General Forum

occasionally the card makers [Topps, Panini, Upper Deck, and so on] put out sets that have all the players of the same team together.

As an example, 1996 E-motion XL Baseball 300 card set from Fleer / Skybox 

Cards 1-10 are Braves, 11-20 are Red Sox and so on.

I'm wondering what collectors think of it.  Like / dislike / don't care.

I like it myself, and feel like team collectors might like it.  Sure makes it easy to input your inventory in the data base, and look for wants.  Easy to remember cards you are looking for as you search a 10 cent box.

Never really mattered to me because I always sort my sets by city/team then player name anyway

Fleer did this the most as I remember and I liked that slot.

Both from a collecting point of view and from ease of pulling trades point of view

Mark 

As a set collector who organizes cards by teams rather than number, I love it when a team is sequentially numbered on the checklist. As Mark pointed out, Fleer did do this a lot. I especially liked there checklist cards being organized by team.

I absolutely love when sets are organized by team by the manufacturer! Fleer (and Skybox) was the best at this, but UD did it pretty good with the SP and SPx products too. It is so much easier to know what you need/want as a team collector when sets are made like that. Score, Topps and regular Upper Deck sets were terrible at this. Nobody seems to follow that trend these days, but some sets do still follow the team set organization if you leave out the RC's.

I like it and personally don't know why sets do it any other way. My preference would be players grouped as teams followed by a separate run of rookies in draft order (why do sets not do this either?) than any subsets.

I don't know how far in advance companies put together their cards, but the down side to this is when players are traded or leave in free agency. You can see this a lot in 1995 Ultra series II for instance. Players were grouped by their previous team, in their previous team uniform, but on the front it says (in smaller print) "signed by" or "free agent signing", then shows their current team logo. For instance - https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/602/cid/136506/1995-Ultra-396-Orel-Hershiser?PageIndex=4

I still like the attempt to put everyone together, and as a team collector, I often still try to get these cards if the player is wearing an Orioles uniform, even if it says another team name, such as - https://www.tcdb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/602/cid/136382/1995-Ultra-272-Lee-Smith

Never liked it.  When looking at a set, I like the randomness of the different teams on each page. On the contrary, I liked the sets where certain #s were reserved for the stars of the day - #1, 100, 200,..., then the second class - #50, 150, ...  Topps used to this very well.  Score and Upper Deck did this with their very first set (though Upepr Deck was not a star of the past year but a RC).

I love that the Fleer sets of the late 80's/early 90's were organized by how the teams finished the previous year. So the Workd Series winner is first 

I couldn't tell you exactly which set, but there have been times I have noticed checklists set up this way but then randomly in between players on a team there would be a player from a different team.  The reason is because the player may have recently been traded or signed with another team.  The strange thing is the card had them in their new team uniform but they left them in the same spot on the checklist.