What’s an acceptable grade for vintage cards?

[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!