Is my collection complete?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Personally I think a set is complete without any variations...a "basic" set. A "master" set would include variations, but which variations. You could use the PSA master checklist, SCD's, Beckett's, or your own. There is no official hobby definition of a variation or a master set as far as I know, beyond using one of the above or other on line checklists.

The question I was raising is, if you include some variations in a "complete" set, how do you draw the line in excluding others ? Off course everyone can collect anyway they want. I was just raising the question as a point of discussion, not as a criticism.

Oh yeah, I know what you are saying. Ultimately, it's a personal thing. What I was trying to say to the OP was, would getting the item he was talking about, in his eyes, be necessary to complete the set? I certainly wasn't trying to introduce any kind of criteria for what would or should constitute having a complete set of anything.

I think that over the years, as the hobby got bigger, concepts such as "basic" set vs. "master" set became more of a thing. I may be wrong, but I think that the criteria for collecting a full set would have been seen as satisfied years ago just by having that 1952 card whether it was the red back or the black back. Or maybe, it was just me as a kid, not really caring about it, or even knowing that angle. But as an adult, it still isn't important to me.

Somewhat related to this (perhaps), I am on an audio site and one time one of the members posted an LP I wasn't aware of by a pianist I really love. So, I went and got the LP and thanked him for posting it. We got to discussing the album, but he told me that the reason he really got it, was because he wanted to collect all the JazzLand LPs, the label which this LP was on. I thought that was interesting, because even though I collect records, I would never buy a record just to complete having a certain series. In that sense, I am not as much a record collector, as I am someone who wants to get records of music that I love. Nor would I have to have a first pressing, although I certainly wouldn't mind, or all the different versions of the record, such as foreign pressings, etc. Ultimately, I just want to get a good sounding record of something I want to hear. And if the album is way too expensive, I'll get the CD.

Now, I WOULD want to get all the players of a baseball set to complete a set. But again, personally for me, my criteria to complete that set would not entail getting what could be termed a "master" set. I guess the above story about the LP just illustrates the idea that while I'm a collector, I don't have to have each and every thing. The central purpose of completing a 1969 set for me, would be to have the two players mentioned on their two different teams. But I'll draw the line at the print. For me, that's just not important. Similarly, with records, I only want the music I want, and having one good sounding recording of it is enough.

And I don't mean to say that collecting black backs and red backs is a fetish or anything. We all have different goals and approaches, which is one of the great things about collecting. Having both versions of a 1952 card, is to accentuate and document the history of that set in a more complete way. And that might be more important to another collector. For me, just having one good card of the player is enough.

Now, I COULD see having both Joe Page's - one with the correct bio, and the one with Johnny Sain's!

[Phil68]

If you're happy where it's at, it's complete!

[ALR-bishop]

I guess if you are a Mantle collector you have to decide if you need both versions of his 52 card. The last published SCD Catalog listed them as variations. The PSA Registry does not. As a set collector I had to have both towards a complete set, even though the gray backs will likely keep me from ever having a full master set.

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

I guess if you are a Mantle collector you have to decide if you need both versions of his 52 card. The last published SCD Catalog listed them as variations. The PSA Registry does not. As a set collector I had to have both towards a complete set, even though the gray backs will likely keep me from ever having a full master set.

I don’t consider a Mantle collection really complete without both 1952s. I had to part with one of mine to assist with a down payment and miss that card. Such is life. With my general collection, I’ve had to decide what level of completeness I was comfortable with. Ultimately, I decided that having one of each imagine would have to be good enough for me. So, I’ve got one of the two 1952 Topps, one of the two 1959 Venezuelans, one of the Pittsburgh Exhibits, etc. I also had to pass on the test issues. So, my master set won’t ever be complete. I have tried to complete subsets like the Holiday Inn matchbooks/postcards, so this was one of the last big projects for me. Hopefully it’s complete, but hard to feel confident with that.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Phil68

If you're happy where it's at, it's complete!

+1

I would have a hard time saying that a set I collect is not complete if it is missing something that there is no proof it exists.

[Harliduck]

Enjoyed reading all the posts...appreciate that...

I believe in Base and Master like others for sure...and do have several variation cards through the years, especially some of the 67 Topps variations...but in the case of the Dalrymple and Clendenon in the 69's, they literally have different words and pictures...I have to have those. If there is an extra dot, missing or added ink, a green part of the bat...I'm interested and want them, but not a priority.

Man, not saying a 52 Topps set isn't complete without the Mantle A and B is rough! If I had both, I would agree with you, if I only had one, I probably wouldn't...haha. I think I'll work on just getting one first...

[cesarcap]

Hi again,

My Jerry Maguire comment was made just prior to starting saturday's dinner. Meant to just get grins.

But in all seriousness, I go through emotional waves. I have one of the lowest if not the lowest basic Mantle set registry rankings. But my long term goal as a kid (before PSA was even invented) was to get all of #7's base cards. For perspective, I'm 53yrs old--never saw him play. But I was happy when I completed that--took 40+ years but I got all his Bowman and Topps cards which I read about in the 80's when the Becketts were published.

But every now and then I think about upgrading. I actually can cross over my SCG's and move up, and actually have a few raw that are nicer than what's in the registry. But for what? To rise up to #140 or something like that?

I do think about going after the Mantle Superset--but then I also want to complete some Topps sets I'm working on, working on my basketball 86-90 Fleer Mega set, getting more Jackie Robinson cards....goes on and on.

Same goes for the 1962 green tints and 1969 white letters variations. I've complete both sets and have some of these variations, including the 69 WL Mantle. There are times when I'm bored and scour ebay or here for hours late night night looking to add these variations. Then when I get them, I think, I should focus on finishing my Topps run, or I should be upgrading my 61 set. Another tangent: many of these highs which were given to me (free of charge) have back damage as they are glued to a scrapbook. Mind you, I can't even read the 61 backs even when I put in my reading glasses

Anyhow, all these distractions nonetheless make the journey interesting.

[Bestdj777]

You have one of the lowest rank base sets only because my cards aren’t all graded and up there . My 59 Topps is literally just a cut out of Mantle’s picture with all of the sides now missing—it’s funny because my 59
Venezuelan, by comparison, is in fantastic condition for the issue.