome together. He now has about two dozen of them and figures himself more than half way there, I believe. Whew.