Conflicted feelings...

[mintacular]

A s a collector of primarily vintage baseball cards (50s-70s + a few pre-war) I am currently having conflicted feelings about condition. As a child of the 80s and coming back into the hobby during the mid-2000’s one of my largest priorities was on NM or better condition cards (4 sharp corners, centered, focus/color, etc.).

Recently, I showed my dad my ’57 baseball set which is pretty nice if I must say myself. (Ironically he sparked my obsession with this set as he gave my brother a small batch of this set that he bought from a struggling seminary student—back when Ken Griffey Jr and junk wax cards were our favorites). Well, his appreciation was for the players on the cards (ex: Roy Sievers whom he remembered fondly--now considered a “common”--) and anything Washington Senators.

This was of much more curiosity to him than me pointing out certain cards that were in great condition. As he handled the binder somewhat haphazardly, (inside I cringed) --I wished I had more appreciation for the players/pose depicted on the cards than the condition/value of said cards.

So I guess my question is, do condition-sensitive collectors miss the big picture (pun intended)? Is their appreciation of a cards' condition an equally honorable hobby pursuit to those that collect the player/pose on the card? Did TPGs in the 90s ruin card collecting with their attention away from the subject of the card and towards condition attributes?

Thanks for sharing your opinions. (P.S. Was Roy Sievers really that good? )

[buckyball1]

Originally Posted by mintacular

So I guess my question is, do condition-sensitive collectors miss the big picture (pun intended)? Is their appreciation of a cards' condition an equally honorable hobby pursuit to those that collect the player/pose on the card? Did TPGs in the 90s ruin card collecting with their attention away from the subject of the card and towards condition attributes?

)

yes, no, yes--sad


jim

[novakjr]

A good combination of the two types of collecting can be a very good thing. There's nothing wrong with wanting cards of your favorite players in verifiable mint condition. Personally, I love anything from beater to midgrade, except with modern cards(late 70's or so-current). They definitely have to be NM or better.

To me though, someone who pays $1000+ on a gem 10 common might need some therapy. But then again, we're looking at many different collections, with many different interests, and many different financial capabilities on this board(or in the hobby in general). None are right, and none our wrong, because at it's core we all love baseball cards, just in different ways, and for different reasons. To some, $1000 on that common is the equivalent of me paying a buck or two for a beater. So there's no point in judging people's intents in regards their collections.. To each their own. We're not here to compete.

However, there are some people that really don't get it. And to that extent, I have to agree with Jim.

[ValKehl]

Patrick - Roy Sievers was the best us fans of the ususlly-last-place Senators had to cheer for during the mid-to-late 1950s (when I was a teenager). Jim Lemon & Bob Allison also hit a fair number of long balls during this period, and young Harmon Killebrew really began cranking them by the end if the decade. I still cherish my cards of these and other Senators players that I collected during this period (and that Mom didn't toss away after I left home), even though none of them are NM or close thereto!
Val

[mintacular]

Thanks for sharing Val. My dad was lamenting to some extent how bad the Senators were during his childhood and that Walter Johnson was the last time the team had a real star tied to a winning team. He compared the Senators to our current hometeam the pgh pirates who are one year away from a 20-year losing streak...I'm pretty sure that he mentioned Harmon Killebrew as an emerging star although interestingly there is no 57 card of him, contract dispute? Not sure..BTW, Sievers hit 42 hrs in '57

[ValKehl]

Patrick - The Senators weren't always as pathetic as they were in the 1950s. Their best decade was from 1924-1933, during which time they won 3 A.L. penants. The Senators' overall W-L record during this decade was third best in the A.L. - not far behind the Yankees and the Athletics. While Johnson was their only super-star HOFer, they had a few other HOFers during this time, e.g. Goose Goslin, Sam Rice, Bucky Harris, Joe Cronin, etc.
Best, Val

[steve B]

I think there's room for both types of collectors. And for both types of cards in a collection. There's also room for a third sort of collector.

Having collected fairly constantly since the late 70's but always on a budget my collection includes some very nice cards and some really beat ones. And if I had to pick say 20 cards to keep, it would probably be 50/50 between nice and beat. I have a fair appreciation for the players, but obviously need a bit of studying on the older ones.

One of the things I find cool is the different ways people collect. Some go for condition, some the opposite. Some only HOF players some only one player. The different collections are endless. And I admire the focus some people can sustain.

The third type of collector? Those are the ones that know a good deal about the players AND look for cards in fantastic condition. We usually only get to see bits of those collections, but what we see is wonderful, inspiring, and humbling all at once. Sort of like going to a good museum, or seeing the work of a great artist up close. I think there are a few more collectors like that here than most places.

Some of the best threads are the ones where someone shows an item and explains why it's incredibly cool to them. The director of the Smithsonian wrote a column for the magazine that was like that, different item each month some national treasures, some just really interesting. It was the first part I read.

If all someone wants is the best of some particular set assembling the finest known examples verified by grading, that's fine too. Even if that's all they care about.

Steve B

[Ronnie73]

For me, condition depends on the year of the cards. Anything 1980-2011 must be PSA 10, 1951-1979 must be PSA 8, 1930's to 1950 must be PSA 4 to 6, Pre 1930's I collect in any grade except qualifiers and authentic's. Pre 1980 PSA 10's I feel can be a waste of money unless money is no object. You can buy 100 PSA 8 1973 Topps commons for the same price as 1 PSA 10 common. I would rather enjoy the 100 cards over the 1.

[abothebear]

When I got back into collecting last year it was six months before I got back to my mom's house to dig out my old childhood collection. I already knew they'd be virtually worthless since I collected during the 80s and early 90s, but when I realized the condition of them my heart sunk even further. Since then I have been tempted to auction off selected lots of them just to get them out but I can't bring myself to do it because they are the actual physical cards I invested so much of my time, energy, and money into. I probably won't ever get rid of them even though they will never have any market value.

Not quite the same thing, but cards mean different things to different people, and some cards mean something different than other cards to the same collector. Some of what I have I keep because of my history with them, some I collect because of the person on the card, some I collect because of the deal. And sometimes the various motivations come together in sweet harmony.

[xdrx]

As someone who re-entered this hobby after a long hiatus (and mostly with an intent to sell some cards) I was sort of worried that the collecting bug might bite me hard. That feeling faded after a month or two, as I really became sort of disillusioned by the whole grading/condition thing.

If I were to start collecting again it would definitely be in the VG-EX raw realm. A 60 year old card of some player I've never heard of with razor sharp corners for a $1000 entombed in hard plastic and labeled with a serial # and grade is definitely not my idea of collecting baseball cards.

[tbob]

I am one of the group who still loves pre-war beautiful cards in A holders because of slight trimming or with incredible fronts and small back damage. It's great to have the 5s and 6s and 7s in the collections but I appreciate the misfits too.
Speaking of the Washington Senators, I think it's a crying shame that the Minnesota Twins don't celebrate their connection with the Senators more. Maybe if the Twins had kept the name "Senators" they would but I think it's a shame they don't cherish their lineage although in the last few years there has been a little more appreciation....

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by tbob

I am one of the group who still loves pre-war beautiful cards in A holders because of slight trimming or with incredible fronts and small back damage. It's great to have the 5s and 6s and 7s in the collections but I appreciate the misfits too.
Speaking of the Washington Senators, I think it's a crying shame that the Minnesota Twins don't celebrate their connection with the Senators more. Maybe if the Twins had kept the name "Senators" they would but I think it's a shame they don't cherish their lineage although in the last few years there has been a little more appreciation....

For me, teams don't belong to whoever happens to own them at a particular time (the "franchise"), they belong to the city they're playing in. And this seems especially true when those owners actually remove the team from said city. Yes, I followed the fates of some of the Twins players for several years after they were taken from D.C., but for there to be any claimed connection now is ridiculous. Likewise for the Rangers. And I cringe any time I hear any kind of lineage perceived between the Nationals and the Montreal Expos. The only true heritage for the Nationals are Washington's previous major league teams from 1886 through 1971.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

For me, teams don't belong to whoever happens to own them at a particular time (the "franchise"), they belong to the city they're playing in. And this seems especially true when those owners actually remove the team from said city. Yes, I followed the fates of some of the Twins players for several years after they were taken from D.C., but for there to be any claimed connection now is ridiculous. Likewise for the Rangers. And I cringe any time I hear any kind of lineage perceived between the Nationals and the Montreal Expos. The only true heritage for the Nationals are Washington's previous major league teams from 1886 through 1971.

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

[E93]

Do condition-conscious collectors miss the big picture? No
Do those who are not condition-conscious miss the big picture? No
JimB

[Brendan]

Do PSA Registry collectors miss the big picture? Yes.
Do high grade collectors miss the big picture? Depends.
Do low grade collectors miss the big picture? No.

[mrmopar]

I suppose the only thing separating any of us from collecting only the best of the best is money. I collect what I can afford. Often, this requires a lesser condition. I am also not willing to pay a premium for something that is perfect vs getting a nice discount for a decent card that looks great.

As far as grading goes, those only graded cards I own were either because the only option was to get the graded copy or because it was at a price that would have been comparable to a non graded copy. That is just my personal preference and I don't like how graded cards can't be CONVENIENTLY stored with non-graded cards