1952 Topps 1-310, is it considered complete?

[Bigdaddy]

From my favorite movie, "We can love completely without complete understanding"

No, 1-310 is not the complete set, but you can love it completely without it being complete.

[jasonc]

Kind of what I thought, however I did discover that there are some people that are just going for the 1-310. Personally, if I was going for this, I would probably go 1-310, and maybe a few of the stars in very low grade for the high numbers. The nice thing about this hobby is you can collect how you want.

[Bestdj777]

I think what is "complete" is a somewhat of a personal decision. If I were actually collecting the set, I wouldn't consider it complete until I got all 407 with back variations, double prints, and some of the more popular variations.

At a minimum, I think you need at least one of each card in the set to actually call it complete. Collect what you like though. I got a Pafko and both Mantles. I don't recall what color the back is on my Pafko but will some day pick up the other one and that guy with all the balls. After that, it won't be a complete set but will be complete enough that I'll stop buying and move on to other things.

[ALR-bishop]

There really is not hobby consensus on what constitutes a complete...as in master...set. By some accounts it is north of 575. Admittedly some include recurring print defects in their determinations. You could use the SCD or PSA registry checklists, but there are certainly some who think those lists are incomplete. As an example, how many variants are there of the House and Campos cards ?

We have several avid collectors of the set on this board, some in this thread.

[darkhorse9]

To me..

1-407 = complete

1-310 = finished

I have no plans to collect the high numbers. I would much rather move on to another, older set. For what you would pay for the 1952 high numbers alone you could get a similarly graded run of Bowman 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952 sets