Best card grades for the money

[bk400]

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?

[hcv123]

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.

[cgjackson222]

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.

[bk400]

Wow. Those are two really good looking cards.

[NiceDocter]

"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!!!

[jethrod3]

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.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by NiceDocter

"Buy the card, not the holder" 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 !!!

..


.. 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 ?

..

..

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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. .

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.

[Kutcher55]

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



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



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

1.5 baby!

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

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.

That is a fantastic 1.5

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

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

That is a fantastic 1.5

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

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

That Evers is absurd! What a beauty.

[jb67]

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.

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

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.

[jchcollins]

1.5’s can present deceptively well.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TUM301]

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.
1952 Topps Mickey Mantle....... by Hugh Murphy, on Flickr
.

[Touch'EmAll]

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.