|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: James Feagin
As a collector on a budget, I am always curious what everyone else is collecting. Particularly, with the rapid escalation of pre-war cards, has anybody else given up on sets and settled on collecting type cards? I was musing starting the 1934 Goudey set, however, after HOFers, I was astonished what the "commons" would cost me. After this, I realized that set collecting probably isn't in my collecting future. Collecting sets has long been the bread and butter of this hobby, I wonder if more people aren't even attempting them and settling for either team sets, player collections, or type cards. Thoughts on my rantings would be appreciated. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Marc S.
because I can collect my favorite team [Philadelphia Nationals] - over a time series of their history - from the beginning of their team through the 1940s. Keeps things very interesting for me. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Daniel McCarthy
I am focusing on teams and players. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Chad
As a teenager, I managed to put together a Topps redbacks set and, now that I'm older, I still work on those kind of sets--small and relatively affordable. I'm one card away from completeing my Remar 1949 Oaks set and I've been plugging away on a few others. I bought a lot of W512's on the cheap and so I'll probably work on that set, too. I'm not going to impress anybody with these sets, but they're fun and it's not hopeless for me to try. I also buy cards from sets I'll never even get close to completing--T206 etc., just because I like the cards. I also make up my own "sets" to collect, like all the catchers from the T206 set, or, and this is my main focus, cards of Negro Leaguers. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: James Feagin
I am proud to be a collector who collects on a whim. My basis for collecting is if I think the card is pretty or fits a random whim. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Rob (NYC)
I just started to create a T206 team set of the Cardinals (yes, James, you inspired me because I remember your Orioles team set and liked it very much). I chose the Cardinals because I like the contrasting colors of their uniform. I will upgrade as much as my budget will allow. I will probably pass on the O'Hara card for two reasons - out of my price range and doesn't have the "St.Louis" team logo on the uniform. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: identify7
Like the fortworthcollector, I never tried to assemble a complete set of cards because of the money I would spend on cards which I did not want. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: davidcycleback
I've bought sets, but never built one. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: James Feagin
I have been pondering putting together the 1956 Topps set. Last night, I bid on a Mickey Mantle card, which I did not win. After the auction, I asked myself "Do I even care about Mickey Mantle? Why do I want this card? Just to start a set?" Your responses have helped me resolve, or support to spend my money more wisely, on cards I will truly value. Complete sets for that sake only be damned..... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Bryan Long
I am now a player collector of Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson. I am actually quite a lot of fun at this now. It gives me a purpose to collecting and for the first time in a while I am really having fun at collecting. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
From an early age I have always enjoyed a challenge. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: James Feagin
Ted, |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Lee Behrens
I believe set building gives a collector focus. It took about 4 1/2 years to finish my T202 & T206 (I did have 80 cards when I started hitting ebayin Oct. 2000). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Ted Zanidakis
James and Lee |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: tbob
I know, it makes no sense to spend way too much money on the blue background E94 Lord to try and complete a master set of color variations, especially when you could use the money toward a decent Lajoie or Speaker, but... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Lee Behrens
I don't what a Mantle card at any price. that's my final say on now vintage stuff. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Jeff Lichtman
James, I have a complete 1956 set, including the checklists. I can tell you that the Mantle card really is a prize for a number of reasons. First, it was his Triple Crown year; next, it's easily the most visually appealing card in the set. The guy has a look of happiness on his face that is unparalleled in any of his cards. He's at the top of his game so to speak, and it shows. Next, he was not included in the 55 Topps set so it is the first and only time he's available on the larger, horizontal Topps cards of the 55-56 variety. Both sets are great and very interesting. My advice is to buy a raw one and submit it for grading (his cards really are expensive when graded and draw a premium). You can't have the 56 set without Mantle in my opinion - he IS the 56 set... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Geoff Litwack
I was going to post a similar topic. I'm a set collector - I built and sold 1965 Topps, then 1955 and 1954 Bowman. After that I did the Diamond Stars and 1941 Play Ball, which I kept, and now I'm working on '33 World Wide Gum and T207. Of late I've been thinking about changing up and becoming an HOF collector - it's sort of frustrating to me to have capital locked up in commons, many of which I don't really care about. Argh! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Keith O'Leary
I've always been a set collector, didn't know any other way back when I started. When I did start on vintage, I tackled one of the biggest....T206. After collecting them to the tune of 470 some cards (pre ebay), the buying got very slow and I slowly sold them off thinking smaller 50 and 100 card vintage sets were the way to go. I've been at the T3s and T9s for 30 years now (I'd hate to start them now), N28s, N29s, N184s for 20, tried the N43s and N162s for just as long but recently (within the last 2 years) stopped looking for them. Vintage sets are tough (maybe the T200 set is an easy one, but its one of the few and even that one has its rarities). If I was starting out all over again and had a budget I had to conform to, I'd be a type collector. It gives you soooo much more buying room. I'd have a different HOFer from each set and laugh at all those set registry chasers that spend 10X more than what a particular card is worth and one that I don't need anyway .
Keith
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: James Feagin
I don't have an affinity for Mantle though. Great player, pretty card. However, when I think of my potential 1956 set, I think Ted Williams. Probably the prettiest card I've ever seen. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: warshawlaw
The only sets I have any passion for as sets are the ones I actively bought as a kid. My 1971 set will be finished some day. For vintage cards, I just cannot see buying three-figure commons. I will buy the occasional popular player (e.g., Kling, Pelty, Lobert, Wood, etc.) but not commons unless I think I can resell or trade them. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: robert a
Nice topic. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: davidcycleback
I do my best to avoid paying above market value for stuff I want. It would be against my fibers to pay double for a common just to finish a set. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: jay behrens
I've always been a set builder. Part of the reason I enver went for caramel cards in the 80s was that the sets were so small, I didn't feel they were a challenge. Now that I am in my second incarnation as a collector, as much as I would love to start building sets again, I simply cannot afford it. I also have an overriding desire to have type cards from different sets which makes set building on a budget very tough. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Al Crisafulli
I build sets, and I work on a HOF set to take care of my whims. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: Bruce Babcock
I'm all over the map. Some sets, some type cards, some tobacco cards, some caramel cards, some photographic cards. It is fun to search for and complete a set. It's also fun to obtain really tough type cards. It's certainly getting more expensive to do either. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Sets vs. Singles
Posted By: pete
working only on the t206 set right now...other than that set, i seek out certain cards of certain vintage stars, mostly pitchers |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OPC sets/singles 1975-1988 baseball | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 01-18-2009 09:08 PM |
OPC singles/sets 70s-80s (baseball) | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 06-16-2008 09:15 AM |
OPC baseball 1975-1988 sets/singles | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 04-12-2008 05:29 AM |
1970-1980 singles/Sets FS | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 01-13-2008 09:06 AM |
hypothetical question: sets vs singles in an auction | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 09-27-2005 05:32 AM |