Best card grades for the money
 

I know it is difficult to generalize given pretty large variations in populations and scarcity across different cards and years, but I'll try to make a blanket statement anyway...

If you're buying for a personal collection, the 3, 6, and 8 grades seem to have the best bang for the buck in terms of the incremental benefits in the overall look of the card.

A 3 usually looks a lot better than a 2, but seems to be a lot cheaper than a 4.

The quality jumps markedly from a 5 to a 6, but the price doesn't seem to.

And an 8 usually looks darn good to the naked eye and is often a fraction of the cost of a 9 (or of course a 10).

Any thoughts?

Way too many variables to generalize
 

across the board.

That said, I will say when you get to differences discernable by eye between 8's and 9's and 10's - in many cases the 8's will give you more bang for the buck.

My experience is that third party graders a) are not consistent enough to generalize from b) are not primarily concerned with eye appeal, and c) the population distribution of a given card's assigned grades holds a lot of weight.

PWCC, for all its faults did bring to the forefront/exploit the fact that some cards just have better eye appeal than others at the same grade.

A lot depends on the pop distribution. If there are as many 6s in a card's population as 5s then there will be a limited premium for a 6. But if 6s and upward are scarce, but 5s or below are not, then it will carry a heavier premium.

Another issue is that eye appeal is obviously in the eye of the beholder, which further complicates the ability to make broad generalizations.

For me, I am foremost looking for cards where the surface, color, and registration are excellent. I also look for cards that are centered from left to right, as top to bottom doesn't matter to me as much. Corners and the back are probably the least important thing to me. And if creasing isn't obvious, it usually doesn't bother me. I have some 2s and 3s that have creases you can barely see, or a stain on the back, that are otherwise gorgeous. And I have some 4s and 5s where the corners aren't great but everything else is. But to someone who cares about corners, these cards may not be appealing.

The attached Mays got dinged because of a small, light stain on the back, and the Clemente has unobtrusive creasing.

Wow. Those are two really good looking cards.

I just invented this saying
 

"Buy the card, not the holder" I also invented the internet. bad da bum. But the saying is true.... you can find all variations of 1, 2,3 some of which look like the were run over by a train and some with minor back or paper variations. I love to buy low number cards that have great fronts and centering! Bring me your 1.5s gentlemen!!!

To a large degree it depends on what issues you are grading. I have seen cards like the minor league 1960 Tacoma Giants issue as well as Jay publishing and team issues come back with very low grades (talking 1, 1.5 or 2) just because the backs or borders have printers marks or spots rather than any real issues that would sink most typical card issues. Yet they can still have glorious eye appeal.

For my postwar vintage PC, I usually like to play from the 6 range down to as low as 1.5. We've all seen cards that look bad for the grade, and then the occasional 4 that looks like a 7, and on the other end of that scale - the 1.5 that looks at least VG.

The lower you go, the more variable range you can get in the "technical grade v. eye appeal" department, as I like to think of it. I list as high as 6, because at least with some older PSA slabs, many straight 6's are really 8 (OC)'s that the submitter didn't want a qualifier on. And they can be had for a fraction of the price of a straight 8. 7's and 8's in my experience (yes, I own a few) are great - but you generally get what you pay for in those grades. Those who pay for the grade / flip will shell out for an 8 in many cases that has worse color or something, worse eye appeal than some 6's. This doesn't pass the value sniff test to me.

As always, go for the cards that look wildly undergraded. They are there if you spend enough time looking. I have a '63 Clemente in a 4 that has pack fresh qualities. Under PSA's system a decade or more ago it would have been at least a 5; but it has one corner ding, the rest of the card is at least a nice 6, and the color is almost dripping fresh. No creases, no wrinkles, no other problems other than less than perfect centering, which doesn't bother me. I'll take that all day long for the price I paid for a PSA 4.

PS - I know dealers hate them and I get it, but I love the half grades. It's the grader's nod that, yes, that's a 5, but it's a really good looking 5. How many 5.5's look better than 6's? How many 4.5's look better than 5's? They are out there and sometimes dramatically less than the next half grade up. Remember, technical grading at it's core is NOT commenting on eye appeal. You can take advantage of the discrepancy between the two most in the middle of the scale, not usually at the high end. Sometimes more at the low end. If you care not about backs, I will be able to find you some fantastic looking PSA 1's.

1.5 and 8. Anything centered that is a 1.5 or a 2 and has balanced wear rather than one big ding somewhere…I like that sort of card in older issues.

8s can be pretty dang Cherry and set you back for a fraction of the cost of a 9/10. Someone already made this point and I agree.

When looking for a 1960s era card (the time frame I'm collecting currently), my first search is for SGC 3.5-5.5 - invariably I find one or more that look to the naked eye like Ex-MT versions, and most of the time at great prices.

Well said. I think a lot of collectors identify with the above, myself included. These sorts of cards go for a premium for the grade, but I'm willing to pay it, as I suspect you are too. Not everyone likes this profile -- I know some guys just want sharp and clean and are willing to accept off center -- but generally speaking, the cards that have even wear, nice color and registration, maybe some hidden wrinkles, good centering...they are sought after.

Here's an example. This Bronko sold for the same as a PSA 2.5. To me, it's a much better card, much nicer color and balance. These features are priced in, but I'd still rather have this 1.5 than the higher grade card.

https://i.imgur.com/zMt6yey.png

Here's the aforementioned 2.5. Totally inferior card for the same $.

https://i.imgur.com/R66zmyq.jpg

And here's a 6.5. Is it really worth 6x the price?

https://i.imgur.com/Wi8ull0.jpg

6.5 is such a tease. I'll never buy one.

1.5 baby!

That is a fantastic 1.5

What am I missing? Some creases the scan didn't pick up? Something wrong with the back?

1.5’s can present deceptively well.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...45a8adf7e2.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1.5 is seldom seen but can present very nicely and as said, centering can be the make or break. Here`s my favorite 1.5 PSA card.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...aa244e0d_c.jpg1952 Topps Mickey Mantle....... by Hugh Murphy, on Flickr
.

Many years ago when I decided to put significant (to me) money into vintage, I knew I couldn't buy it all. It came down to a choice between focusing on T206, 1933/34 Goudey & 1952 Topps. - only the major stars. I went with T206 and the minimum grade I went with was EX 5. Mostly because chances were good the cards had only corner wear and nothing else in the flaw department. Then I started looking for high end for the grade. Years later, very happy with my choice, if I had to do it all over again, I would keep with the original decision - T206 star HOFers in nice eye appeal for the grade EX 5.

One point Five
 

..http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/204295...BGS-1S_NEW.JPG


.. The card itself instead of that expensive little number up in the corner. Am I the only guy in here who has a card of Wahoo McDaniel ?

..

..

I agree that picking up some cards with technically low grades can make collecting much more affordable. The Jackie has a crease that you can only see from the back of the card. The Evers obviously suffers from paper loss on the back.

Not sure, not my card, but it is nice!

That Evers is absurd! What a beauty.

This is a fun topic, and I was actually thinking about it yesterday and found this video. Maybe some of you will like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt4h7DETVTQ

That Nagurski is off the charts for a 1.5. Well worth the 2.5 price tag if you ask me. Here is my favorite 1.5.
https://www.collectorfocus.com/image...mantle-psa-1.5

Very informative video -- thanks for sharing. Sounds like there's a lot of value to be found in the lower grades with vintage cards. Makes the hunt more fun than for the modern cards.

Personally VGEX 4 and EXMT 6 are where I find the sweet spot for quality vs price for post-war vintage.

I don't mind a card that's a little bit OC but I want sharp corners and no creases. I don't tend to get that with VG 3

I bought a 1955 Topps Jackie Robinson at the National in a PSA 3.5 holder. It had a couple of corners with a little wear, but was probably docked the most for a corner front surface crease visible only under high intensity light. So it presents fabulously. I'll take those kinds of surface creases all day as 3.5's.

I love discussions like this. As some have alluded to, the lower you go on the technical grading scale, the more variability you get within a grade. In the low-to-mid grades, it's always interesting to see what collectors prioritize. Corners, centering, edges, back centering, color, registration, lack of staining, no creases, lack of print defects, etc. For most cards lower than a 5, or maybe a 6, something has to give and the card can only have some of those qualities (kind of obvious I guess....since if it had them all, it would be a higher grade).

For me personally, I've settled in to a sweet spot of mid grade examples for my vintage HOF. There are so many beautiful 4s, 5s, and 6s. And as other have mentioned, there are 5s that look better than 6s, and 6s that look like they could've been 8s if they were graded 20 years ago.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...59995fdb_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5054ff3f_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e7edb044_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8192a7d2_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...88efaabb_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...0e990bae_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8dd2178a_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...b2f64717_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...797152cf_b.jpg

Great eye, Ian! Those are some beautiful cards! The centering is outstanding, and the borders are snow white. Can't believe some of those didn't grade higher, especially the '56 and '60 Mays cards.

The '56 Aaron and '60 Mays look fabulous for those grades, IMO!!

The 56 Mays has a good bit of corner wear. a 5 feels right there.

I've never sent any card to a TPG for review, but of all my cards I keep considering sending that 60 Mays in for a 2nd look. It looks as good in hand, and I think it should be a 7 all day. These grades are subjective opinions, and I remind myself that I bought the card...not the holder.

Thank you the kind words!

I don't agree with 3s being a lot cheaper than 4s.

Overall, 4s are my favorite value when it comes to any vintage before the 1970s. Naturally they often have pretty good eye appeal, but without the much higher cost of something a little sharper.

And when you go below that, the "just wanna have the card" factor artificially raises the prices on the lowest grades. Especially since the pandemic boom.

So I've always thought vg-exish is the best bang for your vintage buck

A Wahoo sighting. Every thread needs a Wahoo. Used to watch him on Saturday night wrestling. Thank you for the photo, Mike.

One other detail that the TPGs don't seem to grade harshly for is registration. Some issues are more prone to bad registration than others. I always look for good registration and color on a card, regardless of the grade. And on lower grade cards, say anything 4 or under, centering is a wildcard. The allowances are so generous at those levels, the card can have perfect centering or be way off-center.

Makes sense. 4 is the old "tweener" grade between VG and EX, and 6 is the same for what used to be EX and NM. Lots of really nice looking cards can be found in those slabs.

Part of the problem with TPG's is pegging tweener grades like that to a number. That doesn't make a lot of sense if you look at how grading worked in say, 1985. Now we have broken the numbers down into half grades as well. 4.5, VG-EX+. Wouldn't VG to Excellent (plus) just be Excellent? Don't get me wrong, I get it - it's how things have evolved.

[QUOTE=rugbymarine;2362240]I love discussions like this. As some have alluded to, the lower you go on the technical grading scale, the more variability you get within a grade. In the low-to-mid grades, it's always interesting to see what collectors prioritize. Corners, centering, edges, back centering, color, registration, lack of staining, no creases, lack of print defects, etc. For most cards lower than a 5, or maybe a 6, something has to give and the card can only have some of those qualities (kind of obvious I guess....since if it had them all, it would be a higher grade).

For me personally, I've settled in to a sweet spot of mid grade examples for my vintage HOF. There are so many beautiful 4s, 5s, and 6s. And as other have mentioned, there are 5s that look better than 6s, and 6s that look like they could've been 8s if they were graded 20 years ago.

Ian,

The centering certainly jumps out to me but I was also impressed with the color/registration. When you get both of those qualities in a mid-grade grade that is just outstanding. Great eye Ian.

I like the 9s in 4 holders because kids who see nothing but ultramodern chrome have no idea how to grade.

That's really weird. Almost as if the label got swapped out by accident. As an aside, I just picked up a 50/50 centered, 1979 CSG 8 Ozzie (presumably newly graded, but hard to know with all the reholdering going on) and I cannot find the flaws. The price gap between a centered PSA 8 and a PSA 9 (forget the 10s) is 10x. Factor in the CSG (read: non-PSA) re-sale gap, and it's kind of a head scratcher. I'm trying to figure out whether I'm a chump or if at some point we are all going to break our cards out of their slabs and just go by eye appeal like back in the good old days.

bk, the whole sub was like that, almost every single card badly undergraded.

Is there maybe some writing in the middle of the card below the auto? Or maybe just bad print? Either way it’s a great card. I love some of that panini stuff from the 70s. A couple of years ago I brought a couple of 74/75 Panini Led Zeppelin stickers and they are in ridiculously great shape. I sent them to SGC expecting 8s or even 9s and they both came back as 5s. I think they may have been the first of their kind graded by SGC and they went ultra conservative. That was my take anyway.

1956 Topps baseball PSA 6 s - With a rough cut and a bright reverse they look like they just came out of the pack
... And a bargain compared to the price of an eight

I just look for low technical grades with good eye appeal:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...tle%201_1.jpeg

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...vos%20Pele.jpg