Opinions Wanted - Player Master/Super Set Collectors
LarkinCollector
Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭✭✭
Whether they're on the registry or not, how far do you go down the rabbit hole:
Do you collect team cards of the sets as well (i.e. for a Pete Rose Master, 1963 #63, 1964 #403, etc.)?
Do you collect the checklists that include the players name/card #?
Do you collect other players cards that include your player involved in an action shot with the featured player (i.e. 1971 Topps #511 Chris Short w/Pete Rose leading off in the background)?
Just looking to get some opinions of how obsessive the average player collector is.
Do you collect team cards of the sets as well (i.e. for a Pete Rose Master, 1963 #63, 1964 #403, etc.)?
Do you collect the checklists that include the players name/card #?
Do you collect other players cards that include your player involved in an action shot with the featured player (i.e. 1971 Topps #511 Chris Short w/Pete Rose leading off in the background)?
Just looking to get some opinions of how obsessive the average player collector is.
0
Comments
Does a Yaz collector need all of these ?
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
<< <i>What about recurring print defects in a players card that are not actual variations ? >>
I personally do, not sure about others, but then again for my modern PCs I'll do blank back/front, undocumented proofs, and other oddball print errors as well.
<< <i>Does a Yaz collector need all of these ? >>
If I were a Yaz collector, yes.
<< <i>I wouldn't bother with the checklists unless it incl the player's photo, like my '68 yaz checklist. >>
That's been my general thought as well.
<< <i>I wouldn't bother with other players' cards that show my player either. >>
What if, as in the case of the 1971 Chris Short example, Beckett catalogs it with your players name included, but there is no mention on the card?
1971 Topps #511 Chris Short/Pete Rose leading off second
<< <i>Undecided on the the team photo cards. But this is all just me, and I'm not the super collector that some of these guys are. >>
I haven't delved too deep into those yet either. They're not targeted purchases, but when I come across them in my spare room mess of cards, I set them aside to consider. I'd kind of like a run of the Reds team cards from 1963-2004 anyway (whichever years Topps did them in that range), but am unsure whether I should put them with my Rose/Larkin PCs or consider it a separate run.
<< <i>Whether they're on the registry or not, how far do you go down the rabbit hole:
Do you collect team cards of the sets as well (i.e. for a Pete Rose Master, 1963 #63, 1964 #403, etc.)?
Do you collect the checklists that include the players name/card #?
Do you collect other players cards that include your player involved in an action shot with the featured player (i.e. 1971 Topps #511 Chris Short w/Pete Rose leading off in the background)?
Just looking to get some opinions of how obsessive the average player collector is. >>
Yes to Team cards.
No to Checklists
Yes to cards of other players that happen to have my guy on it.
Joe
<< <i>Does a Yaz collector need all of these ? >>
If I were a Yaz collector, yes. >>
I am a set collector and Topps oddball collector, so I try for any and every card of every player put out by Topps ( Fleer to some extent as well).
The actual 69 Deckle set did include the Yastremski, but none of the other 8 players on these protoptype sheets are in the set. If I was a Yaz master collector I would certainly need his 69 Deckle card. Whether I would need all 3 of the unissued prototypes ( red, blue and black autos) seemed to be the question you were raising. I would guess different collectors would have different answers. Since I collect unissued as well as issued Topps "sets" they would be on my list as well
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
<< <i>
<< <i>Does a Yaz collector need all of these ? >>
If I were a Yaz collector, yes. >>
I am a set collector and Topps oddball collector, so I try for any and every card of every player put out by Topps ( Fleer to some extent as well).
The actual 69 Deckle set did include the Yastremski, but none of the other 8 players on these protoptype sheets are in the set. If I was a Yaz master collector I would certainly need his 69 Deckle card. Whether I would need all 3 of the unissued prototypes ( red, blue and black autos) seemed to be the question you were raising. I would guess different collectors would have different answers. Since I collect unissued as well as issued Topps "sets" they would be on my list as well >>
The red, blue, and black autos on those prototypes may be the original 'parallel' card. It would have been sweet if they'd issued all 3 and each a must have for my Rose collection.
<< <i>
<< <i>Does a Yaz collector need all of these ? >>
If I were a Yaz collector, yes. >>
I am a set collector and Topps oddball collector, so I try for any and every card of every player put out by Topps ( Fleer to some extent as well).
The actual 69 Deckle set did include the Yastremski, but none of the other 8 players on these protoptype sheets are in the set. If I was a Yaz master collector I would certainly need his 69 Deckle card. Whether I would need all 3 of the unissued prototypes ( red, blue and black autos) seemed to be the question you were raising. I would guess different collectors would have different answers. Since I collect unissued as well as issued Topps "sets" they would be on my list as well >>
I have the regular 69 deckle already. I would like to add the prototypes but, like the team cards, they're not a priority for me. And I don't claim to be a master collector..... Yet
I think it would be a good idea for the set registry to expand to include a new category of sets. Basic, Master (career), and a new one that includes all items during career as well as issued after retirement. All the sets on the Misc. and Non-Sport include post-career issues, so there is a nomenclature problem that exists, in that the term Master Set is not consistent between the big-4 sports' sets vs. the Misc. & Non ones. So, no matter which of the 2 different types retains the name 'Master', there would still be a need for another name. You'd get complaints from some Master participants if you opened their sets up to post-retirement, but also there would be plenty who would welcome the additions too, which is another reason why a 3rd/new category would be necessary rather than just an expansion.
<< <i>I think it would be a good idea for the set registry to expand to include a new category of sets. Basic, Master (career), and a new one that includes all items during career as well as issued after retirement. All the sets on the Misc. and Non-Sport include post-career issues, so there is a nomenclature problem that exists, in that the term Master Set is not consistent between the big-4 sports' sets vs. the Misc. & Non ones. So, no matter which of the 2 different types retains the name 'Master', there would still be a need for another name. You'd get complaints from some Master participants if you opened their sets up to post-retirement, but also there would be plenty who would welcome the additions too, which is another reason why a 3rd/new category would be necessary rather than just an expansion. >>
they can go ahead and do that, more than likely they will. but i won't do the favre post-career set. way to many cards in his career alone. in fact i think that i might have the largest single PSA registry that is out theren (my Favre master set), not counting the combined Topps runs and things like that. but since i am not at 100% it gets no love.
Favre Master Set
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>
<< <i>I think it would be a good idea for the set registry to expand to include a new category of sets. Basic, Master (career), and a new one that includes all items during career as well as issued after retirement. All the sets on the Misc. and Non-Sport include post-career issues, so there is a nomenclature problem that exists, in that the term Master Set is not consistent between the big-4 sports' sets vs. the Misc. & Non ones. So, no matter which of the 2 different types retains the name 'Master', there would still be a need for another name. You'd get complaints from some Master participants if you opened their sets up to post-retirement, but also there would be plenty who would welcome the additions too, which is another reason why a 3rd/new category would be necessary rather than just an expansion. >>
they can go ahead and do that, more than likely they will. but i won't do the favre post-career set. way to many cards in his career alone. in fact i think that i might have the largest single PSA registry that is out theren (my Favre master set), not counting the combined Topps runs and things like that. but since i am not at 100% it gets no love.
Favre Master Set >>
Nice Favre set. It is certainly in the discussion for one of the larger player sets out there, though I think the leader on the Gretzky master set has a substantial lead. Jordan leader probably does too, though his percentage isn't as high as yours.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think it would be a good idea for the set registry to expand to include a new category of sets. Basic, Master (career), and a new one that includes all items during career as well as issued after retirement. All the sets on the Misc. and Non-Sport include post-career issues, so there is a nomenclature problem that exists, in that the term Master Set is not consistent between the big-4 sports' sets vs. the Misc. & Non ones. So, no matter which of the 2 different types retains the name 'Master', there would still be a need for another name. You'd get complaints from some Master participants if you opened their sets up to post-retirement, but also there would be plenty who would welcome the additions too, which is another reason why a 3rd/new category would be necessary rather than just an expansion. >>
they can go ahead and do that, more than likely they will. but i won't do the favre post-career set. way to many cards in his career alone. in fact i think that i might have the largest single PSA registry that is out theren (my Favre master set), not counting the combined Topps runs and things like that. but since i am not at 100% it gets no love.
Favre Master Set >>
Nice Favre set. It is certainly in the discussion for one of the larger player sets out there, though I think the leader on the Gretzky master set has a substantial lead. Jordan leader probably does too, though his percentage isn't as high as yours. >>
depends on what you mean by lead.
% wise
Gretzky set is 89.4%
Favre set is 77.74%
Jordan set is 60.2%
total cards listed in set
Gretzky ~1930 of 2160
Favre ~4057 of 5219
Jordan ~2375 of 3945
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Wow, good data and great work on the accumulation. All I did was scroll through and try to estimate the totals but I sure guessed the Gretzky's as having more than that. So no then, I would not say he is in the lead compared to yours.
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
<< <i>I will collect any card that has the player's picture in it, including team cards, error cards, color tint variations, back variations, that were issued during his playing days. However, I wouldn't collect a card like checklists, just because the player's name was on the card. Not sure about the player being in the background for another player's card, or non-team cards where the player is just a dot that you can barely even recognize. >>
I agree with all of that. As a Yaz collector, I have a question: in 1968 topps, the backs of a bunch of cards combined to show a portrait of yaz. Would you collect those other players' cards, since they each have a small part of Yaz's photo on the back?
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
If it has Lou Brock on it, I want it.
Miscuts, regional issues, print errors.
I don't care about a checklist with just his name, but if it would picture him, I would want it.
With the posts about collecting it "all", I'm still assuming that things like the now infamous Nolan Ryan slabbed newspaper clipping would be shunned or at the very least left to the "optional" category at the bottom of the compositions in red. Personally, for a master set I like all issues that include obscure foreign items and domestic odd-balls, as long as they were actual cards, picture-pack team issue, stickers, perforated magazine cards, etc., but not photos that were cut from a publication where they were not intended to be an actual stand-alone collectable. I understand that others differ in that opinion as evidenced by the fact that there was an actual sales market for the Ryan, though I think most agree that that is where the line should be drawn. I'd much rather include an actual top brand issue card that is from after a player's retirement than a news clipping that was from during their playing years.
<< <i>With the posts about collecting it "all", I'm still assuming that things like the now infamous Nolan Ryan slabbed newspaper clipping would be shunned or at the very least left to the "optional" category at the bottom of the compositions in red. Personally, for a master set I like all issues that include obscure foreign items and domestic odd-balls, as long as they were actual cards, picture-pack team issue, stickers, perforated magazine cards, etc., but not photos that were cut from a publication where they were not intended to be an actual stand-alone collectable. I understand that others differ in that opinion as evidenced by the fact that there was an actual sales market for the Ryan, though I think most agree that that is where the line should be drawn. I'd much rather include an actual top brand issue card that is from after a player's retirement than a news clipping that was from during their playing years. >>
agreed.
I love this thread. You guys have inspired me to collect all the '68 All Star cards with backs that form the Yaz puzzle. Already have 3. Bishop, I'm really interested to learn about those other puzzle backs you showed.
<< <i>Bishop, what are those? They're not the 68's I was talking about. >>
Dan---it is from the backs of IA cards in 1972. I have the 68 set but did not have a scan of the Yaz from that year
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
<< <i>Dan---it is from the backs of IA cards in 1972. I have the 68 set but did not have a scan of the Yaz from that year >>
Thanks for the tip. Added those to the list. Don't have any of them, which explains why I wasn't aware of this one. I'd been aware that there was a '68 puzzle.
Bishop, are you a yaz collector, of these were just all in your collection?
I suppose this thread has become more appropriate for the Registry forum rather than the Sports Cards & Mem forum, but oh well.
Something I've wondered about master sets is how generally speaking, team cards usually qualify for inclusion on a player's master set. When a composition is created from a set request, the team cards are for some reason not included on the automatic list, and need to be requested for inclusion on a case-by-case basis by a participant who wishes to add it to his set. I'm surprised how extremely low a percentage of the team cards are actually on most compositions, considering that most of them are eligible.
First question is why aren't they automatically on the list when a master set is generated if they are major-brand issue and eligible?
Second question would be, is it more common for people participating in a master set to want to include them, or is it instead more common for people to be just as happy that they don't have to bother track down those cards and for them to be frustrated that once one person decides to add one to his set that it in turn means that now they have to do it too?
Checklists, No (unless photo of pc as noted)
Other player cards with PC (I don't chase them, but I wouldn't toss them or count them).
I tend to buy about 70%-80% cards I already have for my Gonzalez PC.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>I think it would be a good idea for the set registry to expand to include a new category of sets. Basic, Master (career), and a new one that includes all items during career as well as issued after retirement. All the sets on the Misc. and Non-Sport include post-career issues, so there is a nomenclature problem that exists, in that the term Master Set is not consistent between the big-4 sports' sets vs. the Misc. & Non ones. So, no matter which of the 2 different types retains the name 'Master', there would still be a need for another name. You'd get complaints from some Master participants if you opened their sets up to post-retirement, but also there would be plenty who would welcome the additions too, which is another reason why a 3rd/new category would be necessary rather than just an expansion. >>
Most of the requirements were voted on at one point in time or another. I however don't think we should have voted, but had set guidelines on what a basic card is. Like voting declared Sportflics was not a basic card in football (although I think it is in baseball) even though it was sold from every hobby shop, walmart, and most gas stations (around here). Not sure how the commons are not basic cards....but thats my opinion.
I do like your Super Master set ideal or whatever it might be called.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Second question would be, is it more common for people participating in a master set to want to include them, or is it instead more common for people to be just as happy that they don't have to bother track down those cards and for them to be frustrated that once one person decides to add one to his set that it in turn means that now they have to do it too? >>
I'm not a registry set collector (yet) but my attitude is that the team cards will either come to me, or I don't have them. I have the ones I have and not going to put the energy into chasing the others.
<< <i>
<< <i>Second question would be, is it more common for people participating in a master set to want to include them, or is it instead more common for people to be just as happy that they don't have to bother track down those cards and for them to be frustrated that once one person decides to add one to his set that it in turn means that now they have to do it too? >>
I'm not a registry set collector (yet) but my attitude is that the team cards will either come to me, or I don't have them. I have the ones I have and not going to put the energy into chasing the others. >>
Be careful what you enter into, "The Registry is a Powerful Drug."