Condition vs. Scarce Back

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>I realize responses will vary depending on what and how one collects, but I am curious what many collectors here would prefer if they had to decide between owning a better condition card with a more common back or the same player on the same card type but with a more scarce back, that they didn't already have in their collection, with the price being comparable to each. Example:<br /><br />T206 Eddie Collins portrait with Sweet Caporal Back in wonderful condition (PSA has a "wonderful" designation, doesn't it? <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> )<br /><br />or<br /><br />T206 Eddie Collins portrait with, say, Carolina Brights back, several grades below the other.<br /><br />You can only own one of this type/player/pose.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>I personally have a history of being a backs collector with no regard for the front. On the other hand I collect fronts as well. I'd rather have a poorer conditioned caramel card than a finer conditioned, common backed t206. I'd rather have the nicer fronted collins t206...and a generic fronted carolina brights back! I'm sure my answer will be of great help to you!<br /><br />pete ullman in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve yawitz</b><p>I'd go for the Carolina Brights card if I could just have one. I'll almost always take scarcity over condition.<br><br><a href="http://imageevent.com/yawie99" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/yawie99</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>If I could only have one, I would choose the Carolina Brights over the more common back. Scarcity is always more important than condition for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Considering my condition requirements = being recognizable as a baseball card, I would go for the rare back.<br /><br />I have tons of t205s but still looking for a poor condition Drum back.<br /><br />Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>easy question...rare back.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Turner Engle</b><p>I would go for a rarer back as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>Although combining the two is the collectors' paradigm I am curious to how far to one side it actually leans (except for Peter U who leans all ways <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> . So far it's a shutout for the rare-back team, and I wouldn't expect that to change all that much.<br /><br /><br />BTW, STEVE: How is that E93 Wagner on your site only a 3? Light staining?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>Although in my collecting world, I would end up buying both (e.g. the common back and the rare back), I would definitely go with the rare back if I only had to choose one. As for a grade difference, I think if push can to shove, I would probably prefer an EX/MT common back to a Good rare back...although if the back was super rare (Drum, Uzit, Lenox), I would always take the rare back, condition notwithstanding.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>If the card is for my personal collection, I will take the card that has more eye appeal to me. If the front of the lower grade rare back looks OK even if the technical grade is low, I would take it. If there is significant damage to ol' Eddie's image, though, I'd prefer a card that looks nicer, even if the rare back is available for the same price.