Satisfied with team collecting?

[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.