What constitutes a world class collection?

[blissfulnoise]

I am normally opposed to esoteric sorts of questions like this, but as a collector (thus competitive), I'm curious as to what this board thinks it takes to have a world class collection of games (in the top 1000 collectors of said material(s) world wide).

I've looked at similar topics to this one (how many games do you own, what's your most rare game, how many systems, collecting milestones, and the like) but I haven't seen any thread answer this question out-right (assuming it's even answerable).

I've noticed that the big boys in this sport don't post their collection details (I can surmise why, and thus, it's probably wise that they don't) unless individual carts/discs come into play. As such, it's hard to form a benchmark of what makes a collection competitive vs the rest of the world. Additionally, this seems like the forum to pose a question like this. I've been a minor part of lots of other community boards, but this one seems to be frequented by all levels of the gaming community thus making it, in my opinion, the superior place to pose this sort of topic.

And yes, I do realize that collecting is about what your collection means to you. And I agree 100% with that; collect what makes you happy. Only want RPGs, go for it, only want to collect for the Colecovision, that's a great goal! But does a full set of VCS games automatically make it world class? How does a complete VCS collection stack up to a complete PSX collection? I don't know, that's why I'm asking this question. LOL

I realize that there are a lot of intangibles that make some collections 'stronger' or 'weaker' than others. Things such as one of a kinds, R9s and R10s that are virtually impossible to come by, padding with extremely cheap and/or common games, extremely expensive games (rare or no; like Suikoden II, PDS, Radiant Silvergun), prototypes, and the like; but given those scenarios, how many unique titles would you think it takes to be in the upper echelon of collecting?

I'm REALLY trying to avoid this thread boiling down to a penis measuring contest or a "rate my collection" kind of thing (what normally happens on these sorts of threads), so if we can stay out of those arenas it would be most helpful. I'm interested in hearing from everyone on this, so no matter your collection size, feel free to add. I'm sure there are many, many, many other people out there that ask themselves this very same question while in pursuit of the hobby we love so much.

[PhoeniX]

I also share you sentiment that it would be a bad thing if this degenerated into a brag forum. That said you ask a compelling question. I would say the essence of a world class collection would be some level of uniqueness, I for instance am working on the 32x, fun but hardly impressive.

You mentioned a complete VCS collection, given that in the case of this console their are a few games that their are only a few known titles to exist. As the number of 2600 games is well over 400 titles (forget actual number) I would say that is a pretty special thing--especially a complete collection (boxes, manuals, maybe even sealed); not many people could posibly have acheived this feet. This sort of collecting might be catagorized a specifig sort of collection, many if not most video game collections however are likely more generalized, I think these collections can be very special and "world class" too, a collection that for instance supported all or nearly all consoles would be pretty good, especially if it included a large number of good/rare/valuble games.

One of the first things I tried to was collect all the games off the DP top games list, now combined thats well over 400 hundred game representing what the DP community (or at least some of them) has deemed the best of what has come so far. This sort of collection, a collection of the best of the best (however that is arrived at) would or at least could be in and of it self a world class collection, IMHO.

Esoteric questions rule! :) I say a world class collection acheives--in its own way--some (high) level of uniqueness.

[Kroogah]

How does a complete VCS collection stack up to a complete PSX collection?

There's at least 1 person in the world with a complete U.S. PSX collection. (Hi Dangerboy!)

There is NO ONE in the world with a complete U.S. VCS collection.

Now consider how long these 2 systems have been around (and therefore how long people have been collecting games for them)

I was able to answer that question, but as for the topic title....well, what constitutes a world-class sports card collection? Coin collection? Comic book collection? It's a difficult question to give a clear-cut answer to.

[hydr0x]

I was able to answer that question, but as for the topic title....well, what constitutes a world-class sports card collection? Coin collection? Comic book collection? It's a difficult question to give a clear-cut answer to.

well, as i collected stamps a long while ago i can say that any stamp collection that has ONE holy grail like the blue mauritius (yeah yeah i know, there are stamps that are much rarer) would be considered a world-class collection...

[wberdan]

i would say that the collection would have to contain pieces that are important, and not easily attainable.
the harder to replace the collection, *regardless* of the amount of money you may have, the more "world class"- at least in my opinion.

willie

[blissfulnoise]

It's a difficult question to give a clear-cut answer to.

I agree, that's why I posted this topic, so that we could muse on the subject. However, it was educational to find out that no one has a complete VCS collection yet (given the possibility that someone does but hasn't stepped forward).

And I do agree that the corner stone of any worthwhile collection is a couple extremely difficult to find, or even unique, titles. But is there a point where sheer quantity becomes that overwhelming factor?

Eventually, by having enough games, any collector will hit those Holy Grails, but beyond that, is having such a large quantity the Holy Grail in and of itself?

Would you trade a Quadrun proto for 500 common titles? Would someone trade 1000 of their common titles for a Gold NWC cart?

On my own behalf, I would not trade under either of those circumstances. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that quantity and quality are equally important.

A large quantity of games in a collection shows a wide range of examples of whatever platform you're referencing, which is quite critical in forming a valid opinion for that platform. One game does not make a console. Assuming that all collectors are automatically gamers (not necessarily in that order though), having that wide range of games is crucial for any worthwhile collection.

Likewise, having a very rare or unique title in your collection creates a sense of mystique for that platform. How many people really do get a chance to play Chase the Chuckwagon on a real VCS? Given that, those titles validate the remainder of the collection.

While I'm playing my own devils advocate, I'd have to say my allegiances lie in quality over quantity, if only slightly. Being able to point to a few games and say, I am one of only X number of people who have this, adds a sense of relevance to your collection, even if it isn't that spectacular to non-collectors.

Further thoughts?

[PhoeniX]

Having just rare titles though is a collection without a soul, would having a collection of just a few holy grails and other rares be "world class?"

If "world class" is top 1000 or so collections in the world could one really claim that title with 10 really great games? Would 100 qualify, would 1000? There must be a brightline.


Would you trade a Quadrun proto for 500 common titles? Would someone trade 1000 of their common titles for a Gold NWC cart?


This as it may be, comparitive value can't be the sole criteria. I cannot accept that game quality or overall theme or whatever are not factors--very important factors is inconcievable. On the other hand I do not think numbers in and of themselves would acheive proponderancy.

I still think a (perhaps the) deciding factor is the uniqueness factor, that special je ne sais quoi.

[christianscott27]

to me its like any good library collection, two qualities stand above the others- depth and breadth. in other words you cover all game eras and not just with a few games or genres. my standard for systems is to have at least or above 50% of the library of titles, its most important to have the greatest hits and system exclusives, a good system collection should also include a good selection of controllers and other add ons including console variations.

in my mind i'm always hosting the imaginary guest who says something like "show me what the saturn is all about", ok then i can show them some sonic and virtua games, move onto nights into dreams or panzer dragoon then bring on the twin sticks to really impress and finally let them check out my jp saturn for some flavor, along the way i might show some dragon force just to brag. its like that for any of my consoles, first off i want to have the games that made the system great like on the 5200 you gotta have centipede with the trak ball, that matters more for my collection than my rare carts. i dont like snobby collecting either, if you dont collect genesis sport titles you're giving the system's legacy short shift.

i'm an omnivore collector, trying to get ahold of everything at once and i feel really proud when oneof my system collections becomes a stand alone treasure amongst all my collections. as far as being and looking world class you have to have the eye candy- in my room i have a nearly complete NES collection (big ol pile) but what gets the comments is my handheld collection.

i love looking at specialized collections, especially if they are system completists or import nuts, thats impressive and very focused but for my own goals i like the "big scoop of everything" approach.

[PapaStu]

How does a complete VCS collection stack up to a complete PSX collection?

There's at least 1 person in the world with a complete U.S. PSX collection. (Hi Dangerboy!)

There is NO ONE in the world with a complete U.S. VCS collection.

Now consider how long these 2 systems have been around (and therefore how long people have been collecting games for them).

Just to compare those two is a very dooable thing considering the size of the PlayStation collection. Hell its leaps and bounds bigger than anything else here in America and it even half way done looks like an amazing accomplishment.

I honestly think that having any complete collection for a system ranks up there with any other simply because you put the time together to get one done. Even small collections can be a bitch to complete (Virtual Boy) so in my mind

[blissfulnoise]

I'm with you Christianscott27; I collect the same way. Scoops of everything. Especially taking the approach of the 'imaginary guest' perspective. Having a good representation of the best each of your consoles has to offer is quite critical in a solid collection. In that same vein, I also try to pick up some of the known horrible titles for those platforms (be they common like E.T. on the VCS or not so common like Demolition Man on the Sega CD) as a good comparison. It's hard to judge the quality without the crap.

But wberdan brings up a good point in his post; has eBay made it to where simply having a good deal of money can equate to a "world class collection"? Are your war stories (finding rare games in the wild, crazy deals with other collectors to land hard to find carts, buying a game for 5 dollars when it first comes out only to have it increase in value exponentially) as relevant as the collection itself?

Additionally, are there any empirical numbers that can be applied here? Do 1000 unique titles make a world class collection? Do 3000? Are numbers even relevant?

More things to think about.

[PapaStu]

But wberdan brings up a good point in his post; has eBay made it to where simply having a good deal of money can equate to a "world class collection"? Are your war stories (finding rare games in the wild, crazy deals with other collectors to land hard to find carts, buying a game for 5 dollars when it first comes out only to have it increase in value exponentially) as relevant as the collection itself?

Additionally, are there any empirical numbers that can be applied here? Do 1000 unique titles make a world class collection? Do 3000? Are numbers even relevant?

More things to think about.

I think in regards to the whole war story thing, it makes the collection personally valulable to YOU. If your selling it off, do you really think that some dude who would be buying that game/collection would care that you had to trade this for that, that for something else, something else for the do-dad and the do-dad for the prized game??? Not at all, its there, they dont care because they dont have to worry about it.

In regards to the numbers thing, its another one of those personal kinda things. I can think that with my 1400+games its a pretty world class collection, but when I compare it to many others here, mines just about half the size of theirs (which tend to be more complete for specific systems than mine is to boot). But when you break it down, 900+ Sony titles (PSOne and PS2) is pretty world class on its own accord. So I guess its all how you look at it.

[DStriemer]

I think it is ultimately impossible to compare collections from different systems against each other. The only way this is possible is in the eye of the beholder....ie. you like colecovision more than C64....than that's what you like/value more. But as a community or even a group of friends, peers, family, or enemies, it has to be impossible to have a consensus of one collection versus another on two different systems.

When comparing collections within a system I believe it is possible(although not neccesarily) to have an "ultimate" collection. The easy way to look at it would be to basically say it is the collection with everything or the closest to it. This would have to include for most collectors not just the number of unique games, but the variations of everything that comes within its realm. ie. cart. labels, box variations, system variations, overlays, instructions, language variations, demos, protos, and condition of said items. Once again though, some collectors may find said variations or even collecting of boxes, instructions, and other accessories as valueless. So even the above description is not set in stone.

Now finding this out would be next to impossible, unless anyone can think of a way of making everyone who collects on a given system, declaring what they have at the same time. In general though.....collectors of a system do have ideas of who there main rivals/peers/suppliers are, and therefore who has the collections to be dreamed of.(Once again in the eye of the beholder)

I personally collect intellivision and that is it, at this point. I know that my incomplete collections of carts already excludes me from being even thought of as having an ultimate collection. At the same time, I know I will never have one, because I ultimately don't care to have game boxes, or instruction variations, or language variations and the like. I just aim to eventually, hopefully have every unique game(play-wise) for it. When I achieve that, I will consider myself to have "A" ultimate collection(not THE ultimate), and no one will be able to convince me otherwise.

[rbudrick]

I think the best way to ascertain how great one's collection is based on quality, quantity, rarity, and interest value (the story behind the item). The rarity and interest value are especially true for one-of-a kind or few of a kind items. When you have the back story/history of a unique, rare or quirky item, and it is a good story, the value of the item and collection increases (like any rare piece of art).

So, the more you can get rare items like this that round out all your commons (which must be present in any great collection...especially some real shit titles), the greater your collection is, imo. Of course, if any of those items aren't fun to you in some way (even for their laughable doorstop value), sell em and get others.

I think it's very important to any great collection to have some real klunker games to accent the great games. Of course, if you only want to get the games you're actually going to play often, and that suites you, that's fine too.

-Rob

[wberdan]

But wberdan brings up a good point in his post; has eBay made it to where simply having a good deal of money can equate to a "world class collection"?
.


yes. this is true with any collection of anything.

what i meant in my post though, is that the more items that would be hard or impossible to replace *even with unlimited money* would make that collection all the more special.

willie

[Early Worm]

When you impress the novice gamer and the seasoned gamer with the same collection...you have reached "world class". I do not believe it is anymore complicated than that.

[Ed Oscuro]

I am normally opposed to esoteric sorts of questions like this, but as a collector (thus competitive)
HOLD THE PHONE! Who says collecting has to be competitive? If I knew somebody who had a bunch of Genesis/SNES games they didn't want to keep, but they wanted Atari 2600 games (and I had them), I'm sure we could cooperate in some kind of trade. Speaking of esoteric...

"World-class," as I often see it used, denotes that a collection either has an especially wide range of specimens or includes pieces of significance to the hobby/study/science as a whole. Some guy's rock collection from the 1600s, say, might be considered "world class" if it helped develop the science at the time - even if it would constitute a pretty bland collection today.

Which takes me back to where I started - collecting only works because a lot of people have been dilligent gaming gumshoes and shared their findings with us. Someday I assume there may be something like an ANA or PCGS for gaming, which also would certainly be a co-operative effort.

Something sounds wrong with ACGA or AVGA, though :P (Maybe NAVGA?)

[blissfulnoise]

Just because something is competitive it doesn't mean it can't be co-operative.

Take something that has nothing to do with 'collecting'; any science for example. Most scientists work together to share data and findings and work towards a common goal, but each one of them would like to be the one who shouts "Eureka!" after solving a difficult equation for the good of all. That's why individual scientists or teams of scientists are given credit for specific work. That competitive edge gets them more grant money, more renown, and the ability to do better work. I'm not saying that their actions aren't necessarily altruistic (but in this day and age, altruism, especially in the science of medicine, is particularly rare), but they are certainly competitive.

Needless to say, it works the same with collectors. If you're at a flea market and find a boxed copy of Texas Chainsaw Massacre for the VCS for 5 dollars, you're not going to pass it over thinking that, "I'll leave this for the next collector, they'll find it to be quite a treat". The fact that you'll scoop it up right then and there is competitive instinct. Multiply this factor by 100 if you're scooping up sealed games (which serve no purpose except for resale or for bragging rights but that’s another story).

Even with eBay; the fact that people outbid other people to purchase collectables is a sign of competitiveness. Not necessarily in the act itself, but in the fact that you're willing to pay more than someone else is a competitive trait. Sure you can just say you wanted it more, but isn't that a competition with the other gamer who came in second?

And not to reference a sore point, but just look at all the 'drama' with Atari Age recently over Meltdown. That whole scenario seems to be inspired by competitiveness no matter how juvenile it is.

But I do agree with you, the hobby (and pretty much every other one) thrives on sharing each others findings. But that brings be back to where I started. Competitiveness can coincide (and indeed thrive) with co-operative actions. Heck, if we didn't know what everyone else had, how could we be competitive in the first place?

[ClubNinja]

I'd really like to make a thoughtful post on this topic; but since I'm loaded up on antibiotics and other such medical goodness right now, it may be tough. Please bear with me...

If I had to define a "world class" collection, then I would go with these guidelines:

- Quantity is garbage. You may have 2000 games, but if they're all the same 2000 common games as several other collectors have, then it's nothing special, is it?

- Unique items are key. You don't need one-of-a-kind prototypes to have a unique item, just something different. An import console variation, a collector's edition verison of a game that was released with low numbers, or even a funky controller is unique. These things add more color to a collection than 10000 common NES carts.

- Specialize. Unfortunately, I've personally lost interest in seeing collections that have a little bit of everything. What impresses me is a collection that pays attention to detail within a specific realm. Having every Vectrex game, along with those grey carrying bags and the display stands is more exciting than a few carts here and there for many systems.

- Have some project items. I like it when collectors are also hands-on with their collections. Mod a system on your own, build a MAME cabinet, give your spare Genesis a fancy paint job. This kind of creativity is always interesting, and in the end, you'll generally have learned more about the inner-workings of the item than you'd know by just dusting it off and shelving it. This tends to lead to better appreciation as well.

Have I offended you or your collection yet?


And yes, I do realize that collecting is about what your collection means to you. And I agree 100% with that; collect what makes you happy.

Ultimately, that's how I feel on this entire topic. Regardless of what may impress me, or the rest of the forum, or whoever else you're sharing with, you need to consider your interests first. Christian mentioned that he does some catering to the imaginary guest in his game room. For me, the only person my collection is meant to impress is me. I want to walk into my room and say "damn, this is some cool stuff." Anyone else's opinion really doesn't matter at that point. Whether I'm "world class" or not, as long as I love what I collect and enjoy playing with most of it, I've satisfied the only judge that matters.

You collect what makes *you* happy. In doing so, you're collection is going to feel "world class" to you, and that's the only person you should be trying to please - you.

[Iron Draggon]

Well for one thing, I think collections that intentionally leave things out are far more special than collections that simply include everything ever made. A collection that consists of everything has no character. It's simply a catalog. But a collection that's missing things on purpose makes a statement about both what's included and what's not included. Of course it's very difficult to assemble a complete collection of everything, especially if you include every variant as well, but a collection like that still has no soul. It's just a bunch of stuff. So to me a world class collection is one that has alot of character to it.

When you ask someone why they have this or why they don't have that, and they answer with a very specific reason, that reveals a real purpose to their methodology of collecting. But if their answer is simply because it was made, then that reveals that the person is more of a packrat than they are a true collector. A true collector will say that everything in their collection is there for a specific reason, and everything not in their collection is not there for a specific reason too. They don't just collect everything just because it was made. If they do end up with a complete collection, it's usually only because there was nothing else left to collect anymore, and they were so close to having everything that they might as well go ahead and get it all.

[Aussie2B]

They don't just collect everything just because it was made. If they do end up with a complete collection, it's usually only because there was nothing else left to collect anymore, and they were so close to having everything that they might as well go ahead and get it all.

That's my approach to it. I have a bunch of different stuff for many different consoles, and for the most part, I'm exclusively going for quality. I buy games that I hope I'll enjoy playing. I entertain thoughts of having complete collections, but I don't put any real focus into getting them and I keep my ambitions small (usually a very specific theme like every console Castlevania, every Choaniki, every tri-Ace game, every US-release SNES Square game, etc.). I fancy having a complete US N64 collection someday, but for the time being, I just buy stuff that looks good and is affordable. If I ever get close enough, I'll make that final push to get the crappy sports games and whatever else I'd be missing.

My collection is "world class" to me, and that all that really matters. I don't have any complete system collections, I don't have anything insanely rare, and I don't have a massive number of games; but all that is insignificant to me. I couldn't care less about having a million cheap commons, and I can do without having some extremely rare and expensive game that isn't even that good. I'd rather fork over big bucks for a Rondo of Blood or Radiant Silvergun than a Stadium Events or Bubble Bath Babes, even if the first two aren't as rare.

Speaking of Rondo of Blood and Radiant Silvergun, I think my imports really add an extra flare to my collection. US releases, as fun as some may be and as rare as some may be, just aren't as impressive as whooping out a big stack of games that few people in the US have ever even heard of, let alone seen or played. The assortment of imports, along with everything else, makes my collection unique, and having an unique collection is absolutely crucial in having a "world class" collection.

[bargora]

I completely agree with the last three posts by Aussie2B, ClubNinja, and Iron Draggon. I collect what I like, and I collect what I think I might like, based on what lots of other people liked. So I've got a lot of shooters and arcade compilations, a number of puzzle games, a few survival horrors, and a handful of fighters. And then there's the pile of "weird" games, which don't seem to fit into the common genres (I mean, what the hell is Incredible Crisis?), and the weird games within established genres (For the PS I have both Darkstalkers games and Pocket Fighter, but only one SF game). But then, there are (almost) no sports games in the collection, other than bizarro future sports games like Ballblazer Champions.

Anyway, I will cut short the ramble; but I really just wanted to say that I appreciated the last three posts because they were thoughtful and well-written, and because they validated my collection habits.

[blissfulnoise]

- Quantity is garbage. You may have 2000 games, but if they're all the same 2000 common games as several other collectors have, then it's nothing special, is it?

I agree in the general sense, but disagree in the literal sense. Quantity really doesn't make a collection world class per se; but I believe it validates a collection. For example, just having particularly difficult to find games for an individual system (all 'adult' games on the VCS, the 3 Panesian carts on the NES) doesn't make a collection. What they do make are particularly good collectors pieces.

This is the same as someone with 3 or 4 particularly rare items in any field. A collection, by definition, IS about quantity by having enough items to accurately represent the field you're collecting in.

But...


Unique items are key.

100% agree with you on this.

Further, while I do agree you should collect for yourself, I world class collection should be unique. The 'unique item' requirement meets this rule. But on the same point, they should be voluminous, even if they only focus on on or two platforms. In my collection, I'm 2 games shy of a complete US Sega CD collection, and 4 games shy of a complete 32X collection. Next up is my Dreamcast collection.

My collectors habits started out to feed my desire to re-own games from my past or to pick up items I could never buy (or otherwise acquire) from days long gone. This is that nostalgia factor that drives the vast majority of us collectors. Other games I've picked up as a result of wanting the cornerstones of a quality collection (example: games from a best games of all time list) regardless of if they're unique or not.

Now that I've gotten a lot of my must own list, I've been able to spend more time on specific platforms. My long term goal is to have complete Genesis, SMS, Game Gear, Dreamcast, US Saturn, Sega CD, and 32X collections. Beyond that, we'll wait and see. I also try to pick up quality shmups where possible (fortunately, my long term goals really coincide with that).

In any case, there have been a lot of good posts on this thread, and I thank everyone for their input. The overwhelming sentiment are that unique items make a strong collection be they imports, variations, or particularly difficult to track down items. And according to most, quantity tends to mean little when comparing collections.


Have I offended you or your collection yet?

Absolutely not, I love my collection and it will just keep getting better 8-)

[Robin F.]

I think a good deal of the quality of a collection lies with the collector. A collection, no matter how big or unusual, will just be a load of stuff when there's no "caretaker". A real collector (and I think this could be applied to any collection, not just video games) knows the story behind every item, and can put each piece into its proper context. If you look at professional collectors (museums, archaeologists), you'll find that they spend most of their time doing research. Only when they have enough information can they set up an exhibition, carefully choosing a limited number of items relevant to the subject.

In the world of (classic) video games, I think it's the same story. The real value of a collection lies in the historical data contained within. A complete NES collection is not nearly as interesting as a limited selection of games, which could mark key periods in the system's development, or which had a large impact on the games industry as a whole, games that show the specific style of one publisher, and so on.

What I like about collecting is not only the look of all those games neatly lined up on the shelf 8-) , but the process of finding information about them, preferably from original sources (magazines, catalogues etc). Of course it's nice to have the Mona Lisa, of course it's fun to own the complete works of Bob Ross LOL, but it's not necessarily the basis for a good collection. It's more like being a world class collector, rather than having a world class collection.

[hydr0x]

of course it's fun to own the complete works of Bob Ross LOL

LOL :D

i don't think that would be fun ;) you know, a lot of his pieces look SO similar, a little tree here with a happy little friend there ;)