Satisfied with team collecting?

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

More to consider...

For team sets, I had to decide what (if any) variations I would collect within the team sets. Those can range from the red/black backs of the 1952 Topps to the green tint 62 Topps and all the way into the past 15-20 years, when Topps has produced a wide range of SP/SSP variations. Some of those can get spendy, too.
I'm gunning for the variations, as they do provide those "chase" cards that can be fun and challenging. That said, I'm not necessarily going to get EVERY variation. For instance, I see the cost as prohibitive to go after every 2013 "Boston Strong" variation for the Red Sox team. I have one, which sits pretty well with me. And there are some that I may never land, like the Mookie Betts 2016 Topps Update variation with him in the back of a truck (silly card, really), mostly because an SSP like that doesn't come to market often and it commands a few hundred dollars.
Here is a pic of some variation cards I've got, along with my 1962 Venezuelans (which are really a separate set, but this is a pre-1980 post, so I had to have something appropriate)...

Good stuff, man! Out of curiosity, what is your one card price limit? I don't think anyone has been more all over the place in collecting than I have! I still have a bunch of 80s stuff from childhood, I LOVE 1950s baseball, I had a brief and pricey prewar phase, and have accumulated a fair amount of 1960s football. Through all of my collecting incarnations, I keep returning to 1950s baseball (also an eye on some 1940s issues). I somehow remained disciplined enough to complete 1953 Topps and 1954 Topps baseball sets. I also have some scattered 50s stars. The books I have been reading are all about the Brooklyn Dodgers, and I am becoming obsessed. Team collecting them will allow me to get decent sized pieces of the many, many sets that I want. I will never have enough time or coin to build 1948-1955 Bowman, 1952 Topps and 1955-1957 Topps, Red Man, Red Heart, etc. Jackie Robinson, Snider, Reese, Hodges, Furillo, Campanella, etc....a guy could do a lot worse.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

Good stuff, man! Out of curiosity, what is your one card price limit? I don't think anyone has been more all over the place in collecting than I have! I still have a bunch of 80s stuff from childhood, I LOVE 1950s baseball, I had a brief and pricey prewar phase, and have accumulated a fair amount of 1960s football. Through all of my collecting incarnations, I keep returning to 1950s baseball (also an eye on some 1940s issues). I somehow remained disciplined enough to complete 1953 Topps and 1954 Topps baseball sets. I also have some scattered 50s stars. The books I have been reading are all about the Brooklyn Dodgers, and I am becoming obsessed. Team collecting them will allow me to get decent sized pieces of the many, many sets that I want. I will never have enough time or coin to build 1948-1955 Bowman, 1952 Topps and 1955-1957 Topps, Red Man, Red Heart, etc. Jackie Robinson, Snider, Reese, Hodges, Furillo, Campanella, etc....a guy could do a lot worse.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I really don't want to spend more than $1k on any single card - although I have made an exception or two. And more and more, my goal/hope is to keep things even more reasonable. But with pre-war stuff, in particular, I find the wear and tear on cards to be charming (as well as keeping the price down). I think one challenge in collecting post-war cards is that it is easy to get hung up on getting a really sharp card, which can really drive up the price. Collecting pre-war is good for me, as I'm increasingly fine tuning my standards for all cards, and when I find a mid-range post-war card that has great eye appeal at a reasonable cost, it makes for a great score.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

I really don't want to spend more than $1k on any single card - although I have made an exception or two. And more and more, my goal/hope is to keep things even more reasonable. But with pre-war stuff, in particular, I find the wear and tear on cards to be charming (as well as keeping the price down). I think one challenge in collecting post-war cards is that it is easy to get hung up on getting a really sharp card, which can really drive up the price. Collecting pre-war is good for me, as I'm increasingly fine tuning my standards for all cards, and when I find a mid-range post-war card that has great eye appeal at a reasonable cost, it makes for a great score.

My experience has been similar to yours. I have come to appreciate and seek out nice eye appeal cards in the 4-6 range (or the ungraded equivalent). My comfort level on price is about the same as yours. Honestly, I would much rather have several mid grade cards that present well than one super duper PSA 8. I really like your Williams btw. He is one of my faves and would be one of the very few players I would interrupt Brooklyn team collecting for once I get rolling.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

My experience has been similar to yours. I have come to appreciate and seek out nice eye appeal cards in the 4-6 range (or the ungraded equivalent). My comfort level on price is about the same as yours. Honestly, I would much rather have several mid grade cards that present well than one super duper PSA 8. I really like your Williams btw. He is one of my faves and would be one of the very few players I would interrupt Brooklyn team collecting for once I get rolling.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

There is some point, perhaps 1972 or 1973, where I feel like I need to get sharper cards for my collection, as it seems they are more easily attained.

Related note, I spent a lot of time over this past weekend on my COMC shopping and it really drove home how production of cards pre-1980 (in particular) featured centering that's just all over the place. So many cards I didn't need to even bother getting a closer look at because they weren't even close.