What’s an acceptable grade for vintage cards?

[hawaiian bam bam]

When it comes to vintage graded cards what is acceptable norm/lowest you would go for cards from the 50s and 60s? Example for 53 topps do you try to get psa 5 or 6? 1955 topps, psa 5? 1960s cards, maybe a little higher like psa 7 or 8? 70s cards maybe psa 8 or psa 9? Etc etc. I know we all want psa 9 and 10s but realistically what do you go for most? Thanks

[JollyElm]

Get ready for a slew of trite responses telling you to, “Buy the card, not the slab,” “Collect whatever makes you happy,” etc.

[Cmvorce]

I think it depends on what your goal is and what you can afford. My ultimate goal is a complete set run of Topps 1952 - present. I’d love for every card to be near mint but that’s unrealistic with my budget.

Most of my 50s and 60s cards are in the FR to VG range if raw or 2 - 4 if graded. I think there are plenty of cards out there in PSA 1.5 or 2 slabs that look just fine for my collection. I’m more about consistency in my collection. The majority of my graded 52 Topps are PSA 2 - 3. My 1954 Topps are SGC 2.5.

My 70s - present cards are all raw but are generally consistent in their condition. Early 70s mostly GD / VG working up to Mint in the mid 80s and beyond.

All my prewar stuff is PSA 1-2. It’s all I can afford if I plan on getting everything I want and I’m ok with that.

I don’t think there is a universally acceptable response.

[swarmee]

The higher the PSA grade, the more likely it's actually altered and should be a 0.5. And day by day, as cards are exposed on Blowout, your "high grade" cards turn into pumpkins at midnight and you have to keep fooling yourself that PSA is actually a reputable company.

[bobsbbcards]

This is what I shoot for.

T206 - PSA 4
1941 Play Ball - PSA 6
1948....er....49 Leaf - PSA 5-7
1948 thru 1951 Bowman - PSA 7 (1951 Mantle is a 6)
1952 Bowman - PSA 8
1953 Bowman Color - PSA 8 (except for Whitey)
1953 Bowman B&W thru 1955 Bowman - PSA 7
1951 Topps Red/Blue Backs - PSA 8
1952 Topps - PSA 6
1953 thru 1956 Topps - PSA 7
1957 Topps - PSA 8
1958 thru 1959 Topps - PSA 7
1960 thru 1961 Topps - PSA 8
1962 Topps - PSA 7
1963 thru 1967 Topps - PSA 8
1968 Topps - PSA 9 (except Ryan)
1969 thru 1970 Topps - PSA 8
1971 Topps - PSA 7
1972 thru 1979 Topps - PSA 8

For subsets it varies greatly. Some, such as the 1951 Topps Team cards in PSA 5 are pricey enough. For others, such as 1959 Bazooka, authentic suits me just fine. I like cards that look nice in the holder, but I won't pay extra for "OMG, that's the best freaking card I've ever seen in my life can I give you my children and a stack o' dead presidents for it?!?!?"

[ALR-bishop]

I think your response exceeded trite Bob

[ASF123]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Get ready for a slew of trite responses telling you to, “Buy the card, not the slab,” “Collect whatever makes you happy,” etc.

I'm gonna go with "Al clearly has a lot more money to spend on cards than I do."

[Gorditadogg]

I generally like mid-grade raw cards, but as you say it depends on the years.

I am fine with VG/EX to EX for 30's, 40's and early 50's, and EX to XMT on late 50's. For 60's cards I collect XMT to NM, and 70's it is NM to NMM.

[Hxcmilkshake]

Whatever I can get a deal on usually low to mid grade is fine by me

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[Harliduck]

Jolly called it right...the cliche collect what you love...

For me its -

80s - Mint
70s - Ex EXNMT. (5 to 7 range) mostly 6
57 to 69 - VG/EX EX (4 to 7 range) mostly 5
54 to 56 - VG to VG/EX (2 to 5 range) mostly 3
52 to 53 - G to VG (1 to 4 range) mostly 2

Hard rule - 57 up...no creases

Even though this gets brought up often, I enjoy seeing others standards...

[nolemmings]

My targets:

1970-77 MT (although nm-mt acceptable for 1971 Topps)
1960-69 NM-MT
1950-59 NM
1930-49 EX-MT
1920-29 EX
1910-19 VG-EX (although I usually seek higher--this is the floor grade)
pre 1910 VG

obviously this is just a guideline--eye appeal comes first. Also, there are issues pre-1950 and some test and regional issues thereafter that require a more flexible approach, as they are not as frequently found. Pretty much anything post-1950 topps/bowman is so readily available I don't usually deviate unless I see a card I believe to be noticeably undergraded (again, eye appeal).

EDITED TO ADD: I should say that I have so soured on graded post-war cards that I now often buy raw. In those instances, I realize that some of the 1970's cards I buy are probably unlikely to merit a "9", but I have no intention of submitting them and even less intention of paying grossly inflated prices for some flip when millions of a particular card are out there and a beautiful copy can be had far cheaper.

[packs]

Always going to depend on the card:

[steve B]

Grade? What's that?

Ok, all kidding aside, I don't limit things to any one part of the range. I have at least one that wouldn't grade (Very sticky tape adhesive residue. It's not leaving that penny sleeve anytime soon) and a few that are pretty nice, maybe mid grade, maybe better? The last few years I try to stick to maybe VG or better, but wouldn't pass up something that wasn't as long as the price was good.

[IgnatiusJReilly]

This is a fun topic. Setting aside extremely difficult sets and caveats about eye appeal, this is how it breaks down for me:

T206 - 1941 PB : 2-4 [*very* eye appeal dependent]
1948/49 Leaf - 1955 Topps : 5
1956 Topps - 1961 Topps : 6
1962 Topps - 1967 Topps : 7
1968 Topps - 1977 Topps: 8
1978 Topps - 1986 Topps: 9
1987 Topps - Current: 9-10

Of course there are tons of exceptions blah, blah, blah, but if I were to coarse grain average over my collection this is what would come out. I don't have the nicest collection but I think the cost-benefit balance is struck well for me with that breakdown.

[G1911]

P-vg+, raw. Any higher than that, and I’d be happier with a lower grade card that brings me the exact same joy as a card with sharp corners, and pocket the cost difference. Cards I have in nicer condition are always available for downgrading. Cards in slabs are cracked out or flipped for the same card without a case that costs far less for the exact same thing.

[homerunderby]

I'll go EX to EXMT for 50's and 60's, VG or better pre-war. Mostly raw unless I get a deal on a slab (which I promptly break out of the slab so I can display it in my binders).

Sometimes I'll tolerate even P-F for rarities like 1964 Topps Venezuelan.

I only collect Yankees.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

For me, EX is the perfect condition for postwar cards....they are crease free, mark free, and typically have good overall eye appeal...and can be found cheaper (and more easily) then NM versions of the same card.

But, when it comes to vintage cards, pretty much ANYTHING goes. There is a sizable market for ALL grades. Unlike modern where nobody really seems to want anything less than NM or Mint, there are enough low grade collectors in the market that you can typically sell/trade anything you decide to part with if you change your focus, direction, etc.

[rugbymarine]

Originally Posted by IgnatiusJReilly

This is a fun topic. Setting aside extremely difficult sets and caveats about eye appeal, this is how it breaks down for me:

T206 - 1941 PB : 2-4 [*very* eye appeal dependent]
1948/49 Leaf - 1955 Topps : 5
1956 Topps - 1961 Topps : 6
1962 Topps - 1967 Topps : 7
1968 Topps - 1977 Topps: 8
1978 Topps - 1986 Topps: 9
1987 Topps - Current: 9-10

Of course there are tons of exceptions blah, blah, blah, but if I were to coarse grain average over my collection this is what would come out. I don't have the nicest collection but I think the cost-benefit balance is struck well for me with that breakdown.

This is close to my thoughts. I tend to aim a little lower in some areas (Pre-war) and maybe higher elsewhere with specific cards.

I have another general guideline that I follow: I aim for the NICEST looking card I can afford between $100 - $250. For most cards in the era I collect the most (post-war vintage), that means there's a nice range of grades/condition that I can look for. I'm even fine buying a lower grade card if I think it looks nice than the one I already have. This price range does not apply to key cards to your collection (Ruth, Jackie, Mantle, pre-war, most HOF RC before 1960,.....you get the idea).

As much as I can, before I buy, or aggressively bid on, a card, I'll ask myself, "In a year, will I want to upgrade this card?" If the answer to that question is anything but definitely NOT, I usually won't go for the card. It's kind of hard to explain, but I guess that's why this question has so many different answers.

[Bestdj777]

I generally shoot for a PSA 1 or PSA A or ungraded.

[Popcorn]

I’m cool with beaters. Never been a condition snob.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I used to think I had to have cards that were in really top condition. As I have aged, I have gradually lowered what I felt like I had to have. Now, I'm to the point that I am content as long as the card is whole. I prefer no writing or staining on the front or paper loss. Outside of that, I am pretty satisfied to own a copy of a given card. All in all, I like set building, and there are so many sets I'd like to build before I am done. If I am too picky about condition, most of those sets will never happen for me.

[Kutcher55]

There's no right or wrong answer here. Some guys like cards that others wouldn't condescend to use as toilet paper. It depends on your budget as well as how you choose to allocate the funds that are disposable to you. It also depends on your overall goals are as a collector and if you're trying to make $ or hold the cards until you pass on, or somewhere in between.

[bmattioli]

I'll take any card I don't have regardless of condition. I'm currently working on the '53 Topps set and I'll take any grade to complete it. Send me your beaters LOL..

[metroac]

One of the things I like most about net54 is the joy that many members take in acquiring cards that I could only describe as "beat up." You're just not going to find (m)any 19th and early 20th century cards in top condition. So if you're interested in Old Judges or T206 or caramel cards (and you're not a young gazillionaire), you take what you can find.

I sold off a long run of Topps and Bowman sets in 1997 and dropped out of the hobby for 10-12 years. When I got back in, I started to collect sets that 1) I liked, 2) were small, 3) that I hadn't collected previously, and 4) that didn't have to be in beautiful condition in order to be enjoyable (or that really weren't available in top condition -- like most strip cards, for example).

The first set I did was the R312 pastels. Most I have raw, but I have graded examples from PSA 2 to PSA 5. They're beautiful cards, IMHO, but they show their age. Next, I did the R346 Blue Tints, an ugly set that looked like it needed some love, but that I wouldn't have to fuss about condition to work on and enjoy. I put together a set of 1937 Wheaties Series 9: sixteen cards, including a Dimaggio, and maybe the prettiest cards ever issued. I also collected Post Cereal baseball and football cards. They were generally cut from box backs by 10-year-olds (or their moms), and if I could find cards with fairly complete borders, I was happy. No point in looking for PSA 7's and up. (Also true of Exhibit cards, which I also collect and enjoy.) And I collected things that weren't made of cardboard -- Armour and Salada coins and '56 Topps pins. I didn't feel the need to have a TPG adjudicate the difference between Ex, ExMt, NrMt, NrMt-Mt, and Mint. Not "cards" exactly, but similar and fun.

I find that I wouldn't like to collect "modern" cards (for me, those after about 1966 or '67) that weren't in nice condition. I once had all those sets in very nice shape (before the 3rd party grading changed the hobby), and I just wouldn't enjoy owning them with creases and rounded corners.

So, what condition is acceptable in vintage cards? "Vintage" means different things to different people, but for me the answer is "Whatever floats your boat (and fits your budget)."

[wdwfan]

For me, I try to go with Ex. If I'm spending money, I want it to be something I'm proud of and not just to have to fill a set/hole in my binder. I also don't deal in graded. Strictly raw.

That said, I've bought collections before and sold off cards I needed cause they didn't meet what I was looking for. I've sold off cards that were VG-Ex or VG (and I can't tell you how many I've thrown away that had creases, wrinkles, writing, paper loss, missing corners, etc.). I know nobody collects the junky cards, so that's better than them sitting in a box.

[egri]

I'm a bit all over the place when it comes to condition. I have cards that look like they got run over that I love, and cards in great condition that I'm ambivalent about. Plus, with lowgrade cards, I know they were flipped against walls and stuck in bicycle spokes and otherwise played with; they didn't just sit in a shoebox (or visit the card doctor).

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by wdwfan

For me, I try to go with Ex. If I'm spending money, I want it to be something I'm proud of and not just to have to fill a set/hole in my binder. I also don't deal in graded. Strictly raw.

That said, I've bought collections before and sold off cards I needed cause they didn't meet what I was looking for. I've sold off cards that were VG-Ex or VG (and I can't tell you how many I've thrown away that had creases, wrinkles, writing, paper loss, missing corners, etc.). I know nobody collects the junky cards, so that's better than them sitting in a box.

For the right price, I would bet there are people who would have bought the cards you threw away. Personally, I would pass on paper loss and writing, but creases and wrinkles would be fine for me.

[wdwfan]

Not from me, or so it seems. I've tried and tried, and usually at 1/3 or more off comps. Same with buying. But it is what it is.

Originally Posted by jayshum

For the right price, I would bet there are people who would have bought the cards you threw away. Personally, I would pass on paper loss and writing, but creases and wrinkles would be fine for me.

[HOF Yankees]

50s/60s Good-EXMT myabe NM depending on player and set I am happy with low to mid grade maybe some in NM but thats few and far between. I like Raw ungraded, reason I like the card in its natural form. I use to be condition snob but when i realized how much it costs to own some of these old cards I lowered my standards a tad. I like a full in tact card with no paper loss a some creases or scratches are fine but not severe. I like to page through my binders and read the card backs and look at the fronts as well

[bnorth]

Anything worse than this I consider not buying.

[orioles70]

This is without a doubt the worst condition card I have but it really is priceless to me and is proudly displayed in my office.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

I want them to look like they did when i was a kid: no better than ex on most older cards and the Mantles all p-vg as they were when I pulled them out of bargain boxes. The cards from when I was a kid in the 1970s have to be pack-fresh: For every seven cards there has to be one centered, clean, crisp card, and the rest off-centered (every Nolan Ryan I ever pulled from 1973-1979), miscut, print-flawed (e.g., 1976 Topps George 'Snow Day' Brett), and every seventh card wax-stained or gum-stained (preferably the Mike Schmidt cards, which always seemed to be the case when I was a kid; is there a 1975 wax pack Schmidt that doesn't have a stain, 'cause all of mine had stains?). If I owned a 1976 Schmidt that was centered or a Jackson without that print flaw in the color band it would just feel wrong.

[BobbyStrawberry]

My personal taste in vintage cards often does not correspond to which number a grader decided to give a card. In my experience, the older the card, the more this is true.

Like this guy...been around the block, but a nice image and it's even centered!

[HOF Yankees]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

My personal taste in vintage cards often does not correspond to which number a grader decided to give a card. In my experience, the older the card, the more this is true.

Like this guy...been around the block, but a nice image and it's even centered!

i like that one

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by HOF Yankees

i like that one

Thanks Jake - it definitely has character!

[jchcollins]

The variety of responses is to be expected and part of what makes collecting great. For me personally (though not 100% as I generally avoid true beaters...) the old maxim that used to and may still be on the OBC page holds true - "Most of us would all surely like to collect NM cards, but..."

But. Reality gets in the way quickly, and if you are not a collector with Bezos-like resources, you might not be able to maintain a high grade vintage card pace for very long.

My own personal condition preferences play a huge role in what is or is not acceptable for the sets and singles I go after. My #1 condition criteria is usually nice color and sharp image focus on the card, things like corners and centering are secondary and behind that. In terms of professional grading, I generally think that a 6 is a very high grade on most vintage from the 1960's or earlier; here the card is going to be squared up and fairly sharp, devoid of crease or wrinkles, and maybe a touch OC. With other graded singles and especially going back into the 1950's - the 3 to 5 range if graded is probably more my wheelhouse. There you will find the best mix of eye appeal and affordability, at least in my opinion.

For the sets I'm working on (right now 1967 and '72 Topps...) the commons are probably going to average VG-EX range. I don't like big ugly creases or cards that are obviously miscut - but in that example of a set with nearly 800 cards - there are going to be some here and there that slip through that criteria. It's just too much to deal with, and a random card here or there that's P in a VG-EX set is not going to bother me at all.

Bottom line, does the card retain eye appeal, look good to me, and have a place in my collection? For the pricier stuff, it's really more about the individual card and how it strikes me. I have a '58 Mantle / Aaron that presents about EX on the front, but would probably grade a 2 or something in that range due to some album residue on the back. Fine with me, it's still a fantastic, beautiful card.

I would also agree with what others have alluded to here, in that as I get older...(I'm 44, have been collecting since age 9 in 1986) condition especially with vintage just matters less. In terms of satisfying my nostalgic needs for dopamine hits - anymore a VG-EX raw card isn't necessarily going to be worse than a graded PSA 6 card for say...a 60's Hall of Famer. It just isn't. So why spend the extra cash when the goal is to accumulate more cards?

Last thing I will say about condition is I think there is a conspiracy of cognitive bias going on around about centering, which was started by professional grading companies 25-ish years ago. I don't like miscut cards, but have never been a centering fanatic and am usually going to be happy with 70/30 one way. Back when I first got into vintage cards in the late 1980's - nobody, and I mean nobody - gave the first ripe F about centering outside of miscuts. You looked for the cards with the nicest image and sharpest corners first; centering was a consideration usually only after that. But fast forward into the 2000's and we've done a 180 - in large part I think to the subtle mind games and qualifiers of an outfit like PSA. "Oh, this card is NM-MT, but for the centering. There is something wrong with it, go get another one!" Sorry, but I think this is a sham being perpetuated on the hobby. Yes, perfectly centered cards are beautiful. My only point is that those which are not - are not also somehow totally ugly and inherently un-collectible. At least IMO. #ExitSoapbox

Go after whatever condition cards make you happy and enjoy collecting!