at any rate, i had three ideas as to how i would approach this. the first was card number 272. 272 is the number of career home runs hit by steve garvey. i dismissed that pretty quickly as i figured it would net me a bunch of commons which wouldn't be that interesting to see grouped together, even though it would allow me to include sets dating back to 1952 (other than 1954 and 1955) without getting in to the high number set.
the next idea was card number 350. i chose this number because garvey's 1978 topps card is number 350
in that set. this is a hero number, and would mean that i would be looking for a couple of mickey mantle cards, plus roberto clemente and other big name players along with some stars of their day, and some other variety with a playoff recap card or two from the early 2000's. this approach would mean that the collection would start with the 1957 set.
the third idea was card number 190. this is garvey's card number in the 1978 o-pee-chee set,
and would mean that i would have a different card (specifically john candelaria's) representing the 1978 topps set in this collection. this is a semi-star number, although there would still be a willie mays card to track down, and there would be a little variety with a 1975 topps mvp card. plus, all flagship sets would be represented. the down side is that there would be some commons thrown in as well.
i suppose the fourth option would be to discard the idea and not bother with another mini-collection.
i am curious if anyone has considered such a collection recently or in the past? i guess i am also curious as to which of the three options - 190, 350, or just call it good - that you would choose if you were in my shoes. i already know what i am going to do, but i am interested in hearing your opinions!
I thought about doing a #717 collection for my birthday at some point in the past, but realized fairly quickly that it would be pretty limited, and would be made up of names that I don't care about. Needless to say, the idea didn't stick around very long.
ReplyDeletethanks jon. the number would make all the difference.
DeleteI've never done a mini-collection like this, but I'd be inclined to pick #190. I'm thinking you'd get a lot more variety in the players represented, minor names and stars all thrown together.
ReplyDeletethanks nick. i will admit that i haven't looked at the full run of 190, but i like that it would start with 1952.
DeleteThis would definitely be interesting, and possibly challenging. I'd go with 350!
ReplyDeletethanks kevin. that is certainly the more ambitious route!
DeleteAlthough I never thought about building a collection around a specific number, I did consider putting together a 9 pocket page of Topps baseball cards for card #482 (Rickey Henderson and Tony Gwynn's rookie card number). Just figured it'd be a cool blog post, but never actually grabbed any cards.
ReplyDeleteI'm with TDK. Go big or go home :D Just kidding. Collect whatever you wanna collect.
i didn't know that rickey and gwynn had the same card number for their rookies! i took a quick look and aside from a 1961 willie mays, there weren't really any other big names with that number, at least through the 80s.
Deletei totally agree with your last sentence - case in point, i had already decided what i wanted to do before posting this, but i appreciate the input!
I guess 6 is a natural possibility. Low enough, like 5, that you could include cards from pretty much ANY set ever made with a few exceptions of those 5 cards and under! I have enjoyed Spike's 5 concept, but have to admit that when it was a boring common, it got uninteresting rather quickly. I sent him a number of 5's back in the day hoping to help out.
ReplyDeleteThat kind of colelcting is not for me, because ever since giving up card packs, I am not into random cards. I've learned that getting exactly what I want every time is the only way to go. All those junk commons I have gathered up over the years and essentially worthless. One good side to this is that if you save everything, every so often you can go back and find hidden gems that blossomed much later. Even that is getting very hard these days though.
well by definition these would be cards i want to collect and not random cards - similar to set collecting.
DeleteI gave thought to a 330 collection to represent by birthday, but I haven't committed to it. I say go for 350!
ReplyDelete330 might not be a bad number. my birthday would be nothing but commons i am guessing.
DeleteHow about Garvey's rookie card number? Nothing before his rookie year so your first card in the set is his rookie...then again you may have a bunch of commons.
ReplyDeletei hadn't thought about 341, but after your suggestion and fuji's note about rickey and gwynn having the same card number on their rookie cards i might see who else would be in this collection.
Delete