Stars v. Joe Schlabotnik...

[Kurri17]

Interesting topic. As I thought about my response, I found that aside from my team collecting projects, most cards that I seek out are of stars. Maybe not HOFers, but players of some note. But, over the last few years and a continuing slow project has been picking up graded copies of my beloved '70s A's. Moved to Cali as a kid in '72, fell in love with he A's and continued following them until Finley tore them apart. I am close to having all of the '70 to '77 Kellogg's A's in graded form, and continue adding Topps, and even Hostess graded copies over time. That said, Dick Green is obviously not a HOFer, but he is a star in my personal baseball perspective. Along with Tenace, Holtzman, Campaneris, etc. I think this outlook was very prevalent in pre-80s collecting, kids loved their teams and often had a favorite player who was just a typical big leaguer due to some personal memory or experience. I wonder how true that would be today, with the bombardment of media.

[JLange]

Over the years my focus has shifted from stars to HOFers to stars of just one team. My most recent interest though took the single team concept to the limit with their all time list of players, coaches, managers, owners, broadcasters,and others connected to the team. My list expanded to more than 2000 individuals almost overnight, and created a challenge for me unlike any prior collecting. There is a real scarcity factor (not just manufactured scarcity) in that some players have no known cards with the team. This has led me on a wonderful pursuit through every catalogued set and every team issued set just to figure who has a card and who does not. I also found great interest in RPPCs and press photos to help fill in the gaps. I now pursue "collectibles" for guys with only a handful of MLB plate appearances or innings pitched (or less!) with the same zest that I used to have for stars and HOFers alone. I can't say this will be my last collecting makeover, but it has been my most enjoyable. I can also name hundreds of players from all eras for my chosen team, for anyone who would care to listen. Useless I'm sure to everyone but me!

[RayBShotz]

Yes interesting topic.
I love commons. The reality, especially if you collect graded cards is that the returns have diminished greatly in set collecting value because of the vast population of commons now in slabs.
I've been more careful to make HOF selections as often as commons these days so I cover all bases.
I still do have a set collecting mentality but I tend to be fairly unfocused so different, unattainable forays often have to be abandoned.
It's fun to own them for a while though, and there is noting wrong with collection churn.
Why not expose yourself to every card issue the hobby has to offer.
There's lots of fun inherent in what we do.
Men acting like boys collecting cardboard.
RayB

[Exhibitman]

I have never been a fan of set building. I collect only a few small ones. I go for the big names only, plus a few lesser favorite players. And also some of the more interesting classic cards

[irv]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I have never been a fan of set building. I collect only a few small ones. I go for the big names only, plus a few lesser favorite players. And also some of the more interesting classic cards

I don't own a copy of that card yet (been outbid) but it also caught my eye the first time I seen it.

[ALR-bishop]

One ball for each HR over 3 games. And had the photo been taken one day later they would have needed another ball

[jchcollins]

Thanks for the responses guys. I definitely have a bend towards HOFers and superstars, but increasingly find myself getting into the obscurities of my beloved Cubbies as well - which may lead to some interesting but hopefully not too expensive collecting from the 1960's and earlier.

As RayB said, there is nothing wrong with collection churn, and I tend to be somewhat unfocused as well. Back in my mid-20's I had some pretty impressive cards slip through my hands (I couldn't afford them in the long run anyway). I remember a '49 Leaf Ted Williams and an E-90 Dockman Cy Young - that I got rid of because I thought it was trimmed, but later saw the same card in a PSA 5 slab. They were fun to have for a time.

I would also at some point like to do a "Book" collection of the scrubs of Boyd & Harris's childhood. Nice with that one there would not be too many condition concerns.

[ValKehl]

John, my most-fun collecting focus these days is cards of all the players who played on the 1924 Washington Senators team, the only Washington team to ever win the World Series. I'm going for as many cards as I can get (and afford!) of each player, including cards for when these players played on other teams. There are HOFers (WaJo, Rice, Goslin, B. Harris, and owner Clark Griffith), other guys that had long MLB careers and thus many baseball cards (Bluege, Judge, Leibold, Peckinpaugh, Marberry, Ruel, Zachary, etc.), other guys with short MLB careers and thus very few baseball cards ("Pinky" Hargrave, "Oyster Joe" Martina, "Slim" McGrew, "Curly" Ogden, "Doc" Prothro, "Rubberarm" Russell, "Mule" Shirley, "By" Speece, Paul Zahniser, etc.), and other guys with short MLB careers that have no baseball cards as far as I can determine (Carl East, "Chick" Gagnon, "Buck" Griffith, Carr Smith, & Tommy Taylor). Searching for and finding cards of those players that had very few cards produced has actually been the most fun!

Another of my collecting focuses is type cards. Where possible, my 1924 Senators cards also serve as my type cards. What I found to be amazing is that my 1924 Senators cards go back as far as 1889 (Clark Griffith - N172 Old Judge) and as far forward as 1945 (Byron Speece - Centennial Flour Seattle Rainiers)!

BTW, with a few minor exceptions (E222 A.W.H. Caramels, T210-2 Old Mill Va. League, & T209-2 Va. League only), I don't collect sets.

The point of all this is to say there are so many fun ways to collect vintage cards. Sooner or later (as in my case) you will discover what turns you on the most.
Val