-
Do You Collect the Player… or the Card?
Do you collect the player… or the card?
I’ve been thinking about this lately. If you had to choose between an ugly or boring card of your favorite player and an absolutely beautiful card of a player you don’t collect, which one are you taking?
I think my answer depends on the card. 😂 Sometimes the design, photo, color match or artwork just hits so well that I don’t care who is on it.
Curious where everyone else falls on this. Are you collecting the player first, or the card itself?
-
13 Replies
-
Player. Player player player.
If I throw open it to cool cards it becomes unmanagable and has no (or not enough) guardrails for spending amounts.
-
That makes total sense 😂. “Cool card” is basically the collecting equivalent of leaving the front door wide open and hoping the wallet behaves itself.
Having the player as the guardrail gives you a reason to pass on the random shiny stuff, even when it’s tempting. Although I’m guessing there are still a few cards that manage to sneak through the defenses anyway. 😂
-
Oh yeah there are for sure stealth cool cards that slip by 😆
-
-
-
I collect the player. If its a cool card design thats just a bonus for sure!
-
That’s probably the healthiest way to collect . The player is the reason you’re buying it, and the cool design just makes the decision easier.
I’m trying to get better at that approach myself, because once I start buying cards simply because they look cool, the PC can get out of control pretty quickly.
-
-
honestly tha card/player for example downtowns are nice but u are actually seeking the player you like
-
Yeah exactly. Downtowns are a perfect example because the design can be incredible, but if it’s not a player you care about, it’s probably not making its way into the PC.
I think that’s where I’m trying to draw the line too. Find the player first, then let the cool cards within that player’s market fight for a spot. 😂
-
veryy trueee
-
-
Once in a blue moon I will pick up a card of a player I don’t really care about just to have a particular insert represented in my collection. For example, there is a good chance I won’t be able to afford a Jordan Net Assets, but I really wanted to own one to have in hand and be able to talk about with my friends, so I picked up a Joe Smith for a couple bucks, lol
-
😂 I actually love that approach. Sometimes you’re not collecting the player at all—you’re collecting the design, insert, or the experience of having that card in hand.<div>
</div><div>And honestly, a couple-dollar Joe Smith Net Assets is a much better way to represent the set than just admiring a Jordan from pictures and never getting to actually see one in person. That’s a pretty good collecting strategy.</div>
-
-
-
i collect the player and then i have gotten cards just cause i love the look of it and the uniqueness of it.
-
Both. I have my PC players that I want almost anything I can get my hands on. That would be Jordan, Frank Thomas, and pretty much anything Chicago bears. I also love iconic cards of iconic players. When the 2 meet, it becomes the pinnacle of joy in the hobby, imo. There was no one more iconic than Michael Jordan, and as a boy, no card more Iconic than the 1993 Ultra Scoring Kings. That is why that was my grail card once I got back into the hobby as an adult. Thankfully, I was able to pick one up at Nationals last year before they went insane
-
That’s the perfect example of when collecting really becomes personal. The player matters, the card matters, and then there’s the nostalgia attached to it from when you were a kid.The 1993 Ultra Scoring Kings is such a great grail choice too. When you can finally put your hands on the card that you remember being iconic as a kid, I imagine that hits completely differently than just buying an expensive card because it’s valuable and getting it at Nationals makes the story even better. That’s definitely a card I’d never want to move
-
Log in to reply.