2016 Decision 2016 Non-Sport Forum

This set has high numbers cards that are only in hobby packs.  

http://www.beckett.com/news/decision-2016-trading-cards-checklist/

First, I'm not familiar with all of the lingo so what does it mean that the cards are high numbers? Second, would these high number cards be considered an inset set?  The sell sheet indicates there are only 110 base cards so I dont think the high numbers cards would be included in that.

This is just another example of card companys trying to "create" scarcity within their sets to sell more product.  In the '50s, '60s, and early '70s, high-number baseball cards became scarce genuinely.  Sets were released in increments that extended beyond the baseball season, so many collectors had moved on to collecting cards from other sports.  In 1952, Topps dumped all of their high-number cards into the river because they weren't selling.  Eventually, Topps would learn to manufacture less of their higher number cards--hence the genuine scarcity.

Now, it's become sort of a fad for card companys to make short printed cards within their base sets.  Personally, I don't think a set is complete unless you have all of the base cards.  Card companys are hoping to prey on people with that mind set.  I'm still trying to find a way to complete the short-printed 2002 Topps Traded #1-110 cards.  Some people will psyche themselves into believing the short-printed cards aren't really part of the set so that they can sleep comfortably at night, but those missing cards will always be there haunting you.  

If a card is numbered the same as the base set, then I feel they are part of the set.  That was a tough pill to swallow in completing the 1972 Topps set, and is even tougher in trying to complete the 1966 and 1967 Topps sets.   

I agree with all of that. I'm struggling mightily to complete 1971 Topps baseball. It just hurts. And 1972 was a pain, but I did it. But as RTD87 says, at least there's a valid reason for the problem in those years. I loathe the purposeful short-printing. When I decided to add Gypsy Queen into my collection, I opted to ignore the short prints precisely because the scarcity is "artificially" created and that annoys me. RTD87 has basically said he couldn't do that. And I can see why. It's kind of killing me. But I'm trying to be strong....

On the flip side, at least the purposefully short-printed cards are usually of stars that might be worth tracking down. The high numbered cards of the 70's could be any old schmuck that you still have to pay ten bucks for. 

As with all things hobby, whatever works for you. Good luck. 

V3

 It's about time the "schmucks" got the love and respect that is so well deserved.

Yeah, as I was typing that, I felt a little guilty--I mean they're all professional baseball players. And I've gone on little rants about how they'd be almost completely forgotten if it weren't for idiots like me going through my old cards and remembering them. Every single player has probably had 30,000 people cheering for them at some point. I haven't had that. 

So I say "schmucks" with the utmost respect. I just wish they didn't cost so much....

I have kind of developed an interest in the Topps Heritage baseball, but find it maddening that the higher number are short prints. The players short printed are the stars of the game as well. It may be a short interest in Heritage.