Large sets vs small sets

calleocho

what do you guys think of the future prices/demand/supply relationships between these two types of sets.

I recently decided to build a 1934-36 diamond stars set and it got me wondering about how the set size influences all other issues.

Given the soft prices for many 60's sets, could it be since the sets are so large collectors give up more frequently?

I know a lot of the softening has to do with escalating pops, but does the idea of building a 700+ card set affect as well?

a small set could be more expensive per card, $50 per card while a large set might be $10 per card, but in a 100 card set it only takes 50 bucks to complete 1% instead of $70 dollars to complete 1% in a large set. So it its actually cheaper to build a small set in many instances.

there is also storage, it could get tricky to display large sets or actually just storage them at all.

on the other hand small sets could get expensive in a per card ration making entry difficult, a lot of people might get turn off at the idea of paying $100 per card. Even though they might spend a $100 a week anyways.

what do you guys see for the future?

will small sets become more popular? Its there enough material out there to keep the cost per card down enough so that it allows people to begin the set? Will large topps sets seee a rebound if prices drop enough that a lot of people jump in?

also, if anyone has some PSA 3-6 diamond stars outhere give me a PM, i just started collecting the set and i would love to hear from any collectors who have some knowledge on the set.

Buccaneer

Excellent questions. I hope you get some discussions on this.

kingraider75

Well most of the smaller sets are also considerably older than the 1960's. The under 200ct sets from the 30's and 40's are always going to be very highly collectible. They feature major stars, and they are really old cards. I guess tobacco cards are older, but that's beyond the realm of my knowledge.

My thought is that the larger 1960's complete set prices are extremely undervalued. If you take your example of a $700 set with 700 cards, I think the breakdown would be closer to $1200 maybe more. The problem is that a lot of people only collect stars, or team sets. Those people probably drive the prices up on those cards. The complete set people still have to compete for those same cards, while obtaining other commons from the set. This is my thought as to why the breakdown is so off on many years.

The only example I know quite well is the 1955 Topps All american football set. It has a 100 cards, pretty popular set, but the breakdown is about $5600, and top book is $5600.

I would think that as far as collecting goes, that both smaller and larger sets would remain constant in popularity. They are usually from different era's and could cater to different collecting interests in the hobby.

calleocho

There are a few 60's sets that are quite small,

1964 topps stand up, 1969 topps super.

another thing about small sets is that if you ever decide to sell, its a lot easier to list 100 cards than 700.

WinPitcher

Does size even matter?

helionaut

I think the larger, comprehensive sets will always be the most popular. I mean, could you imagine 1963 Fleer ever being more popular than 1963 Topps? That's not to say that some small don't have devout, extremely competitive builders (hello 1971 Greatest Moments), and there are a lot of reasons to like small sets (relative ease and affordability of completion being the main ones). But for overall appeal including checklist and hobby gravitas, the big Topps and Bowman sets, Goudeys, and T-206/205 will always rule.

jaxxr

Good question, interesting points made. I never really thought of the "display" problems with bigger sets, but it is a true factor to consider.

Since 1957, when the now "standard-size" 2.5 by 3.5 format began, every major Topps set had 407 or more ( usually much more ) cards in its full set. There were 400 players in the majors at that time, Major set size kept up well with expansion, so since 57 all regular Topps issues, in baseball at least, were very comprehensive.

The 1953 Bowman color set had only 160 cards, the 1955 Topps set had only 206 cards, both had many players left out and were certainly not comprehensive, but are very popular and pretty costly as well.

Most of us have some limit or end of spending level for our collections. We probably try to match our resources with our desires.
So we must choose what we like or want to have most.

What would you rather have, a complete 1964 Topps Giant set 60 cards mostly stars, or a complete 1964 Topps regular set 587 cards ??
What if the Giant set was graded, all nice 8s and 9s, and the regular set raw in about vg shape ?

I change my mind often, it is a tough choice.

WinPitcher

I want both