Satisfied with team collecting?

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

You guys who are team collectors, do you stay satisfied? I am growing more and more interested in collecting early 50s Bowman Dodger team sets. I am losing interest (at least at this point) in completing full sets. So, let's say you are a Pirates team collector or Cardinals or whoever, does it bug you to pass on players like Mays and Mantle? Or are you happy to not have to pay for them?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[JLange]

As a Cleveland Baseball collector, I just don't have much interest in the players from other teams, even when they are hobby icons. I have plenty of stars and HOFers to pursue - including Tris Speaker, Nap Lajoie, Joe Jackson, Cy Young, Bob Feller, Larry Doby, Satchel Paige, and Rocky Colavito - to name a handful! It may not hold forever, but presently I am happy to continue collecting players from my favorite team. For me, that means I pursue players when they were with the Tribe, and take little interest in their cards/collectibles when they were with other teams (like Speaker with Boston, Colavito with Detroit, etc.). It also means that I limit my type collecting to only those cards/sets, that have a Cleveland player. I do admit its hard to look at some of these neat regional sets from other teams, and not get excited about the star cards, but again I have plenty of tough items to pursue just from Northeast Ohio to keep me satisfied.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by JLange

As a Cleveland Baseball collector, I just don't have much interest in the players from other teams, even when they are hobby icons. I have plenty of stars and HOFers to pursue - including Tris Speaker, Nap Lajoie, Joe Jackson, Cy Young, Bob Feller, Larry Doby, Satchel Paige, and Rocky Colavito - to name a handful! It may not hold forever, but presently I am happy to continue collecting players from my favorite team. For me, that means I pursue players when they were with the Tribe, and take little interest in their cards/collectibles when they were with other teams (like Speaker with Boston, Colavito with Detroit, etc.). It also means that I limit my type collecting to only those cards/sets, that have a Cleveland player. I do admit its hard to look at some of these neat regional sets from other teams, but again I have plenty of tough items to pursue just from Northeast Ohio to keep me satisfied.

I can relate to what you are saying. I have collected whole sets in baseball and football, but I feel increasingly drawn to the Brooklyn Dodgers with Jackie, Duke, Campy, Pee Wee, Newcombe, Preacher Roe, etc. The early Bowman issues are especially nice. Really outside of Jackie, most of these can be had fairly reasonably. Someday, I might fill in around the Dodgers and complete the entire sets someday, but this sounds like fun right now.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

I tried it for a while but found it too limited. What I enjoy more is collecting all players on the team from a specific set where I find the cards especially pleasing, like the 1976 Topps Reds or the 1978 Topps Yankees.

[commishbob]

I spent many years collecting Orioles team sets (and older pre-MLB Baltimore cards) and it was fun. I had a few other side projects but basically, I was Orioles-only. My interest in the hobby faded as my interest in baseball did in 1990 or thereabouts. The strike/lockout/walkout sealed that.

Went I got interested again (thanks, Buck Showalter!) I pulled out the old binders but I also found my nostalgia level had risen. I discovered the hobby blogosphere and I fell in love all over again with the sets I collected/flipped/traded as a kid starting in 1958. Chasing them, one or two at a time, has been really fun. I folded most of my old Orioles cards into the sets to help defray costs a bit.

Re-reading the original post I'm thinking I didn't answer the question. When I was collecting Orioles I also would pick up a few stars here and there. Generally cards of guys I enjoyed like McCovey, Gibson, and Kaline. I don't recall ever 'missing' the others.

[skil55voy]

I am a Tiger's fan. I collect Post Cereal and Jell-O sets. However, I am collecting Detroit Tiger and Lions team sets. I have started in 1955 (Year of birth) up to 2000 for the Tigers and Lions. I have Goudey wide pens from the 30's and when I can find them for good prices, I'll get Bowmans, Leafs etc.
I buy the oddball stuff when available. (Domino's Pizza Set, Kellog's Coca Cola, Pins etc..) I also buy newer stuff from bargain boxes at the shows where I live. Concentrating on Allen & Ginter, Gypsy Queen and Heritage. i know I won't get all of the cards but, it keeps the hunt going.

[Jim65]

I am satisfied in collecting Mets, my collection is pretty big and my wantlist is getting smaller so when I find an item its probably very rare.

The one downside is having to buy cards of players I wouldn't normally buy. I know I'll get crap for this but I think Nolan Ryan is probably the most overrated player and it hurt to have to buy his rookie and early cards.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Jim65

The one downside is having to buy cards of players I wouldn't normally buy. I know I'll get crap for this but I think Nolan Ryan is probably the most overrated player and it hurt to have to buy his rookie and early cards.

I would hate to think that I "have to buy" any card. If you feel that way, save your money.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[ALR-bishop]

As a master set type collector there are cards you have to have, like them or not. I am not a big Mantle fan but I think I have all his Topps cards ( and Bowman) but for the 66 Punch Out and 61 Dice, including both 52 Topps variations. If sets are your parameter, saving money by not buying cards you do not particularly like is not an option. And if set runs are the parameter you can not even avoid sets you do not particularly like. No complaints. Set the parameters many years ago and stuck to them

[mrmopar]

When it comes to a team, the Dodgers are mine. There is always plenty to collect but also many that are higher priced. It bothers me that I can't complete certain sets without handing over lots of $ for a "common" player, such as the 1963 Rose/McMullen card or the SP 1966 Jackson/Shirley card.

I was fortunate to have been collecting Dodgers during the early days of eBay, so I was able to land a good number of vintage cards that have steadily gone up and up in price (oddballs, Robinson, a few High #s, etc).

I guess for me, adding to the Brooklyn side is a lot harder because of the prices, but there are always new LA cards to chase.

[TheNightmanCometh]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

You guys who are team collectors, do you stay satisfied? I am growing more and more interested in collecting early 50s Bowman Dodger team sets. I am losing interest (at least at this point) in completing full sets. So, let's say you are a Pirates team collector or Cardinals or whoever, does it bug you to pass on players like Mays and Mantle? Or are you happy to not have to pay for them?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

As a lifelong Braves fan, and a collector of Braves everything, I can say that I am extremely satisfied. I think it's important to be a fan of whichever team you're collecting.

[jchcollins]

I am ostensibly collecting full '56 and '67 sets right now, but realisitically know there may be a point where I have to make a decision to cut my goals to team (Cubs) sets. I have some of the other big names out of both, but I tend to get bored easliy and have a wandering eye for stars and HOF'ers all across the post-war spectrum. But with the Cubs, as someone who is a pretty die-hard fan, I'm not going to get bored with the details and history of even the older common players there anytime soon. And as others have made some points about teams like the Dodgers or Cleveland - Banks is the only real potential pricey card from most sets to put together - and even those outside of his RC for the most part are reasonable in mid-grade. The Cubs have other HOFers - Williams, Jenkins, Santo - that are even more reasonable. We'll see. I know at least in a pickle I can continue to quitely collect vintage Cubs for quite a long time without breaking the bank.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I am ostensibly collecting full '56 and '67 sets right now, but realisitically know there may be a point where I have to make a decision to cut my goals to team (Cubs) sets. I have some of the other big names out of both, but I tend to get bored easliy and have a wandering eye for stars and HOF'ers all across the post-war spectrum. But with the Cubs, as someone who is a pretty die-hard fan, I'm not going to get bored with the details and history of even the older common players there anytime soon. And as others have made some points about teams like the Dodgers or Cleveland - Banks is the only real potential pricey card from most sets to put together - and even those outside of his RC for the most part are reasonable in mid-grade. The Cubs have other HOFers - Williams, Jenkins, Santo - that are even more reasonable. We'll see. I know at least in a pickle I can continue to quitely collect vintage Cubs for quite a long time without breaking the bank.

John, I think I get what you are saying 100%. Part of my collection are complete 1953 and 1954 Topps sets. There are many other issues from the 50s and late 40s I want. I realize I can't afford to build them all. However, I grow more fascinated with the Brooklyn teams from this era. Overall, not too pricey except for some Robinsons and 52 Topps high numbers, and perhaps Pee Wee's rookie. I could have a lot of fun collecting Brooklyn for a long time at a decent cost and get a sampling of many, many sets.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

I could have a lot of fun collecting Brooklyn for a long time at a decent cost and get a sampling of many, many sets.

A close 2nd for me. I’ve also always been enthralled with the Brooklyn teams. You can pickup most mid-grade for a deal outside of Jackie. I have his ‘55 Topps card, but that’s it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

A close 2nd for me. I’ve also always been enthralled with the Brooklyn teams. You can pickup most mid-grade for a deal outside of Jackie. I have his ‘55 Topps card, but that’s it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hear ya, John.Even if you "only" collected postwar Cubs, that would be a nice collection. You could always pick up something else if you wanted here and there.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[AGuinness]

I'm a Red Sox team set collector, which has really made the hobby enjoyable for me. I started off going for a team set for every year Topps has made one, and I'm also going for error and variation cards. On the bright side, there aren't really any cards that would be out of my league (52T Mantle, for instance), particularly since Teddy doesn't have any epic cards during Topps' run.
I'm not far away from completing the run (less than 100), but I plan on going back through and upgrading the cards that need it. Extra cards aren't a worry, as I have two boys, two nephews and a niece that I give cards to for their birthdays in the hopes of sparking their interest.
In recent years, my focus has broadened and my big project is now a T206 Red Sox team set, all with different backs. I'm looking for some pretty scarce cards, it's been a good challenge and I have learned tons about pre-war cards. And on my mental list, I'll take a swing at the Red Sox CJs, Goudeys, etc.
Since I got back into collecting years ago, I also will buy a card now and then that is a "cool" card, even if it falls outside my collecting focus. But there were so many cards that I was in awe of as a kid, but never got close to owning. Now, I can splurge every so often to get one, which I typically hold for a while and then sell it. If I make a little money, great, if not, I get the satisfaction of owning an example. The first card I bought in this way was a Gretzky Topps rookie, which I really enjoyed having, enjoyed selling and still get a kick out of the fact that I did have one at some point.
I like team sets as it does limit the amount of cards in my collection. I'd rather not have 10s of thousands of cards to store/display/keep track of. Team sets are pretty manageable, and depending on the team, it can really help in learning some of the team's history. Overall, I am extremely satisfied with collecting Red Sox team sets (along with some other essential Sox cards - just got my 39 Play Ball Teddy last month!).

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

I'm a Red Sox team set collector, which has really made the hobby enjoyable for me. I started off going for a team set for every year Topps has made one, and I'm also going for error and variation cards. On the bright side, there aren't really any cards that would be out of my league (52T Mantle, for instance), particularly since Teddy doesn't have any epic cards during Topps' run.
I'm not far away from completing the run (less than 100), but I plan on going back through and upgrading the cards that need it. Extra cards aren't a worry, as I have two boys, two nephews and a niece that I give cards to for their birthdays in the hopes of sparking their interest.
In recent years, my focus has broadened and my big project is now a T206 Red Sox team set, all with different backs. I'm looking for some pretty scarce cards, it's been a good challenge and I have learned tons about pre-war cards. And on my mental list, I'll take a swing at the Red Sox CJs, Goudeys, etc.
Since I got back into collecting years ago, I also will buy a card now and then that is a "cool" card, even if it falls outside my collecting focus. But there were so many cards that I was in awe of as a kid, but never got close to owning. Now, I can splurge every so often to get one, which I typically hold for a while and then sell it. If I make a little money, great, if not, I get the satisfaction of owning an example. The first card I bought in this way was a Gretzky Topps rookie, which I really enjoyed having, enjoyed selling and still get a kick out of the fact that I did have one at some point.
I like team sets as it does limit the amount of cards in my collection. I'd rather not have 10s of thousands of cards to store/display/keep track of. Team sets are pretty manageable, and depending on the team, it can really help in learning some of the team's history. Overall, I am extremely satisfied with collecting Red Sox team sets (along with some other essential Sox cards - just got my 39 Play Ball Teddy last month!).

Great post! That is almost exactly what I envision doing with Brooklyn. Any chance you might show off that Williams?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Great post! That is almost exactly what I envision doing with Brooklyn. Any chance you might show off that Williams?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I'll jump at the chance to show off my 39 Ted!

One big difference for me as a collector now as compared to a few years ago (much less when I was in 7th grade) is that I've got a good focus and a few rules about what I'll buy. One of which is a limit on what I'm going to spend on any one card. And even up until recently, I was somewhat resigned to the real possibility that I wouldn't be able to get a 39 Ted Play Ball that I'd be able to afford and in the condition that would present strong enough for me. And then, it just happened (and my first big AH win, too). It has its flaws, naturally, but I'm thrilled with it and still am giddy that it worked out in the end.

[AGuinness]

On the topic of team collecting, one thing that has really helped me in getting a lot of the commons and low value cards is COMC. I do some flipping there and use the proceeds to fill out my Red Sox team sets, along with getting some other stuff. And there are some deals to be had on cards that have a little value (the real gems are overpriced, although the new fee structure may soften that up a bit - to be determined).
The best part of it is that I haven't put any of my "real" money in for years, I've been able to make things work just on flipping cards there (I've bought singles and resold them on COMC and also used COMC credit to buy boxes, both to varying degrees of success, but successful overall). And while I don't get to hold the cards in my hand that I flip, I still get the pleasure of "owning" them.
COMC just wrapped up the big Black Friday Weekend sale, which is when I do the most shopping there. I grabbed a bunch of cards for my PC, some good flips and even did early Christmas shopping by getting my boys some Pokemon cards.

[AGuinness]

More to consider...

For team sets, I had to decide what (if any) variations I would collect within the team sets. Those can range from the red/black backs of the 1952 Topps to the green tint 62 Topps and all the way into the past 15-20 years, when Topps has produced a wide range of SP/SSP variations. Some of those can get spendy, too.
I'm gunning for the variations, as they do provide those "chase" cards that can be fun and challenging. That said, I'm not necessarily going to get EVERY variation. For instance, I see the cost as prohibitive to go after every 2013 "Boston Strong" variation for the Red Sox team. I have one, which sits pretty well with me. And there are some that I may never land, like the Mookie Betts 2016 Topps Update variation with him in the back of a truck (silly card, really), mostly because an SSP like that doesn't come to market often and it commands a few hundred dollars.
Here is a pic of some variation cards I've got, along with my 1962 Venezuelans (which are really a separate set, but this is a pre-1980 post, so I had to have something appropriate)...

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

More to consider...

For team sets, I had to decide what (if any) variations I would collect within the team sets. Those can range from the red/black backs of the 1952 Topps to the green tint 62 Topps and all the way into the past 15-20 years, when Topps has produced a wide range of SP/SSP variations. Some of those can get spendy, too.
I'm gunning for the variations, as they do provide those "chase" cards that can be fun and challenging. That said, I'm not necessarily going to get EVERY variation. For instance, I see the cost as prohibitive to go after every 2013 "Boston Strong" variation for the Red Sox team. I have one, which sits pretty well with me. And there are some that I may never land, like the Mookie Betts 2016 Topps Update variation with him in the back of a truck (silly card, really), mostly because an SSP like that doesn't come to market often and it commands a few hundred dollars.
Here is a pic of some variation cards I've got, along with my 1962 Venezuelans (which are really a separate set, but this is a pre-1980 post, so I had to have something appropriate)...

Good stuff, man! Out of curiosity, what is your one card price limit? I don't think anyone has been more all over the place in collecting than I have! I still have a bunch of 80s stuff from childhood, I LOVE 1950s baseball, I had a brief and pricey prewar phase, and have accumulated a fair amount of 1960s football. Through all of my collecting incarnations, I keep returning to 1950s baseball (also an eye on some 1940s issues). I somehow remained disciplined enough to complete 1953 Topps and 1954 Topps baseball sets. I also have some scattered 50s stars. The books I have been reading are all about the Brooklyn Dodgers, and I am becoming obsessed. Team collecting them will allow me to get decent sized pieces of the many, many sets that I want. I will never have enough time or coin to build 1948-1955 Bowman, 1952 Topps and 1955-1957 Topps, Red Man, Red Heart, etc. Jackie Robinson, Snider, Reese, Hodges, Furillo, Campanella, etc....a guy could do a lot worse.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Good stuff, man! Out of curiosity, what is your one card price limit? I don't think anyone has been more all over the place in collecting than I have! I still have a bunch of 80s stuff from childhood, I LOVE 1950s baseball, I had a brief and pricey prewar phase, and have accumulated a fair amount of 1960s football. Through all of my collecting incarnations, I keep returning to 1950s baseball (also an eye on some 1940s issues). I somehow remained disciplined enough to complete 1953 Topps and 1954 Topps baseball sets. I also have some scattered 50s stars. The books I have been reading are all about the Brooklyn Dodgers, and I am becoming obsessed. Team collecting them will allow me to get decent sized pieces of the many, many sets that I want. I will never have enough time or coin to build 1948-1955 Bowman, 1952 Topps and 1955-1957 Topps, Red Man, Red Heart, etc. Jackie Robinson, Snider, Reese, Hodges, Furillo, Campanella, etc....a guy could do a lot worse.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I really don't want to spend more than $1k on any single card - although I have made an exception or two. And more and more, my goal/hope is to keep things even more reasonable. But with pre-war stuff, in particular, I find the wear and tear on cards to be charming (as well as keeping the price down). I think one challenge in collecting post-war cards is that it is easy to get hung up on getting a really sharp card, which can really drive up the price. Collecting pre-war is good for me, as I'm increasingly fine tuning my standards for all cards, and when I find a mid-range post-war card that has great eye appeal at a reasonable cost, it makes for a great score.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

I really don't want to spend more than $1k on any single card - although I have made an exception or two. And more and more, my goal/hope is to keep things even more reasonable. But with pre-war stuff, in particular, I find the wear and tear on cards to be charming (as well as keeping the price down). I think one challenge in collecting post-war cards is that it is easy to get hung up on getting a really sharp card, which can really drive up the price. Collecting pre-war is good for me, as I'm increasingly fine tuning my standards for all cards, and when I find a mid-range post-war card that has great eye appeal at a reasonable cost, it makes for a great score.

My experience has been similar to yours. I have come to appreciate and seek out nice eye appeal cards in the 4-6 range (or the ungraded equivalent). My comfort level on price is about the same as yours. Honestly, I would much rather have several mid grade cards that present well than one super duper PSA 8. I really like your Williams btw. He is one of my faves and would be one of the very few players I would interrupt Brooklyn team collecting for once I get rolling.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

My experience has been similar to yours. I have come to appreciate and seek out nice eye appeal cards in the 4-6 range (or the ungraded equivalent). My comfort level on price is about the same as yours. Honestly, I would much rather have several mid grade cards that present well than one super duper PSA 8. I really like your Williams btw. He is one of my faves and would be one of the very few players I would interrupt Brooklyn team collecting for once I get rolling.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

There is some point, perhaps 1972 or 1973, where I feel like I need to get sharper cards for my collection, as it seems they are more easily attained.

Related note, I spent a lot of time over this past weekend on my COMC shopping and it really drove home how production of cards pre-1980 (in particular) featured centering that's just all over the place. So many cards I didn't need to even bother getting a closer look at because they weren't even close.