Mid-Grade Collectors

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Tere1071

Also, my grandmother decided to separate mine and my brother's 1970s by writing "Santa Claus" on the fronts of his cards. He was going through an identity crisis as a 5-year-old at the time, calling himself Santa.

That's the best anecdote I've heard in quite some time...

[jchcollins]

I have mentioned it before, perhaps even somewhere back in the history of this very thread - but to me the tradeoff between midgrade or lower and true high grade cards also comes back to my eventual disappointment with true high grade cards. Whether subconsciously or not, if I buy a vintage card in a PSA 7 or 8, I'm going to expect it to be virtually perfect. The problem there of course is "virtually perfect" cards are 10's, not 7's. I've fallen into that trap again at least once even as recently as this spring - that PSA 7 which was so nice looking actually had an edge ding I'm not happy with, or that SGC 88 which looked great online has dull color in real life. The truth is I would not be unhappy with either card if they had been in the 5 - 6 range and I had paid correspondingly lower for them. But when I pay for higher, I apparently get the problem of unrealistic expectation onset - even though I've known how to properly grade for decades.

[Tere1071]

Two thoughts- Back in the 1970s having a card that was ex/mint was fine. The notion of having something "gem mint" was exploited by a number of the "rock star" dealers who hyped cards as an investment. I remember that even Mr. Mint himself, Al Rosen, initially opposed graded cards, but he sure pushed his other inventory.

Secondly, some of you may be familiar with Bill Heitmann. I once had a conversation with him back in the 80s where we mused on the notion of "gem mint." He noted that most cards are printed on acidic paper which over time breaks down. His point was that the term "gem mint" was a misnomer as our objects of devotion begin to break down little by little over time- much like our significant non-sports card others (my comment, not his.)

A card doesn't have to be "perfect" to validate a collection.

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I have mentioned it before, perhaps even somewhere back in the history of this very thread - but to me the tradeoff between midgrade or lower and true high grade cards also comes back to my eventual disappointment with true high grade cards. Whether subconsciously or not, if I buy a vintage card in a PSA 7 or 8, I'm going to expect it to be virtually perfect. The problem there of course is "virtually perfect" cards are 10's, not 7's. I've fallen into that trap again at least once even as recently as this spring - that PSA 7 which was so nice looking actually had an edge ding I'm not happy with, or that SGC 88 which looked great online has dull color in real life. The truth is I would not be unhappy with either card if they had been in the 5 - 6 range and I had paid correspondingly lower for them. But when I pay for higher, I apparently get the problem of unrealistic expectation onset - even though I've known how to properly grade for decades.

I feel the same way! If I get a great looking 6 I think I got a deal, but if I see a flaw in a 7 I’m annoyed. It’s like my optimism-pessimism for expectations flips.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by IgnatiusJReilly

I feel the same way! If I get a great looking 6 I think I got a deal, but if I see a flaw in a 7 I’m annoyed. It’s like my optimism-pessimism for expectations flips.

I don't have this problem for the most part with 60's cards and earlier because it's rare that I buy a 7 or higher there. But recently for '72 and '76 projects, I decided to buy a few 7's and 8's. Some I was happy with. But the '72 Clemente in an 8 which was basically a 10 with a noticeable edge ding was horrible. I couldn't get over it. I sold the card and bought a slightly o/c 6 for a price I was happy with. (The corners on the 6 are gem, btw. Centering and a minor print flaw were apparently the only problems...) My '76 Nolan Ryan in an SGC 5.5 looks better than my original of the the same card in an 8, which has sharper corners, but horrible dull coloring. So the lesson learned was I apparently don't need to buy super high grade in 70's cards either...

[wdwfan]

I love mid grade. It's the only way I can afford to collect. I can't afford NM-Mt or Mint stuff with my budget. I'd rather have a card in Ex over not having it at all. Also, I don't deal with anything graded. I like to put cards into binders when I'm building sets.

That said, I typically look for Ex with no creases, bends, indentations or wrinkles, no paper loss, pin holes, writing, no rounded corners and 70-30 or better centering.

I love seeing all these cards. Makes me want to up my game a bit. But my small budget ($40/week) doesn't allow for that. I'm not like most collectors in that I either have to save up to get something nice, or I have to sell some of my PC in order to get something nicer, quicker.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by wdwfan

I'm not like most collectors in that I either have to save up to get something nice, or I have to sell some of my PC in order to get something nicer, quicker.

I think you are in a bigger boat than you might imagine. I don't have a huge budget for cards. I generally buy stuff twice a year - around Christmas and my birthday. There are some far-between windfalls at times, but for the most part other than that, I will sell parts of my collection that are old or less interesting to me to buy more "new" old cards.

[Tere1071]

I'm in the same boat where I have to use money outside my paycheck which means having to sell parts of my collection. Over the years I have had to get rid of some nice cards and memorabilia to purchase something else. The 53 Bowman set is a keeper, though.