Degrees of "Basicness" in Modern Player Basic Sets
peterredshoes
Posts: 98
Based on some dialogue pertaining to the Alan Trammell basic set I'm immersed once again in the highly subjective debate of what belongs in modern basic sets (generally sets in which rookie cards are from the mid-'70s on, and the retirement year is '90s on). A couple of key previous threads on this topic are linked below, there are probably others that I missed in the search I did:
Basic Inclusion #1
Basic Inclusion #2
One thing mentioned in these, the Trammell basic set discussions, and doubtless other places as well is that despite the composition of many basic player sets being far more inclusive a relatively popular place to draw a line in the sand between basic and master is to restrict "basic" to only sets where the brand name matches that of a major manufacturer--Topps, Donruss, Fleer, Score, and Upper Deck only. Another popular place to draw the line is to include any non-insert, non-subset card from a mainstream set offering by one of these companies. There are no doubt many shades of gray in this second camp, but in practice the browsing of sets compositions I've done point to erring on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion in most cases.
Given that, my question is this: is there sufficient popularity for the "manufacturer-name only" delineation to warrant developing a player set type specifically for sets of that format? Call it a "Manufacturer Set" or call the more inclusive format "Extended Basic." Conceptually its similar to the Topps sets that exist for some players. It would appear to address the seemingly frequent complaint that current formats for modern player basic sets are too large. It's also as unambiguous of a definition as one can hope for.
Or do the cons outweigh the potential benefits? I find it easy to be concerned about there being too many different player set formats. It is potentially an unattractive format for today's young, active players where manufacturer-name cards may be of little to no importance to collectors relative. It may also not be conceptually different enough from a Topps set--unless there's a popular perception that the Topps set is "too restrictive."
I'm curious to see what people think.
Peter G.
Basic Inclusion #1
Basic Inclusion #2
One thing mentioned in these, the Trammell basic set discussions, and doubtless other places as well is that despite the composition of many basic player sets being far more inclusive a relatively popular place to draw a line in the sand between basic and master is to restrict "basic" to only sets where the brand name matches that of a major manufacturer--Topps, Donruss, Fleer, Score, and Upper Deck only. Another popular place to draw the line is to include any non-insert, non-subset card from a mainstream set offering by one of these companies. There are no doubt many shades of gray in this second camp, but in practice the browsing of sets compositions I've done point to erring on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion in most cases.
Given that, my question is this: is there sufficient popularity for the "manufacturer-name only" delineation to warrant developing a player set type specifically for sets of that format? Call it a "Manufacturer Set" or call the more inclusive format "Extended Basic." Conceptually its similar to the Topps sets that exist for some players. It would appear to address the seemingly frequent complaint that current formats for modern player basic sets are too large. It's also as unambiguous of a definition as one can hope for.
Or do the cons outweigh the potential benefits? I find it easy to be concerned about there being too many different player set formats. It is potentially an unattractive format for today's young, active players where manufacturer-name cards may be of little to no importance to collectors relative. It may also not be conceptually different enough from a Topps set--unless there's a popular perception that the Topps set is "too restrictive."
I'm curious to see what people think.
Peter G.
Always looking for PSA 9 or better Alan Trammell basic set cards. Visit my Trammell card web site at "www.trammellcards.com"
0