PSA Sampler Set redux

Buccaneer · October 25, 2004 9:04AM

Recently, I mentioned that I was interested in building a "type" set. Griffins had these replies

<< <i>BTW, the "ultimate" psa type set is seriously flawed. It has N29's, but not N28's, some years of certian issues but not others. >>

<< <i>Actually PSA has graded many more issues than are on the "ultimate" set. I sent BJ an email about it, as did Con40 but she said she'd have to check with the person that requested the set, and apparentely he said no changes.
Mastro's current collector auction has got a whole bunch of nice 19th century cards- Hess's and Yum Yum's and N43's, among others. >>

I understand the issue with the registered PSA Sampler Set because of my first three purchases, one of them is not in the set - an 1887 Buchner Gold Coin (N284). So if the originator of set wants to be selective and BJ can't do anything about it, is the solution to come up with another (more complete) version of a PSA Sample Set? If so, has anyone compiled such a list?

bobsbbcards · October 25, 2004 9:31AM

How ridiculous is it that the originator of a set has the ultimate say about its contents? If I had originated, for instance, the Joe Charboneau Master Set, could I arbitrarily decide that it would be comprised of only Fleer cards? I hope not.

I might start a set called "Cards That Bob Owns". Since nobody else owns the exact cards that I own, then I guess I'll get one of them purty registry certificates (as long as I own 65% or more of the cards I own).

If a set is placed on the registry for more than one person to become a participant in, then there needs to be an objective method of determining the makeup of that set.

Bob

Griffins · October 25, 2004 9:32AM

I started compiling a list, but put it aside when I got busy. If anyone else is interested on working on it/providing feedback pm me and I'll get it going again. I think such a list should be a collaborative effort since there are many different opinions of what makes up a type set- e.g.
Do you have 1 card of an issue, or 1 card per year of an issue (52-'55 Redman, or just Redman)
Do you have variations? (E94, or E94 with each overprint? T206, or T206 Uzit, Polar Bear, etc, even if PSA doesn't designate them as such?)
Due to the enormity of it, should it be a Pre WW1 type set, Vintage (pre WW2), Modern Era ('48-75ish) and ultra modern, or just one massive set?

BTW, probably the greatest type set in existance is Leon Luckey's on the SGC registry- all with scans. If you haven't checked it out it is very cool.

bobsbbcards · October 25, 2004 9:39AM

Anthony,

I would lean toward having such a set match the index in SCD's Standard Catalog (i.e., one card from each listing in the index; therefore, 52 Redman, 53 Redman, 54 Redman, etc.) No variations unless they get a totally separate entry in the book (new heading, new picture, new complete set price, new common price, and new numbering).

I think you're right about the enormity of such a set. It would probably make sense to break it down by period (19th century, pre WWII, pre 1981). That said, someone will surely combine them into an all inclusive type set (a master type set).

Bob

Buccaneer · October 25, 2004 10:02AM

I can appreciate the enormity (sp?) of it since right off the bat, it's hard to even come up the major headings. Personally, I prefer pre-WW1 (1869-1916), Vintage (1921-1972), Modern (1973-present).

NickM · October 25, 2004 10:33AM

I side with Buccaneer and bobsbbcards on this. Excluding a set because someone at the top of the registry doesn't want it in there makes a joke out of the process.

Nick

Ullr · October 25, 2004 10:49AM

"as long as I own 65% or more of the cards I own."

Thanks Bob, that comment made my day.

I'm slowly putting together a Red Sox type set. Its the most fun of any of my sets.

Buccaneer · October 29, 2004 6:58AM

Finally found this list (there's also an excel version). If someone can just take this and make it baseball-only, we would have it.

ACC List (text version)

Buccaneer · October 30, 2004 7:44AM

I have been doing a lot of thinking on this. I have come to the conclusion that regardless of how one comes up with an "ultimate" list, it will have to be selective. As I was going through this list with SCD and Cycleback, there are many, many "sets" that one can argue to be included or not. Just in the decades around 1900, there are cardboards with baseball players on them that may or may not be considered baseball "cards". Also, what about the strictly local or regional "cards"? Minor leaguers? Sets that there are no PSA versions? What did it for me personally was some of the really obscure sets that are in the ACC that would cost many, many thousands - if you can obtain one. How realistic would it be add cards such as those, esp. when there are no PSA versions known? Okay, so you choose not to include those for practical reasons - where then do you draw the line? As much as I think the collector was being too choosey in coming up with a bogusly-named "Ultimate PSA Sampler Set" (where is something as common and inexpensive as the N284 cards???), it may be adequate and a good place to start.

calleocho · October 30, 2004 8:09AM

I always thought type sets were pretty cool. Especially when its well displayed.

it would be a monumental and almost futile attempt to have one of each card ever made.

But ...maybe a type set with some kind of focus.

pre war, post war, topps etc.

even though i love the appeal of a whole complete set...i love seeing how styles change through the years.

Good luck with your set.

Griffins · October 30, 2004 8:32AM

OK, lets throw this one out there and see who likes it...

Separate Type sets into 4 different eras
Dead Ball (pre 1920)
Pre War (1920-1941)
Modern Era (1947- 1973, cut off at '73 because that was the last year of Topps issuing cards in series)
Current Era (1974 on)
Maybe even a regional type set (Obaks, Wilson Franks, Peters Meats, Zeenuts, Red Hearts, Glendales, etc)

Each group would consist of 1 entry for each set PSA has listed on the "company" section of the set registry. When a new set gets added to that section a card would get added to the corresponding type set. This would elimanate really odd ball items like Allegheny's, Western Playgrounds, etc CdV's, etc.
I realize this takes a lot of the toughness out of building a type set, and think this part of it would be the part that would really need discussion. Personally I don't think it should be so easy to complete any given set, but realize that others do.

Here's how the dead ball set would line up-

1887 Allen & Ginter (N28)
1887-1890 N172 Old Judge
1888 Allen & Ginter (N29)
1888 Goodwin Champions (N162)
1888 WG1 Base Ball Playing Cards
1889 E.R. Williams Card Game
1895 Mayo Cut Plug (N300)
1904 Fan Craze American League
1906 Fan Craze National League
1908 American Caramel (E91) Set A
1908 E102 Set of 25
1909 American Caramel (E90-1)
1909 American Caramel (E91) Set B
1909 Crofts Candy (E92)
1909 Dockman & Sons Gum (E92)
1909 E101 Set of 50
1909 Nadja Caramels (E92)
1909 Philadelphia Caramel (E95)
1909 Ramly Cigarettes (T204)
1909-10 C.A. Briggs Co. (E97)
1909-11 T206 White Border
1910 American Caramel (E91) Set C
1910 American Caramel Pirates (E90-2)
1910 American Caramel White Sox/Cubs (E90-3)
1910 Contentnea First Series (T209)
1910 E98 Set of 30
1910 Mello Mint (E105)
1910 Obak (T212)
1910 Philadelphia Caramel (E96)
1910 Standard Caramel (E93)
1910 Williams Caramels (E103)
1910-11 Sporting Life (M116)
1910-12 Sweet Caporal Pins P2
1911 E94 Close Candy
1911 T201 Mecca Double Folder
1911 T205 Gold Border
1911 T3 Turkey Red Cabinets
1911 Williams Baking (D359)
1911-14 Brunners Bread (D304)
1912 C46
1912 Plows Candy (E300)
1912 T202 Hassan Triple Folders
1912 T207 Brown Background -
1913 Napoleon Lajoie Card Game
1913 National Game
1913 T200 Fatima Team Cards
1913 Tom Barker Game
1914 Coupon Cigarettes Type 2 (T213)
1914 Cracker Jack
1914 Polo Grounds Game
1914 T216 Peoples Tobacco Company
1915 Cracker Jack
1916 Sporting News (M101-4)
1916 Tango Eggs

Off the top of my head I'd add in N43's, Buchner Gold Coins, and Kimballs to the list above.
Thoughts, flames, agreements?

calleocho · October 30, 2004 8:55AM

how about international cards?

NickM · October 30, 2004 2:28PM

Some collectors might not want minor league cards (such as Obaks and C46) included in a type set, because those are not of major league players.
From one standpoint, even N28 and N29 should not be included, because those are multi-sport sets, as is 1933 Goudey Sport Kings. At some level, most of us would reject that sort of "purist" approach (especially if sets such as 1932 U.S. Caramel were left out), but there is also a point where a set has too little to do with baseball to include (1954 Topps Scoops, perhaps).

I'll take a more wide-open approach - if a set is listed in either comprehensive price guide (SCD or Beckett Almanac), I'd include it.

As far as breaking down by era, I would reset it in the following fashion:
pre-1932
1932-1947
1948-1980
1981-present

I see the starting years as the first years of major hobby transitions - 1932 marked the beginning of candy/gum cards rather than tobacco cards as the dominant mode of distribution; 1948 marked the beginning of the modern gum card in nationally distributed sets; and 1981 marked the return to national competition for comprehensive sets.

Nick

Buccaneer · October 30, 2004 11:48PM

Hmmm.... I agree with Nick about the minor league cards, so that eliminates many older and newer issues. However, I would differ on not excluding sets that are not all baseball. Perhaps we can follow the same rule as Master Player Sets - any sets that have at least one card of a major leaguer issues during his career.

I see where Griff got his list but there would no control in it. Just because someone wants to get an obscure card in a PSA holder (and perhaps become the first and only of its kind), it shouldn't automatically become part of the type set. There are already a few like that.

Buccaneer · November 5, 2004 9:23AM

Ok, I think I have come up with something. My goal is to have a displyable "type" set that reflects the different types of cards and has a selective criteria that is quantifiable. The problem with the "Company" list is that the only criteria is the set has at least one card graded by PSA. The "Ultimate" list doesn't make sense as to why certain sets are included or not included. Here is what I came up...

Vintage PSA Big League Type Set

Criteria:
1. Must have at least one card graded (or soon to be graded) by PSA (no N403 yet, thankfully)
2. Must include Big League players (this eliminates the minor and semi-pro leagues sets like T212)
3. Must have been produced in 1972 or earlier
4. Must include "true" cards - those with 4 sides (this eliminates discs and round cards)
5. Must not have an identical obverse to others cards

This #5 criteria is a key eliminator and perhaps the most controversal. To me, a displayable type set must not have any cards that you cannot tell what type it is by looking at the front. Any card sets where the only difference is what is on the reverse side would be combined into one type (I chose E92). This eliminates most of the early Caramel (E91,E95,E96, etc) and some Tobacco cards, as well as team subsets of a larger issue (E90-2). When going through the SCD, I ran across phrases like "almost identical in design to the ____ set" or "closely related to other candy sets" or "can be identified by the backs".

6. No Exhibit or Cabinet cards

This was a hard one but necessary because there have been quite a few exhibit or cabinet cards produced in the 1800s and early 1900s (T3 being the most popular) but if I were to include T3, I would have to include all of the others (if or when they get slabbed). Popularity by itself is not nor should not be a criteria.

With that, this is the list I have come up with so far (I've only researched up to 1928):

1887 Allen & Ginter (N28)
1887 Buchner Gold Coint (N284)
1887-1890 N172 Old Judge
1888 Allen & Ginter (N29)
1888 Goodwin Champions (N162)
1888 WG1 Base Ball Playing Cards
1889 E.R. Williams Card Game
1895 Mayo Cut Plug (N300)
1904 Fan Craze American League
1906 Fan Craze National League
1908 American Caramel (E91) Set A
1909 American Caramel (E90-1)
1909 Nadja Caramels (E92)
1909 Ramly Cigarettes (T204)
1909-11 T206 White Border
1910 Williams Caramels (E103)
1910-11 Sporting Life (M116)
1911 T201 Mecca Double Folder
1911 T205 Gold Border
1911 Williams Baking (D359)
1911-14 Brunners Bread (D304)
1912 T202 Hassan Triple Folders
1912 T207 Brown Background - Basic
1913 National Game
1913 T200 Fatima Team Cards
1914 Cracker Jack
1914 Polo Grounds Game
1916 Sporting News (M101-4)
1921 American Caramel Series of 80 (E121)
1927 Honey Boy
1927 York Caramels Type 1 (E210)
1928 Fro-joy Babe Ruth

Any comments, flames, corrections, inconsistencies, etc.?

NickM · November 5, 2004 2:14PM

I wasn't committing to not including minor league sets - just pointing out that some people don't collect them.
As far as excluding cards where several sets share the same front, "any of the following" should be the type eligible; otherwise you have a situation where people would ahve to decide which of those sets would be the designated representative.

I see no reason why there can't be several distinct varieties of vintage sampler set.

Nick

calleocho · November 5, 2004 2:32PM

the criteria makes sense...however collecting this set in low grade is not impossible, if collected in low grades and with some luck you might actually have a pretty good chance of completion within a year or so.

it would make a heck of a display piece and a good all round type set.

but it lacks challenge...unless you try to find high grade examples.

NickM · November 6, 2004 4:51AM

Collecting any set should not be impossible - unless you're talking about something like 1961 Topps Dice Game.

Even in low grade, some of these cards are quite rare and expensive (1895 Mayo, Honey Boy, Brunner's Bread, Williams Baking, etc.). There will be a competition for any gradeable examples of these cards - it's not like T-206, where commons can be found for a few dollars apiece in low-grade lots.

I consider this set to be one of the most challenging to complete (excepting sets like Old Judge, Tango Eggs, etc., where there are sometimes only a few known of a particular card) in any grade.

Nick

Buccaneer · November 6, 2004 5:01AM

<< <i>Collecting any set should not be impossible - unless you're talking about something like 1961 Topps Dice Game.

Even in low grade, some of these cards are quite rare and expensive (1895 Mayo, Honey Boy, Brunner's Bread, Williams Baking, etc.). There will be a competition for any gradeable examples of these cards - it's not like T-206, where commons can be found for a few dollars apiece in low-grade lots.

I consider this set to be one of the most challenging to complete (excepting sets like Old Judge, Tango Eggs, etc., where there are sometimes only a few known of a particular card) in any grade.

Nick >>

I agree that even my selective list will be very challenging. I have been following 4 auctions in the past month: eBay, Robert Edwards, 19thCenturyOnly and Mile High and none of the cards you listed as quite rare were even available. But even knowing that, they did fit the criteria for inclusion into the set.

I'll have the 1928-1950s list up soon.

PSA Sampler Set redux

Comments