Couldn't agree more! That was my point in my rambling post over on the postwar board about the 1954 Topps set I put together. I have always been anti-crease and such, but I have often wondered if my level of satisfaction would really be any less with a lower grade set. Don't get me wrong, I am not looking for beaters but might entertain a collector grade set. Like I posted about that '54 set, I did give in a little in spots condition-wise relative to what I usually do, but the sum total (or the beauty and breadth as you so eloquently put it) of a completed set is pretty powerful. I wish I had unlimited collecting funds, but I don't. If I try and build every set high grade, I have learned that I will end up not completing and bogged down. There is something about taking the lid off the box and just seeing them all lined up.....and then pulling out those Cardsaver Is and looking through them all. Can't wait to get home tonight and look at my 1953 Topps!
Quote:
Originally Posted by conor912
I used to think the same thing, then I read a quote...I think it was George Vreck (sp?). When asked about building low grade sets, he said something like " Obviously we'd all love to have mint cards, but the reality is we're not all rich and we don't have eternity to build these sets."
True that. Do the best you can. I think the beauty of the breadth of the finished set is worth the well chosen sacrifices in condition we have to make sometimes.
|
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk