Mid-Grade Collectors

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

This is a really encouraging thread. Thanks for sharing, guys. If I had more time, I have a few lower/mid-grade cards of my own that I could share. It is nice to see that I am not alone.

[Nick55]

I think budgets dictate what we collect as well.

This is a big part of it for me. A secondary factor is that in some cases, I could afford to buy higher grade, but just don't want to spend a ton of money on a card. The fact is that 99.9 percent of the cards in my 1950's to early 1970's portion of my collection cost less than $100 apiece, and most of those less than $20. I'm not comfortable spending more than that.

I've heard quotes like, "Buy the highest grade you can afford" and stuff like that. I follow a different path - "buy just nice enough of a condition that makes me happy." For 1950's through early 70's, that condition is VG/VG-EX, and in some cases, even poor/fair will do. For the rest of the '70's, EX-MT/NM (not difficult to find in this condition and generally very inexpensive at well less than 1 buck for a common). For the 1980's+, NM/NM-MT.

[irv]

Over 30 yrs ago I received 148 1952 Topps cards from my Father. Since 2016, when i joined this site, I have been picking away trying my best to add to it as much as I can.

Most he gave me are in the 2 to 4 range with maybe a few 5's here and there. When I purchase cards I normally purchase in that range as they are more affordable and it keeps with the theme/condition of the cards he gave me.

I would love one/a few 8+ graded 52 Topps cards just to say I have one/some, but at the same time, knowing most are out of reach dollar wise, I am glad to be able to purchase more cards than what likely one of those would cost.

When I first joined the site, I didn't concern myself with centering much, but since then, I try my best to find decent centered cards if I can. Top to bottom bothers me a lot less than side to side centering but creases, unless they are subtle or almost invisible in scans, are usually a no go for me.

Currently I am around 306 cards and counting (FlickR link below) and I add here and there when money says I can.

[jchcollins]

Another thought - for me at least, the definitions surrounding "mid-grade" seem to have shifted over time, at least certainly for older cards. Depending on who you are you probably think of mid-grade in the PSA 3 to 6 range. I don't know about the rest of you, but for me in the vast majority of cases - a PSA 6 is going to be a damn nice vintage card. No creases, sharp corners, and decent centering. When I was collecting as a kid, anything with the term "Excellent" in the grade was just that - and old cards that were "excellent" or better were at the higher end of the spectrum. I remember back then, my main concern with 1950's and 60's cards were that they be devoid of major, ugly creases. Even so, I had and loved some cards that did have those creases. Corners were of lesser concern, I did prefer that the cards have 4 of them. Centering I don't recall being something I was concerned about at all as a kid, I recently went back and found some snapshots of some parts of of my childhood collection that I no longer own, and was surprised at how badly centered certain vintage cards that I had and loved were.

I guess it's all about perspective and beauty in the eye of the beholder.

[MCoxon]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Another thought - for me at least, the definitions surrounding "mid-grade" seem to have shifted over time, at least certainly for older cards. Depending on who you are you probably think of mid-grade in the PSA 3 to 6 range. I don't know about the rest of you, but for me in the vast majority of cases - a PSA 6 is going to be a damn nice vintage card. No creases, sharp corners, and decent centering. When I was collecting as a kid, anything with the term "Excellent" in the grade was just that - and old cards that were "excellent" or better were at the higher end of the spectrum. I remember back then, my main concern with 1950's and 60's cards were that they be devoid of major, ugly creases. Even so, I had and loved some cards that did have those creases. Corners were of lesser concern, I did prefer that the cards have 4 of them. Centering I don't recall being something I was concerned about at all as a kid, I recently went back and found some snapshots of some parts of of my childhood collection that I no longer own, and was surprised at how badly centered certain vintage cards that I had and loved were.

I guess it's all about perspective and beauty in the eye of the beholder.

i was literally going to write the same sentiment. "Ex-MT" was often the highest listing I would see in many periodicals 30 years ago. Also, if you look at old Beckett guides, it would have "percent discount from mint" for various grades, and my recollection that Ex-Mt might have been at 75% of value of mint, whereas now, I notice almost a doubling at every PSA number grade for 1950s cards, so that a PSA 9 price (mint) would dwarf a PSA 6 in price.

I think grading has made what had been considered finite differences in card condition a glaring difference. I'm not sure that's helped the hobby one way or another, other than making some cards "Investment grade" due to being so much more "scarce". But the truth is, there were 100,000 1956 Mantles out there before grading and 100,00 after, it's just that now, we've gradated differences so that there only 200 PSA 8+ (not sure of these numbers). That strikes me as false scarcity, though many will say it's a misinterpretation of 'scarcity' and condition rarity exists in other collectible markets as well

[Nick55]

and was surprised at how badly centered certain vintage cards that I had and loved were.

Same here. I've thought alot about this lately, and the best answer for this that I can come up with is that for many of us, the content was the focus when we were younger rather than centering, corner, and other imperfections. The exceptions to this were imperfections that grossly interfered with interpreting the "content" (i.e., viewing the card front, reading the back, etc.) like heavy creasing, bad focus, miscuts, missing paper, ink mustaches, etc. They became an issue for good reason: they distracted from the content. Next time you look at card, note the first thing you notice about it. I'll bet for many, their eyes go straight to the corners and centering first followed with an almost instantaneous valuation calculation (that was the case for me when I really paid attention to it). When I was kid, my eyes went straight to the photo first and foremost. I never gave corners or centering much thought until one day I opened a beckett price guide and notice the cost differential between NM and VG cards. Now corners, centering, and other attributes mattered to me, because the focus shifted from "content" to "value" (or at least, there became a shared focus between the two).

For the most part, it's my view that the whole centering thing is largely a trend/fad that gets repeated over and over on message boards to the extent that it's the "in thing." This has especially been the case over the last few years. It was not nearly as pervasive 5 years ago, as I recall, as it is now. Don't get me wrong - I love a perfectly centered card. But, I'm not going to fret over it and spend a ton of effort or money searching for one - way too much work to be fun for me.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Also, if you look at old Beckett guides, it would have "percent discount from mint" for various grades, and my recollection that Ex-Mt might have been at 75% of value of mint, whereas now, I notice almost a doubling at every PSA number grade for 1950s cards, so that a PSA 9 price (mint) would dwarf a PSA 6 in price.l

Beckett ranges (& don't get me started on how some people always thought the left column was for NM and the right was VG...) were stated to be for NM cards for pre-1980. If you had 1950's cards that were truly better than NM (again, as subjective as this is today, it was even crazier what people thought back in the 80's) then that was some range 100% or more of "book" value based on what the card was. Clearly the percentage for Mickey Mantle was higher using this line of thinking than Mickey Vernon.

I remember one case where a dealer actually pulled this on me - wanting more $ for a card because it was in "better than" NM condition. The term NM-MT was not yet en vogue, and it certainly was not associated with the number 8. But the point I believe was the same. The card in question was a 1958 Topps Yogi Berra, which I bought because it was so nice, but paid wayyyyy too much for by today's standards. It was nice, but may have been a PSA 6 today because of the centering. I'm not a centering freak. I don't generally like worse than 80/20 up to miscut cards (there are some rare exceptions), but have a tolerance for it beyond that. Today as back then, if my first impression of a card is that the centering is acceptable, I move on and then generally don't consider it again - I just admire the card. Then sometime later someone will be all like "Well that's nice except for the 65/35..." and I'll be dumbfounded. I digress - another large point to be made is that before professional grading - many, many EX-MT or so vintage cards were routinely described as NM to Gem Mint by dealers who sold through the mail - and in the 1980's and earlier, this was often done sans any pictures. I imagine that many, many off-centered "mint" cards were sold at mint prices back in the day.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

For me, mid-grade cards provide the best bang for the buck. Would I prefer to have Mint condition vintage cards? Sure! They are beautiful and investment quality. However, my budget doesn't allow that.

I do not want cards with creases, marks, or paper loss...but other than that, mid grade cards will still have great visual appeal and are fun to handle. So VG to EX is the sweet spot for my collection. I typically don't need them graded, unless it's a higher dollar card, and then the only reason I want them graded is to confirm they are authentic and unaltered.