I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Scott, thanks for posting that link, awesome cards!<br />

I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>T206 - at least you didn't try sending GAI cards for crossover to PSA - where 9 out of 10 will come back Evidence of Trimming.<br /><br />Yea, I know, it's a PSA thing (bad PSA!), still frustrating though.

I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>Al Crisafulli</b><p>In the neighborhood in which I grew up, there was a man who collected Topps sets from packs from every year beginning in 1952. Unlike most kids, he would buy the packs, take the cards right out of the packs, put them in numerical order right in a box, and never look at them again. He kept his doubles, and those are the cards he played with.<br /><br />Really.<br /><br />So he had a complete run of gorgeous sets from every year Topps produced. As an adult, he kept them in what looked like a card catalog. His goal was to pass them along to his son someday. <br /><br />The cards were razor sharp. Granted, he probably didn't pay attention to centering, since that's a relatively recent phenomenon, but I'd be willing to bet that there are a ton of high-grade cards in there, and I'm reasonably confident that those cards are still safely tucked away, out of the clutches of the hobby.<br /><br />If there is one person like my old neighbor out of every 50,000 people in this country (and I think that's reasonable to assume), then there are something like five thousand high-grade, raw collections out there.<br /><br />-Al

I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>There are plenty of raw high grade cards out there, my run of bowman topps and playball were assembled in the 1970s and I have had about a dozen cards slabbed, sold to FISH, and replaced by raw, nice EX cards. Damn that is easy money! Thanks Fish.

I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>If you are estimating the number of adults who assembled Topps sets from packs in the 1950s, the number is far less than one in 50,000. In the old days, these people were a rare breed.

I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>Al Crisafulli</b><p>He was a KID in the 1950s when he started.<br /><br />Maybe 1 in 50,000 is still a steep number for kids who bought baseball cards in the 1950s and didn't flip them, trade them, put them in their pockets, or install them on their bicycles, but you get my point. <br /><br />Which is, of course, that I am of the opinion that there are still plenty of high-grade, raw collections that have yet to be unearthed.<br /><br />-Al

I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>There may not have been that ratio, but there were a number of collectors in the 50s that were putting away boxes and even cases of cards. I've personally seen a collection, more like left over store stock, of unopened boxes of Topps and Bowman baseball and football from 1951 to 1968. This was someone who wasn't collector and know of long time collectors that stashed away boxes from the 50s.<br /><br />One of the first things I was told when I was workig on my 55 Topps set and was impressed by high grade 50s cards, to not be impressed by high grade 50s cards because there were plenty out. Instead, I should be impressed by high grade cards that were issued before WW2.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>What is true for Topps is also true for Goudey and Playball. Of course somewhat more Topps have survived because they are 20 years newer, but cards were put away in top condition for these other sets, and are still away. Imho.<br /><br /><br />1 in 50,000 seems like a reasonable number for kids with sufficient budget to be able to afford to collect from packs and only flip duplicates. It never occured to any of us - but we generated most of our own budget. The "only flip duplicates" solely applied near the end of the season, when our number of cards supported that approach. To do that right from the beginning, requires a good allowance.

I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>All you have to know about the relative scarcity of these cards was on display at the National. I'd say about 50% of the dealers there had significant displays of high grade 1950s-1960s cards. As far as I am concerned, the market for near mint to mint (8 and up) post-war cards is driven by underendowed set registry geeks and hype-happy auctioneers. It is not a scarcity driven market but is instead a demand driven one. The proof is in what happens with mid-grade 1950s-1960s cards; they sit and rot unless deeply discounted. Contrast that with pre-war cards, where virtually everything flies off the table and we are seriously debating the merits and values of altered, trimmed, recolored and/or just plain wrecked vintage cards.

I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>Jim Crandell</b><p>Warshawlaw,<br /><br />You are correct with your observations about pre-war cards but if you think its easy to put together high-grade sets in the early Bowman and Topps sets, it isn't. Also many dealers have pointed out to me off-condition cards from the 50s have been the most rapidly appreciating segment of the postwar market as of late.<br />I would put the dividing line between hard to attain and plentiful in high grade as 1959.<br /><br />Jim

I give up on grading
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>purchasing high grade stuff of major stars from the 1960s if I can find it at a reasonable discount to market on the theory that the money will trend in that direction as people are priced out of the other stuff?