Great stuff, guys! These are my kind o' cards!

Did someone say mid-grade?
 

Great discussion and some awesome cards in here.

Nothing like finding that rare low-mid grade card that makes you look no further. Rare but when it happens, it's like a bonus thrill.

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...slugger-museum

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...-bowman-mantle

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...-bowman-mantle

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...9-topps-mantle

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...-topps-jackson

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...6-fleer-jordan

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...r-jack-jackson

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...1911-d304-cobb

https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...9-topps-mantle

Matt - wow!!!!!

Geez Matt. Those are like high grade compared to what I collect. And what the heck is wrong with that PSA1 Jordan RC?!

thanks to Ben "MIKE GARCIA" finished my 57 topps set mid grade would be psa 5-7, mostly. some writing on the mantle back but good looking card

on to my 56 and 55 sets only a couple more to get

That Reggie is an incredible 5!
RayB

what's wrong with that Jordan is there no back at all???? looks good

Another thing in favor of mid-grade (or even lower really)...the older I get the crappier my eyes get. Even with my glasses, I truly can't tell the difference between just about anything PSA 5 and above. Centering and color still stand out for me, but small corner dings don't even register for me anymore.

The downside of my vision degrading with age is that I struggle to read the card backs these days--especially on something like a 1981 Fleer McCovey--but the upside is that the eye appeal of all these great cards just goes up and up each year for free.

I've been getting into modern cards in slightly lower technical grades than the expensive ones. Great way to pick up prime RCs and other cards without spending big on them.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ticker%201.jpg

Here are a couple of others for my 1971 sets. Got great deals on both. For my criteria, they fit my set perfectly and have good eye appeal.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...c154b1526b.pnghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...a9444dcc9d.png


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Love this thread, as it’s right in line with my collecting philosophy of buying the card and not the grade. I usually aim for a nice 5 or 6, but when it comes to the more sought after players like Mantle or Williams, I’m more than happy with a nice 3.



https://sportscardalbum.com/c/4k8y7apr.jpeg


https://sportscardalbum.com/c/ij19z9d5.jpeg


https://sportscardalbum.com/c/v5i6tz6r.jpeg


https://sportscardalbum.com/c/y80r6jqt.jpeg

I usually skip mid grade and buy low grade, because I love baseball history, the nostalgia and the images, not the sharpness of the corners. I can get every 60's set in low grade, or just one of them in near mint. The choice seems easy to me. Round corners, edge wear, a crease, a pinhole, none of these are a problem. It's the same card, with the same picture, the same stats on the back, and I get just as much fun looking them through as I do a near mint example. My low grade 1956 Mantle that cost $40 instead of $400 brings just as much joy for a fraction of the price. I often downgrade cards even, buying a low grade copy and selling a mid grade if I have one. I do get disgusted looks from some dealers at card shows when I ask if they have poor-good cards, but it works for me. It's a more relaxing hobby, in my eyes, to not care about being one of the hobby elite or worrying if there is a wrinkle that isn't visible in the scan, and just build sets for personal enjoyment.

Man, do I love the sentiment! I am trying very hard to get back to simply enjoying having the cards/sets just for the sake of having fun owning them. If I can help it, I would rather not have pin holes or writing, but trying to "get over" most everything else.

Nice cards. My '56 Williams is an SGC 3. On many of the oversized 1950's cards, I think they can tolerate / "wear" their wear so to speak better than later cards because the card stock quality was better and the cards themselves were a bit thicker. Particularly '56 Topps - which I think was printed on slightly thicker card stock than '55. I don't like big ugly creases that break the surface, but '56 Topps cards can hide lesser creases well and remain very attractive. Once you get into most sets from the 1960's, and then the early 70's which I think were the worst - the card stock becomes terrible, much thinner and just generally of crappy quality. I think the late 60's and early 70's was worse on the whole for dramatically O/C and miscut cards as well.

I mostly agree, but when it comes to my era the 1970s I can usually find nice looking cards very cheaply for all but the biggest stars anyway. Now, when it comes to marquee cards, I definitely downgrade in the interests of having more of them:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...%20Mantle.jpeg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...0SGC%2040.jpeg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...s%20Mantle.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...s%20Mantle.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...s%20Mantle.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...20Clemente.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...20Clemente.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...s%20Koufax.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...20Robinson.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...ams_%20Ted.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...0PSA%203_1.jpg

Great stuff and very motivational! I have fancied myself a set builder over the years and have enjoyed that. However, I am getting increasingly restless. There are sooooo many cards out there that I want, and I just don't have the ability or perhaps desire to build that many sets. Then I thought I needed my star cards to be higher grade since I wasn't building sets. (I know...programmed robot ;() However, I love this list of cards, and it makes me realize what I could accomplish. Thanks for this!

This is exactly my sweet spot for 50’s cards. Low grade copies that retain a nice image. Readable backs matter too, as I love the Topps cartoons and over the top enthusiasm of the written descriptions. I’m around 95% of the way through a full 1950’s Topps/Bowman run thanks to cards like these

I am really starting to consider selling off most of my commons from some baseball and football partials to buy some star cards I have been wanting. It feels like a lot of work though.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Glad to have found this conversation hub on the interwebs. I started collecting when I was a kid, so, about 30+ years ago. Managed to thin out the pile of junk wax over the years .... gave most of it away to thrift stores, and kept a couple for nostalgia (a couple shoe boxes full, that is). Among the junky stuff, of course, I made sure to save my short stack of Upper Deck Ken Griffey Jr. cards that my nutty card collector uncle had given me (he had 2 closets overflowing with wax packs and sets back then). The late 80's/early 90's was a fun era ... lots of hype, cheap packs all over the place, lots of card shops with old worn down vintage cards to stare at and drool over. Off centered cards were the norm ... keeping those corners and edges razor sharp and keeping the surfaces clean and glossy, that was the name of the game back then.

Did some searches on ebay a few years ago and discovered that vast new wonderland of collecting. Back in the days of the card shops, I never could have imaged the future would be so bright. So these days, I enjoy being able to browse thousands of vintage cards from the 50's through the 70's from the leisure of my home. The way I see it, I would have to have $$ millions $$ to burn before I ever buy high grade vintage cards that are NM or nicer. The handled worn down cards have just so much more character, in my opinion. I actually think a crease-free VG or VG-EX 50's card with decent Left/Right centering is prettier to look at than a NM or Mint example of the same card. I don't spend big bucks ... $80 or $100 is a major card purchase for me. I don't mind even a small crease or two on a 50's or 60's card. I pretty much draw the line at badly miscut cards, cards that have been butchered, ugly print lines/wax stains, and ones that are badly out of focus. I love the cards with rounded corners, chipped edges, a light crease or two or three, and moderately faded colors (as long as it's not over the player's face). I feel like a kid in a candy store when I can score a couple of nice VG/VG-EX cards for $20 or $30.

Fun thread...I dont buy more than a handfull of cards each year. When I do I try to focus n HOFers between 1952 through 1973. I prefer to stay in the 350 to 500 range for the best PSA 6 I can find. It seems that with the current standards a PSA 6 is a very pretty card. Centering as long as it doesn't carry an OC qualifier bother me. On regional cards like the Wilson Frank's I will settle for a PSA 4 or 5 in my price range.

I would agree that 6 is a pretty nice place to play in 1960’s cards and earlier. Unless just dramatically O/C, they usually have nice corners and surface features. Most of the newer 6’s (where PSA is being tough) and some cards present like 7’s or 8’s. If you don’t mind a bit more corner wear, I also think that PSA 4’s and 4.5’s are great value for the money. It takes awhile, but you can find centered 4’s of HOFer’s from the 50’s and 60’s for a fraction of the price that some truly high or investment grade cards sell for.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm pretty much the same as you Mike. I start getting nervous if I get much higher than $500. This card was on ebay and it looked nicer than most of the PSA6's I saw. When the 15% off day came I picked it up for a price I was more comfortable paying. The picture they had was taken with a phone and made it difficult to tell condition, but it turned out to be really nice for the grade. This is a scan I made.

Here are a couple of my favorites.

David and Kieth, No matter the grades those cards are serious eye candy.

I love this thread. To me it represents the heart and soul of vintage collecting.

For me mid-grade is a subjective term and depends on the card. Personally I try to collect “upper” mid-grade cards. So for 1950’s as 1960’s I stay in the PSA 6-7 range. That’s my sweet spot. 8’s just seem like too expensive 7’s usually (a dash more centering) and 9’s and 10’s are unattainable unless one is highly motivated for a specific card. I honestly can rarely tell the difference between a 9 and a 10.

But as I said the older the set the lower mid-grade becomes. In the way of an example I enjoy PSA 4-5’s in the 1940 Playball set. That’s my 1930’s-1940’s mid range.

Incredible cards. I would imagine that for a Cracker Jack Cobb, 4 may be well more than "mid-grade" among remaining examples.

Wow, those cards are the definition of eye appeal and “strong for the grade”. Thanks for sharing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you fo the comments everyone - very much appreciated. Been lucky on a couple of these cards that I was able to pick them up at a good price, and I try to find cards that look like a PSA 7/8 but for some reason have slower grade. The Cobb I won in REA and paid strong for it but in hand it looks like an 8. There is zero chance I find a CJ Shoeless to make a pair with it without selling a car or a kid 😄

KC

Mid-grade?

I’d say that’s the low end of high grade. But one could argue the very top of mid-grade. Obviously centering is the only real issue. No matter what ya call it, that card is bonkers! #drool

I wanted to revive this thread to whine a little. [emoji2957] When shopping in the PSA 5-6 range, it is getting harder and harder to find cards that are well centered AND have good focus/registration. [emoji2959] It is becoming more clear that I am going to have to give in on one or the other. It puts me in the minority, but I am starting to think I would rather give in on centering and keep the nice, clear image. Some corner wear doesn't bother me too much.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I don’t mind centering issues as much as bad focus, print lines and ink smudges.

Here's my 1954 Bowman Ted Williams. Well worth the $10 I paid.

https://oi1139.photobucket.com/album...68/54B_Ted.jpg

Put together a mid-grade 1951 Bowman set back in the early '80's, when nice looking commons could be had for about a buck. Kind of financially strapped at the time and the ball & chain didn't approve of my hobby, so had to consider the set complete without VG-EX keys Mantle and Mays. I think those two guys at that time were around 200 and 100 bucks, respectively. Twenty five years later and out of my cage, I splurged on these two examples at an even grand for the pair to finally complete the set.

Poor registration to me is worse than slightly o/c as well, but I'm not a centering freak. I'll take a nice picture and 70/30 centering over print problems and 50/50 every time.

I collect mid to lower end myself depends on the mid grade price and player, damage doesn't bother me either but I like a fully intacted card so when looking at them I can read the front and backs. Most of my 1960 Topps Baseball set is EX to EXMT and some of the lower end commons NM but those are the under 10.00 ones.

I like to put cards into binders, so right there a slabbed or top loader won't do me any good, and also handling of cards and putting them in pages can damage them as well. Personally, I find there is some charm in worn, damaged or otherwise altered cards, and for the most part, I would prefer to have a card of that type in my binders.

I even had recently bought a lot of late 50s/early 60s cards where the original owner had cut up other cards to "update" his older cards, or had written on them. I need cards for a lot of players from back then, and if I can get them at a low price because they are damaged, then that is good for me.

Here is the only pic I took of the cards from this lot, and you can see other low grade cards in the picture also (like the Orlando Pena) or other of the modified cut-up cards like the Don Larsen.
http://i.imgur.com/8PLv6WBl.jpg

I collected '71 to '92 Topps! Still have them all too, and they're all pretty much minty. I have a spot set aside, in my modest, but nice, memorabilia room at home.

I've seldom been all that fussy about condition.

If I need a card, and it's a good deal for what it is I might buy it.
The last few years I have been passing on really worn commons, if a nice one is only a dollar or two more I may as well wait.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/181922...eposted-public

https://www.flickr.com/photos/181922...eposted-public

I mostly collect mid grade cards. These are two of my favorite cards in my collection. I think I picked both of them up for less than a $100 dollars.

So how's everyone making out in the great slabbed card scandal of 2019? Nice to be a lower grade collector right about now: I've got no skin in the game.

About 5 years ago I set out to complete my 1969 and a 1972 Topps sets in raw mint condition. Visited card shows, scoured eBay - I was a Greg Morris fan way before he got cool. Looking back, it was way more hassle and expense than it was worth, especially the '72 set (the post-war monster!) Wish I'd just gone for centering and left it at that.

Cards like these are much more fun:
Attachment 356084
Attachment 356086
Attachment 356088

I don’t either. Unless someone bothered to doctor my PSA 3 ‘58 Aaron YL or my PSA 2.5 ‘48 Leaf Ted Williams. I seriously hope not...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed. Which made me wonder who’s buying the cards with those scarlet letters. Then I quickly realized that, to some extent, it’s me. I simply will not buy a card with a nasty crease, stain, or paper loss. Unless it’s been on my wish list for many years and the violations aren’t too obtrusive. For example, I recently bought a rookie Aaron in a PSA 2 slab. While viewing the front, you scratch your head because you swear you’re looking at a 6 and wonder why in the world it’s only a 2. Then closer examination of the back reveals paper loss the size of a pinhead. So I bought it — paid a grand for an otherwise EX-MT card. I’ll buy those all day long, but they have to be highly desirable cards impossible to find in high grade without getting into a bidding war and, ultimately, paying exponentially more for the same card without the flaw.

This is a perfect example of why I boycotted PSA (way before the Moser/PWCC scandal erupted). No way this is a 9... no way! And recently graded too. Unbelievable...

grade
 

Nothing like buying a card graded a 1 or 2......getting it home and saying... what ? " that's what I call VG ++ "

Before the internet
 

Someone mentioned buying cards from mail brochures back in the day. I did the same and purchased this “near mint” ‘69 Clemente from a reputable dealer, who now has a seemingly successful eBay business in cards so I won’t call him out. Besides, at the time this actually was considered NM. And I didn’t have any complaints when I received it. Apologies for the crappy iPhone pic; it actually looks better in-hand — definitely not NM though.

Truth is that back in the 80’s and earlier, prices for the most part were low enough across the board that ads even for stars and HOF’ers could say something like “EX or better” and 9 times out of 10 nobody cared. Centering was scarcely a consideration at all. A far cry from today when the difference between a PSA 5 and 8 of the same card can be many multiples...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No gloating zone
 

I'm in your brotherhood, Adam. No worries with a low-to-mid grade unslabbed collection.

In light of the recent scandal involving PWCC, Moser and PSA et al, the above bold is no longer on my wish list.
Like I said in another post, it was pointed out to me on a FB post about a current auction with some nicely graded 52 Topps cards with one being a PSA 9.
The 9 was a beautiful card to look at but my immediate thoughts were "Doctored"
Not saying it was as I have no idea but like I have stated numerous times, I find it hard to believe (sometimes) that these 60-70+ and beyond year old cards managed to stay in this condition for all these years.