Mid-Grade Collectors

[jchcollins]

Hi all,

I would be interested in hearing from any of you that collect 1950's and 60's cards - particularly stars and HOF'ers...who have made a conscious decision to collect mid- or lower grade cards over the higher-end PSA stuff - and why. Any nuances to what changed your mind, what types of grades you go for today - what attributes of condition bother you (corners, creases, centering...) and maybe which you have found anymore do not and is that surprising?

I've always been more or less in a "lesser" range myself (I think a PSA 6 is a very nice vintage card, a 3 from the 50's is probably going to be acceptable) due to the desire to stick within a reasonable budget, plus that's what I grew up collecting as a kid in the 80's before the advent of third party graders - and honestly for much of that time I simply didn't know any better. The vast majority of vintage cards in shops in the 80's and early 90's were not NM cards.

Thoughts? Thanks.

[jason.1969]

Maybe too easy an answer but I collect raw in the VG range since it offers a nice compromise between cost and visual appeal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[commishbob]

I'm pretty much in agreement with Jason. I build sets (58 to 62+70) to put in binders so raw is fine. I target VG or better. Actually, my prefered grade is LG or Looks Good. If I'm happy with how the card looks in its page and I paid a price I'm OK with then I'm satisfied. Creases will put a card in the 'upgrade needed' list before any other flaw. I have no problem with off-centered cards and I have quite a few with stray marks on the reverse.

I'd guess that except for my '62 set the overall grade on those I've collected would be close to EX. There are a few exceptions due to cost (my '58 Williams is F at best) or sentimental value ('59 Gibson survived from my youth, it's in poor condition). The '62 Topps set has proved to be a challenge to build in decent shape. I suspect that when I'm done it will be no better than F-G overall.

I worked hard building them and love these sets too much to ever sell them so future value isn't a concern. I just want to be able to flip thru the binder and rekindle memories of being a kid.

[Rickyy]

My raw 1970 - 1979 Topps sets in binders are mostly VG-EX+ probably if they are graded...but I like them that way.

My type card collections are mostly slabbed. avg no more than PSA 3 or 4 on the avg (some nicer others lower). It's cheaper and allows me to buy more for my collection without breaking the bank.

Ricky Y

[jchcollins]

Thanks guys. Glad to know I'm not the only one. I belong to a PSA group on Facebook, where there are routinely ridiculously high grade, PSA 8 and above vintage cards posted. I feel pretty down to earth when looking at that.

[nat]

I (usually) draw the line at intentional damage. Tape residue, trimmed borders, moustaches drawn on players, that sort of thing. Honest wear doesn't bother me.

[Hxcmilkshake]

I collect the mid grade. VG and up, Crease free if possible. Then centering. But Im a cheapskate so if its dirt cheap I ll consider those too. I stay away from writing, tape, and paper loss. But if I ever venture back to prewar ill consider those too.

I have found a couple nice VG PSA 3 that have strong eye appeal that I bought and busted out of the insipid holder. Those have been my best buys.

A guy on here sold a Mantle 52 PSA 1 that I dreamt about for 3 days it looked that nice, so yeah like others have stated eye appeal is everything.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

Lemme see, I can have one card in a PSA 8 case or a lower grade version of that card plus a whole buncha other cards too. I prefer the latter. I also remember the cards from the 1960s and earlier in lower grades, so they don't look right to me when they are crisp and clean.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Lemme see, I can have one card in a PSA 8 case or a lower grade version of that card plus a whole buncha other cards too. I prefer the latter. I also remember the cards from the 1960s and earlier in lower grades, so they don't look right to me when they are crisp and clean.

Adam, I recently found and enjoyed a thread you had commented on about O/C cards and graded O/C cards. Gave me some good perspective in collecting particularly issues like ‘67 and ‘70 Topps baseball, where a collection focused on better centering is clearly going to be a real bear even if you can afford it. Centering was not so much an aspect of “pack fresh” that was important when I collected as a kid, so not sure how it became that way now suddenly when I’m in my 40’s. I don’t like miscut cards, but will agree with you there is some tolerable room with centering to still get nice cards (and at bargains) and not be quite so anal...

-John

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jason.1969]

Was just browsing on the Bay. For $500 the PSA 9 collector gets a 1973 Willie Mays. And I end up with...

1. Same card in decent shape.
2. 1957 Ted Williams
3. 1955 Hank Aaron
4. 1956 Bob Feller
5. 1953 Stan Musial
6. 1956 Roberto Clemente

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[Nick55]

I'm in my late 40's and have been collecting off and on since I was 9 years old. I've come full circle, starting out collecting in the VG or worse area as kid, moving to NM/Mint as I got older and earned more, and now in the last two years or so back to VG to VG/EX. For me, the best balance between eye appeal and the economic and time cost it takes to acquire cards is best at about VG/VG-EX condition. I don't have the time or patience (or the budget for that matter) to search for high grade cards, and frankly, I don't need them to be high grade to be satisfied. The other factor is that too many times I purchased cards online that looked to be high grade and were advertised as such only to be disappointed to have them be mid-grade once I had them in hand. I guess pursuing high grade stopped being fun and too much like work.

[pokerplyr80]

I look for low to mid grade cards with excellent centering and eye appeal. Great way to save some money.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Very nice Jackie.

[Marchillo]

A nice VGEX is my perfect card for eye appeal and value. My base Mantle collection 56-69 ranges from 2 to 4.5. If I went for 7’s I’d probably only have 3 or 4 of the late 60’s ones and none from 56-59.

[jchcollins]

My ‘56 #135 with some paper loss on the bottom right corner, but otherwise VG-ish and nearly perfectly centered. This card in a PSA 8 centered is between $10 and 15K. I figure on the Bay mine is probably a $350 card...not sure what real value I gave up for it at the time, I got this in a trade when I was about 13. But also to the point of just how exponentially different in price tag truly high grade vintage can get. You guessed it...I’ll take my card!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seanofjapan]

I'm basically in total agreement with what....everyone else here has said.

I'll take lots of VG-Ex cards over 1 or 2 Nrmt-mt cards anyday.

I would also add that there are a couple of ways in which, aside from price, mid grade cards are objectively superior to high grade ones.

1) You can actually hold them in your hands without freaking out about your breath affecting the molecular structure of the corners (or to whatever extent condition conscious people go with obsessing about such things). I love flipping through cards. If I had a pile of 56 Topps cards in high grade I would be very uncomfortable doing that, but with a bunch of mid grade ones I can go crazy. Great! (behold my flipping through a pile of 54 Bowmans without care: https://baseballcardsinjapan.blogspo...i-collect.html )

2) The cards actually look like they have a story behind them. When you see a beat up old card, you know that some kid really liked that card back in the day, maybe brought it to school in a back pocket or something, flipped through them with friends, etc etc. Its very compelling! A stack of pack fresh cards in contrast are boring - they've just sat on a shelf somewhere for the entirety of their existence. Nobody ever loved them enough to get them worn out. Its extremely depressing actually.

[hcv123]

But not entirely.

Firstly I will say that centering, surface (creases, etc), and registration are WAY more important to me than corners. Moving on - it really depends on the card and it's scarcity. For readily available cards, I draw the line somewhere between 7 and 8 (rarely 8.5) - The price jump on most readily available cards from 8 to 9 is usually astronomical with often times very little difference in appearance. Add to that the inherent subjectivity to the process and I as I'm sure many of you have seen lower grade cards that look better than the same card at higher grade. There is consideration to value and resale and I believe that lower grades of more readily available cards over time have less of a chance to hold their value than higher graded equivalents.

Now onto more obscure or rare cards - to me the card trumps the condition on these - not only would I jump on a mid grade copy of some, but would be overjoyed for almost any copy - I do have a handful in my collection and love them as much or more than my more highly graded more commonly found cards.

I am working on mid grade Pirates team sets from 1952-1973 with my kids - The only ones we have or are getting graded are the 1952 Groat rookie and the 1952 High numbers(4's-6's) - the rest are/will be raw. Let me tell you - trying to find those 52's centered without surface damage is quite a challenge! Anybody know someone who wants to sell a mid grade 1952 Bartirome for the price of the common it should be without the one crazy guy buying them all!?

[profholt82]

I don't really care about the money side of the hobby. Slabbing cards and investing and all that just doesn't interest me. That's not to disparage collectors who are more into the investing aspect of the hobby, it's just not for me, that's all. I tend to go after affordable copies of cards I like that look good displayed on my bookshelf or wherever. I'm not super picky or anything, but I generally prefer centered cards without creases. I don't have any graded cards, but I'd say that most of the more expensive 50s and 60s cards in my collection would probably rate in the 3 to 6 range for the most part.

[Empty77]

Originally Posted by nat

I (usually) draw the line at intentional damage. Tape residue, trimmed borders, moustaches drawn on players, that sort of thing. Honest wear doesn't bother me.

?? I asked about the seemingly ubiquitous mustaches when I inherited my older brother's collection; he assured me all the players back then had them---not true?

[DeanH3]

Mid grade 50's with nice appeal are a great value and nice little gems. Centering is a must for me, corners not so much.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by DeanH3

Mid grade 50's with nice appeal are a great value and nice little gems. Centering is a must for me, corners not so much.

Nice cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marchillo]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

My ‘56 #135 with some paper loss on the bottom right corner, but otherwise VG-ish and nearly perfectly centered. This card in a PSA 8 centered is between $10 and 15K. I figure on the Bay mine is probably a $350 card...not sure what real value I gave up for it at the time, I got this in a trade when I was about 13. But also to the point of just how exponentially different in price tag truly high grade vintage can get. You guessed it...I’ll take my card!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really nice Mantle - Mine is a PSA 2. I got mine on Amazon. Basically I had a lot of credit card points and even though the conversion rate on Amazon sucks, I was able to obtain the card without spending a penny. Mine is nicely centered as well but has some creasing and other issues. I'd say it presents very well for the grade. But to get that card in say a PSA 5/6 it would probably be the only purchase I made for 6 months!

I do agree with one poster - A 1956 Ted Williams in PSA 4 condition is great for me but not really a fan of say a 1975 Robin Yount in a PSA 4. That card is still cheap in PSA 7 lets say. It's all about price point for me and for 99% of cards from 1954 to 1969 I can buy cards in VGEX condition without a problem. Some exceptions would be the 56 Mantle, 55 Koufax/Clemente etc.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Marchillo

Really nice Mantle - Mine is a PSA 2. I got mine on Amazon. Basically I had a lot of credit card points and even though the conversion rate on Amazon sucks, I was able to obtain the card without spending a penny. Mine is nicely centered as well but has some creasing and other issues. I'd say it presents very well for the grade. But to get that card in say a PSA 5/6 it would probably be the only purchase I made for 6 months!

I do agree with one poster - A 1956 Ted Williams in PSA 4 condition is great for me but not really a fan of say a 1975 Robin Yount in a PSA 4. That card is still cheap in PSA 7 lets say. It's all about price point for me and for 99% of cards from 1954 to 1969 I can buy cards in VGEX condition without a problem. Some exceptions would be the 56 Mantle, 55 Koufax/Clemente etc.

Thanks. My Mantle has no creases, but the corners are pretty rough. I would expect it to get either a 1 or an A for the paper loss, but have no plans to send it in.

I would agree that for most 50's and early 60's cards, VG-EX 4 is a very nice grade. Most 4's are not going to have noticeable creasing, generally they just have corner wear or other issues that are not acceptable for a 5. I have a '61 Topps Aaron right now that is a perfectly centered 4.5 and one of my favorite cards. It was really at that sweet spot where eye-appeal and price tag met.

Will agree with you that it's hard for me to look at VG or lower range once out of the 1950-60's. I'm considering doing the 1970 Topps set, and those cards in a 3 or 4 look a bit rough. The good thing of course is that it's also cheaper to get 70's cards in the 6+ range. Also I think going back to the 50's for lower grades - if you think about it, the cards then were the bigger size and the card stock was better / thicker. I think that's why some of them don't look so awful in grades 2 - 4. By the 1970's the card stock sucked in comparison and those cards got nastier quicker.

[jchcollins]

This guy...

[DeanH3]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Nice cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you John.

Your '61 Aaron is sweet. Perfect example of what you said earlier, the 4 range is the sweet spot for great looking cards and affordability.

[darkhorse9]

I may be in the minority, but I grew up thinking T-206 and 1933 Goudeys were made with rounded corners.

I've seen mint examples of both and they just look plain wrong to me.

[Exhibitman]

Exactly. I want 1970s cards looking like they did when I pulled them out of the packs as a kid but older cards are supposed to look old. Though every once in a while I see a higher grade card and gotta get it.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by darkhorse9

I may be in the minority, but I grew up thinking T-206 and 1933 Goudeys were made with rounded corners.



I've seen mint examples of both and they just look plain wrong to me.

I can understand the sentiment. I knew they weren’t made that way but there are certainly some still fine looking T cards and Goudeys with rounded corners...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

Yowza!! Talk about getting smacked in the face with reality!!! As a Mets and Mays lover, I was recently looking at that very card to possibly consider buying it (or hopefully a cheaper one) when ebay has another coupon code offering...but, man, that's a hard pill to swallow when I can see what I could get for the same money. Bravo.

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Was just browsing on the Bay. For $500 the PSA 9 collector gets a 1973 Willie Mays. And I end up with...

1. Same card in decent shape.
2. 1957 Ted Williams
3. 1955 Hank Aaron
4. 1956 Bob Feller
5. 1953 Stan Musial
6. 1956 Roberto Clemente

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[CobbSpikedMe]

Hey guys,

I collect mostly low grade stuff. My collector friends and I typically trade or send each other cards without condition requirements at all. If we get a nice card from someone its rare.

I like the look of lower grade cards as they show the life of the card. There is something to be said of a really nice mint vintage card for sure. But like Adam said, I'd rather have a bunch of lower grade cards than one really nice one for the same price.

I think budgets dictate what we collect as well. I can't afford a high grade 56 Mantle, but the low grade one I have makes me happy all the same.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

This is a really encouraging thread. Thanks for sharing, guys. If I had more time, I have a few lower/mid-grade cards of my own that I could share. It is nice to see that I am not alone.

[Nick55]

I think budgets dictate what we collect as well.

This is a big part of it for me. A secondary factor is that in some cases, I could afford to buy higher grade, but just don't want to spend a ton of money on a card. The fact is that 99.9 percent of the cards in my 1950's to early 1970's portion of my collection cost less than $100 apiece, and most of those less than $20. I'm not comfortable spending more than that.

I've heard quotes like, "Buy the highest grade you can afford" and stuff like that. I follow a different path - "buy just nice enough of a condition that makes me happy." For 1950's through early 70's, that condition is VG/VG-EX, and in some cases, even poor/fair will do. For the rest of the '70's, EX-MT/NM (not difficult to find in this condition and generally very inexpensive at well less than 1 buck for a common). For the 1980's+, NM/NM-MT.

[irv]

Over 30 yrs ago I received 148 1952 Topps cards from my Father. Since 2016, when i joined this site, I have been picking away trying my best to add to it as much as I can.

Most he gave me are in the 2 to 4 range with maybe a few 5's here and there. When I purchase cards I normally purchase in that range as they are more affordable and it keeps with the theme/condition of the cards he gave me.

I would love one/a few 8+ graded 52 Topps cards just to say I have one/some, but at the same time, knowing most are out of reach dollar wise, I am glad to be able to purchase more cards than what likely one of those would cost.

When I first joined the site, I didn't concern myself with centering much, but since then, I try my best to find decent centered cards if I can. Top to bottom bothers me a lot less than side to side centering but creases, unless they are subtle or almost invisible in scans, are usually a no go for me.

Currently I am around 306 cards and counting (FlickR link below) and I add here and there when money says I can.

[jchcollins]

Another thought - for me at least, the definitions surrounding "mid-grade" seem to have shifted over time, at least certainly for older cards. Depending on who you are you probably think of mid-grade in the PSA 3 to 6 range. I don't know about the rest of you, but for me in the vast majority of cases - a PSA 6 is going to be a damn nice vintage card. No creases, sharp corners, and decent centering. When I was collecting as a kid, anything with the term "Excellent" in the grade was just that - and old cards that were "excellent" or better were at the higher end of the spectrum. I remember back then, my main concern with 1950's and 60's cards were that they be devoid of major, ugly creases. Even so, I had and loved some cards that did have those creases. Corners were of lesser concern, I did prefer that the cards have 4 of them. Centering I don't recall being something I was concerned about at all as a kid, I recently went back and found some snapshots of some parts of of my childhood collection that I no longer own, and was surprised at how badly centered certain vintage cards that I had and loved were.

I guess it's all about perspective and beauty in the eye of the beholder.

[MCoxon]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Another thought - for me at least, the definitions surrounding "mid-grade" seem to have shifted over time, at least certainly for older cards. Depending on who you are you probably think of mid-grade in the PSA 3 to 6 range. I don't know about the rest of you, but for me in the vast majority of cases - a PSA 6 is going to be a damn nice vintage card. No creases, sharp corners, and decent centering. When I was collecting as a kid, anything with the term "Excellent" in the grade was just that - and old cards that were "excellent" or better were at the higher end of the spectrum. I remember back then, my main concern with 1950's and 60's cards were that they be devoid of major, ugly creases. Even so, I had and loved some cards that did have those creases. Corners were of lesser concern, I did prefer that the cards have 4 of them. Centering I don't recall being something I was concerned about at all as a kid, I recently went back and found some snapshots of some parts of of my childhood collection that I no longer own, and was surprised at how badly centered certain vintage cards that I had and loved were.

I guess it's all about perspective and beauty in the eye of the beholder.

i was literally going to write the same sentiment. "Ex-MT" was often the highest listing I would see in many periodicals 30 years ago. Also, if you look at old Beckett guides, it would have "percent discount from mint" for various grades, and my recollection that Ex-Mt might have been at 75% of value of mint, whereas now, I notice almost a doubling at every PSA number grade for 1950s cards, so that a PSA 9 price (mint) would dwarf a PSA 6 in price.

I think grading has made what had been considered finite differences in card condition a glaring difference. I'm not sure that's helped the hobby one way or another, other than making some cards "Investment grade" due to being so much more "scarce". But the truth is, there were 100,000 1956 Mantles out there before grading and 100,00 after, it's just that now, we've gradated differences so that there only 200 PSA 8+ (not sure of these numbers). That strikes me as false scarcity, though many will say it's a misinterpretation of 'scarcity' and condition rarity exists in other collectible markets as well

[Nick55]

and was surprised at how badly centered certain vintage cards that I had and loved were.

Same here. I've thought alot about this lately, and the best answer for this that I can come up with is that for many of us, the content was the focus when we were younger rather than centering, corner, and other imperfections. The exceptions to this were imperfections that grossly interfered with interpreting the "content" (i.e., viewing the card front, reading the back, etc.) like heavy creasing, bad focus, miscuts, missing paper, ink mustaches, etc. They became an issue for good reason: they distracted from the content. Next time you look at card, note the first thing you notice about it. I'll bet for many, their eyes go straight to the corners and centering first followed with an almost instantaneous valuation calculation (that was the case for me when I really paid attention to it). When I was kid, my eyes went straight to the photo first and foremost. I never gave corners or centering much thought until one day I opened a beckett price guide and notice the cost differential between NM and VG cards. Now corners, centering, and other attributes mattered to me, because the focus shifted from "content" to "value" (or at least, there became a shared focus between the two).

For the most part, it's my view that the whole centering thing is largely a trend/fad that gets repeated over and over on message boards to the extent that it's the "in thing." This has especially been the case over the last few years. It was not nearly as pervasive 5 years ago, as I recall, as it is now. Don't get me wrong - I love a perfectly centered card. But, I'm not going to fret over it and spend a ton of effort or money searching for one - way too much work to be fun for me.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Also, if you look at old Beckett guides, it would have "percent discount from mint" for various grades, and my recollection that Ex-Mt might have been at 75% of value of mint, whereas now, I notice almost a doubling at every PSA number grade for 1950s cards, so that a PSA 9 price (mint) would dwarf a PSA 6 in price.l

Beckett ranges (& don't get me started on how some people always thought the left column was for NM and the right was VG...) were stated to be for NM cards for pre-1980. If you had 1950's cards that were truly better than NM (again, as subjective as this is today, it was even crazier what people thought back in the 80's) then that was some range 100% or more of "book" value based on what the card was. Clearly the percentage for Mickey Mantle was higher using this line of thinking than Mickey Vernon.

I remember one case where a dealer actually pulled this on me - wanting more $ for a card because it was in "better than" NM condition. The term NM-MT was not yet en vogue, and it certainly was not associated with the number 8. But the point I believe was the same. The card in question was a 1958 Topps Yogi Berra, which I bought because it was so nice, but paid wayyyyy too much for by today's standards. It was nice, but may have been a PSA 6 today because of the centering. I'm not a centering freak. I don't generally like worse than 80/20 up to miscut cards (there are some rare exceptions), but have a tolerance for it beyond that. Today as back then, if my first impression of a card is that the centering is acceptable, I move on and then generally don't consider it again - I just admire the card. Then sometime later someone will be all like "Well that's nice except for the 65/35..." and I'll be dumbfounded. I digress - another large point to be made is that before professional grading - many, many EX-MT or so vintage cards were routinely described as NM to Gem Mint by dealers who sold through the mail - and in the 1980's and earlier, this was often done sans any pictures. I imagine that many, many off-centered "mint" cards were sold at mint prices back in the day.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

For me, mid-grade cards provide the best bang for the buck. Would I prefer to have Mint condition vintage cards? Sure! They are beautiful and investment quality. However, my budget doesn't allow that.

I do not want cards with creases, marks, or paper loss...but other than that, mid grade cards will still have great visual appeal and are fun to handle. So VG to EX is the sweet spot for my collection. I typically don't need them graded, unless it's a higher dollar card, and then the only reason I want them graded is to confirm they are authentic and unaltered.

[toppcat]

Ex or Ex-Mt is fine for me for 60's and 70's cards, VG-EX even for earlier 50's cards even. I've been dabbling in newer stuff (90's and up) but for those I am only collecting 10's.

[CobbSpikedMe]

It's really nice to see so many of you like the mid-grade stuff. I even like the low-grade cards too. Sometimes I get discouraged when the pick up threads turn into a show and tell of super expensive cards. Don't get me wrong, I love the pick up threads and seeing when folks pick up nice cards, but I can't compete with those. I should also say that even when I do rarely post one of my lower grade pick ups I still get good feedback from the board which is encouraging.

Here's one of my lower grade gems...

[Nick55]

Congrats on picking up the '54 Jackie Robinson!

[irv]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

It's really nice to see so many of you like the mid-grade stuff. I even like the low-grade cards too. Sometimes I get discouraged when the pick up threads turn into a show and tell of super expensive cards. Don't get me wrong, I love the pick up threads and seeing when folks pick up nice cards, but I can't compete with those. I should also say that even when I do rarely post one of my lower grade pick ups I still get good feedback from the board which is encouraging.

Here's one of my lower grade gems...

Same here, and I also appreciate it.

Nice Jackie, BTW.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Thanks for the kind words regarding the Jackie guys!! 1954 Topps is my favorite vintage Topps set and that was my first big card for the set. I only need some commons and the Banks and Aaron now.

You've made me feel like sharing another low grade gem from my collection. This Koufax was bought for $10 when I was a kid and that was a lot of money for me back then when packs were $0.25 each.

It's one of my favorite cards in my collection and always will be.

[geosluggo]

I admit some envy when I see really nice professionally graded cards from the 1950s and '60s. But I like building sets and don't have a ton of money. Here are a few cards from the 1956 set I completed a couple years ago. The Mantle was actually a graded card that I liberated from its slab. Don't remember the grade but I know I paid more than $100 but less than $150 for it -- the most I spent on any card in that set. The Ted Williams is a card I acquired as a kid in the late 1970s. Most of my commons are in nicer shape than these stars.

[Nick55]

The Koufax and '56's look great. I love the stories behind them.

[commishbob]

This Gibson rookie is probably the worst conditioned card I own but it's one of my most cherished. The first cards I remember owning are from the 1959 Topps set. I got packs of them in my Easter basket. Of all the cards I had as a kid this is the only one to have survived. It was 'lost' for quite awhile as I had put in a copy of the first Beckett guidebook and there it sat for about 15 years. Now it's the 'anchor' of my '59 set.

gibsonblog2.jpg

[Nick55]

Congrats on finding that "lost" Gibson card. Great story! Once I finish off a couple of set builds later this year, I plan on picking up more '59's, including a Gibson in about that condition. It's on my long-term radar.

[mickey7mantle7]

What's considered "mid grade" these days?

4-6 range?

[irv]

Originally Posted by mickey7mantle7

What's considered "mid grade" these days?

4-6 range?

Technically speaking, a 5 would be mid grade but I have always been curious what collector grade means as well?

[Rookiemonster]

So this thread is great because it’s what I collect! Here are a few low to mid grade gems from my collection. I never really understood why people snubbed theses cards. We’ve had a lot of conversations about high grade cards and the problem with them being in existence.

I’ve actually tried to sell card like theses and have dealers tell me that if they bought them no one would be interested because they are not high grade.

Theses cards have been played with and kept for years and cherished as I do now.