Do creases still bother collectors as much

[MCoxon]

Saw Leon's beautiful '52 Mantle, perfectly centered, but with a crease. Graded 2.5, but huge eye-appeal.

We've seen the mindset shift towards centering being more important. When will creases become "less important?"

Creases have historically been the kiss of death. O/C PSA 4 cards with rounded corners abound on eBay, with exhortations of "no creases!"

Spider wrinkles can knock a PSA 8 to a 5 or even 4. I'd rather have a centered PSA 4 with sharp corners and 1 spider wrinkle than an O/C PSA 7, especially when the 7 will cost more than twice as much.

Will minor creases - especially wrinkles - cease being such a negative? Or will they continue to be considered so much worse than worn corners, chipped edges, and even off-centering?

I rather have a card with no creases and or wrinkles.

[jb67]

With the way prices are going I think a small wrinkle/crease (as long as it still has eye-appeal) will become more accepted. Personally I am ok with a small crease or spidering if the card still has good eye-appeal. My Aaron rookie as an example. The tiny crease on the left side almost half-way down is hardly noticed and some denting on the bottom corners does not take away from the eye-appeal to me. I'm sure those flaws might really bother some collectors but with the way HOF rookie cards are exploding in price I think collectors will be willing to live with the imperfections of a crease.

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by rgpete

I rather have a card with no creases and or wrinkles.

+1 , no creases please

[begsu1013]

depends on the card, but I'd rather have a light crease/wrinkle than something pristine that is completely oc.

now some deep wrinkle that has turned white and goes thru the players face might be a different scenario.

[TheNightmanCometh]

As a little fun side project I'm collecting '51 Bowmans of Braves players. I actually think light creases on the cards add character. I don't feel the same about Topps cards, though.

[DBesse27]

No creases. I don't care much about centering.

[Leon]

I am ok with creases (on some cards that are relatively expensive) but not in the facial area. However, centering is what I care about most. It doesn't have to be a 4, it could be a 2. This one might skew some vcp...

[ls7plus]

Depends on how rare and desirable the card is. If its a 1907 Wolverine News Cobb rookie, with a total of 11 graded by both services last time I checked, or a 1923 Lections Ruth, with perhaps only a dozen or so around at all, I'd much rather have a creased example than no example at all. And neither of those is leaving my collection any time in the foreseeable future. If, on the other hand, the card in question is much more commonly seen, then a creased card doesn't make much sense to purchase. I wouldn't have minded acquiring the E107 Wagner in the last REA auction, for example. Even with creases, paper loss on the front, a pinhole, and other indicia of wear, it brought about $57,000.00, if memory serves correctly, and was a good purchase IMHO.

Happy collecting,

Larry

[TheNightmanCometh]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am ok with creases (on some cards that are relatively expensive) but not in the facial area. However, centering is what I care about most. It doesn't have to be a 4, it could be a 2. This one might skew some vcp...

With the '51 Bowmans I have the creases are in the corners or near the corners. Definitely agree that a big crease that covers the player is a creased card I don't really want.

[mrmopar]

You take what you can get on tough issues, but I'd rather not have any creasing or bad centering. I am not a big spender though, so this is rarely an issue. I wait for a better copy if I need to.

I have a 56 T Mantle that has some light creasing but it still looks decent and I didn't want to spend the bigger $$ for a better one.

[pokerplyr80]

I picked the centered 4 with the crease but only because I wouldn't even consider the other two. It would have to be a very tough card, something along the lines of Leon's 52 Mantle for me to seek out a card with a crease. A card I could not otherwise own. A Ruth RC, CJ Cobb, Matty, Jackson, etc. I would take a centered card with a spider wrinkle all day in those cases. If I can afford to wait for a better example with other cards I will.

[Harliduck]

This discussion has mainly been about graded cards, and I own my share of high end SGC cards, but creases are an absolute deal breaker for me. In my youth my prized card was a 65 Namath RC. It was perfectly centered and corners were sharp...but it was creased right through the middle. I was the local hero for owning it (pre-internet most only saw cards like that in a book or a becket) and as much as I LOVED the card, I hated it too.

Being a set builder, I will never buy a card with any creasing. OC (to a degree) is OK...corners can be a little fuzzy...but zero creasing. My set standards are 4 to 7's ideally and I am sure I have a few that could grade higher. Anything that comes in my initial lots that don't meet my criteria I upgrade after the set is done (or during as I keep a list).

So for me, creasing is completely out. I respect the high grade collectors here that covet centering, and I am sure if most of you guys were looking through my binders you would often cringe...haha..but you won't find creases. There are the obvious exceptions...I wouldn't turn down ANY shape 52 Mantle, but even my 55 Clemente is crease free (SGC 4, PSA would give it a OC).

[itjclarke]

Personally, I'd choose a nice, sharp cornered, clean image card that's OC over a perfectly centered one with a crease. I also remember creases as the "kiss of death" when collecting as a kid, and know all my friends who collected back then felt similar.

I think that it was very different then though, when we actually handled ALL our cards raw. You could see the creases more easily and often feel them, as well as feel how different dinged corners felt than razor sharp. Now most available/for sale high value cards are graded, and I think the premium on flaws that stood out more on a raw card (creases, fuzzy corners or edges, indentations, etc) are less noticeable to collectors who may never even touch the card (I own many I'll likely never touch).

Though it seems centering has probably always been appreciated, I think it's premium is in part driven recently by the fact these cards will forever be framed in a TPG holder. I think this draws more attention to the card's framing, and the fact the card will never be handled, minimizes the negative impact of crease/wrinkles, etc.

[bobsbbcards]

No creases for me please. I've also sold off nicely centered out of focus PSA 9's and kept a slightly off-center PSA 8 (1967 Topps #1 for instance)--out of focus is worse than a crease, although both are deal breakers.

I don't mind a non-Q centering issue--they came out of packs that way, so that's good enough for me. I've recently added a MC 1948 Leaf to my collection that is gorgeous except for the MC thingy. I couldn't have sprung for a PSA 8 of the card or even a 7, so a PSA 8MC is the best I can do. I'll find the link to the auction in a second.

[bobsbbcards]

Found it:

[MCoxon]

Thanks for responses so far. the poll as of now shows:

70% PSA 4, with spider wrinkle
5% PSA 6, off registration
25% PSA 7, off-centered

A good distinction has been made between people considering PSA 4 cards for really high-end and/or scarce cards, where allowances are more likely for creases/wrinkles - "you take what you can get", versus if a card is plentiful and relatively affordable, many collectors would still prefer a card without a crease.

Also, definitely a crease through a face is far worse than a spider wrinkle on a border or away from the portrait area of the card.

[irv]

Originally Posted by jb67

With the way prices are going I think a small wrinkle/crease (as long as it still has eye-appeal) will become more accepted. Personally I am ok with a small crease or spidering if the card still has good eye-appeal. My Aaron rookie as an example. The tiny crease on the left side almost half-way down is hardly noticed and some denting on the bottom corners does not take away from the eye-appeal to me. I'm sure those flaws might really bother some collectors but with the way HOF rookie cards are exploding in price I think collectors will be willing to live with the imperfections of a crease.

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Thanks for responses so far. the poll as of now shows:

70% PSA 4, with spider wrinkle
5% PSA 6, off registration
25% PSA 7, off-centered

A good distinction has been made between people considering PSA 4 cards for really high-end and/or scarce cards, where allowances are more likely for creases/wrinkles - "you take what you can get", versus if a card is plentiful and relatively affordable, many collectors would still prefer a card without a crease.

Also, definitely a crease through a face is far worse than a spider wrinkle on a border or away from the portrait area of the card.

Case in point above.

Who wouldn't accept that card if they were looking unless they had way more money than most of us and could wait for a better copy.

[irv]

48 bids so far on this OC Mays.

I would assume, if it didn't have the OC qualifier, this would be an 8?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-2...AAAOSw8vZXNefB

[Jdoggs]

Originally Posted by irv

48 bids so far on this OC Mays.

I would assume, if it didn't have the OC qualifier, this would be an 8?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-Topps-2...AAAOSw8vZXNefB

Strong price sold for $9.2k.

[the 'stache]

I'd prefer my cards not have any creases, of course, but some of the cards I want will be cost prohibitive without some very minor flaws. Such is life. If I'm going to have a crease, I prefer it not rear its ugly head in the picture's focal point. A little, nearly indiscernible crease in the lower left corner of a '54 Topps Hank Aaron is ok with me. That same crease in the middle of Hank's face...that would be a deal killer.

[PowderedH2O]

It depends on the crease. About ten years ago I sent in a 1972 Joe Namath In Action that I thought had a legitimate shot at a 9, and an outside shot at a 10. It came back a 5 because of some microcrease only visible under a loupe. To me, that's just too picky. If a crease is so small that I can't see it, but it allows me to buy a card for a whole lot less, I am all over it.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by DBesse27

No creases. I don't care much about centering.

....for those who don't care too much about centering , there is an entire decade of Topps out there for you....

..

[irv]

Originally Posted by MikeGarcia

....for those who don't care too much about centering , there is an entire decade of Topps out there for you....

..

Yep, I own many 52 Topps cards that are OC.

Premium prices are paid for centered copies, especially in the 311 and up numbers.

[Leon]

Not to beat the dead horse but the best centered cards won/are winning in the poll as well as everyday practices, if what I am seeing in the hobby is legit . (and I think most of it is). I have seen far greater eye appeal issues with roller marks on these '51 Mantle cards. For this to get a 2, to me, is somewhat disingenuous. It is my opinion that PSA wants resubmissions...and they won't get one from me on this one. Or the other one I have coming in. I am not playing the resubmit game (yet) and am hoping cards sell for what they are supposed to based on what most collectors want, eye appeal. I would like to see a better '51 Mantle in a PSA 2 holder....that is a challenge? (shown above too but this is a bit larger to capture all of the flaws) I don't know how anyone in the hobby would say that is a 2 on of a scale of 10 ? Really?

[Rookiemonster]

Wow that's got some eye appeal Leon ! I have no clue how it is a 2 . Great example of what is going on.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Leon

Not to beat the dead horse but the best centered cards won/are winning in the poll as well as everyday practices, if what I am seeing in the hobby is legit . (and I think most of it is). I have seen far greater eye appeal issues with roller marks on these '51 Mantle cards. For this to get a 2, to me, is somewhat disingenuous. It is my opinion that PSA wants resubmissions...and they won't get one from me on this one. Or the other one I have coming in. I am not playing the resubmit game (yet) and am hoping cards sell for what they are supposed to based on what most collectors want, eye appeal. I would like to see a better '51 Mantle in a PSA 2 holder....that is a challenge? (shown above too but this is a bit larger to capture all of the flaws) I don't know how anyone in the hobby would say that is a 2 on of a scale of 10 ? Really?

Leon, I have said it many times on here, through my educating/research, there isn't a lot of consistency when it comes to grading it seems.

I have seen more than a few 4's that look a lot worse than your card, and some are fairly new submissions.

Luckily for you, I would assume you saved hundreds purchasing that 2 compared to a 4 or higher, or did you submit this one and it only came back a 2?
If that is the case, then I don't blame you for not wanting to play the re-submit game.

[Leon]

I bought it raw and that was my very first card ever sending into PSA .

Originally Posted by irv

Leon, I have said it many times on here, through my educating/research, there isn't a lot of consistency when it comes to grading it seems.

I have seen more than a few 4's that look a lot worse than your card, and some are fairly new submissions.

Luckily for you, I would assume you saved hundreds purchasing that 2 compared to a 4 or higher, or did you submit this one and it only came back a 2?
If that is the case, then I don't blame you for not wanting to play the re-submit game.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Leon

I bought it raw and that was my very first card ever sending into PSA .

Is that a crease running vertical across Mick's back? If not, and with no paper loss that I can see, it's clear to see the grader was having a bad day or forgot his glasses at home.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by irv

Is that a crease running vertical across Mick's back? If not, and with no paper loss that I can see, it's clear to see the grader was having a bad day or forgot his glasses at home.

That is a crease but it doesn't go through to the back so it's really more of a wrinkle. And that wrinkle does spider towards the top and break off into another wrinkle which can't be seen from the scan. Neither go through to the back. That is the reason for the 2 but you would think the overall eye appeal should warrant at least a half grade higher, if not a full grade. I am obviously biased .

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

For me the answer to this depends on what era I am collecting. As a postwar collector, I own no cards with creases and do not plan on changing that anytime soon. Lately, I have become interested in T206. If I am going to go very far into that, there will be (and already are) some creasing. As long as the crease doesn't run right through the middle of the card or in the subject's face, I am finding I can live with it. For cards produced 1909-1911, some creasing doesn't bother me.