Master sets ?

[ALR-bishop]

It is not limited to modern. Try to get consensus among collectors of the Topps 1952 set as to what constitutes a master set. And, judging by multiple threads on pre war about the T206 set, the same is true there.

I guess as a collector, a person can define for themselves what they will consider a master set. I was just trying to solicit differing views by collectors here regarding whatever criteria they use. It would also be interesting ( to me) to know how many here even care about or seek to build master sets, however defined

[steve B]

My thinking is that unless you're doing it for the registry a "master set" is whatever you want it to be.

I'd typically think of it as the entire base set plus any listed variations. That would include SPs, but not inserts which I look at as a different set that just happened to be issued in the same packs.

Now in my collection - it's totally different. I separate and save the odd stuff like different holograms on upper deck, different die cutting and screening on 88 Score, Minor stock differences on A+G and Gypsy queen, the uv reactive backs on 91 topps (And other years! which I just found out) .....And any other weirdness I find.

I'm not really sure if some of that stuff should be considered part of an insane master set, or as a different set. The 88 Score could easily be considered as three sets since the differences are related to what press run it was, at least for the first three runs.



Steve B