What card(s) did you have to spend...

[brob28]

Originally Posted by hangman62

Heres an interesting wrinkle to "not" set collecting...

I think it would be easier/cheaper/faster/etc..to put short sets together..for ex- on 3 or 4 plastic sheets you display all or most of the cards in the 56T set - Mantle,Mays,Aaron,Aparicio,Banks,etc..Im sure you could fill up 3 pages..throw in a few Yanks,Dodgers, a WS card or two, a checklist,a wax wrapper,..etc., and you have a pretty strong represntn of the 56 set.

Then in one sitting,you could thumb thru 5 Topps sets all in one binder..and enjoy the meat of the sets

That is exactly the approach I have been thinking of on any future sets I have an interest in. I'm currently 93% done with the '56 set so I'l see it through, but I'm not interested in building any other complete sets.

[Exhibitman]

I rarely do sets because I hate 'wasting' money on commons. The sets I am working take a very long time because I am content to bargain hunt to find the commons.

[GasHouseGang]

Talking about the 1956 checklists reminded me of the 1963 Fleer checklist. I passed on a mint one for $40 back in the 1980's at one of the Nationals. I had paid that much for the rarest card in the set Joe Adcock! Couldn't see that for a checklist. Now it's the only card I need for the set, and I doubt I'll ever get it because I don't want to pay what they are asking for it. Sets are overrated!