Conflicted feelings...

[steve B]

I think there's room for both types of collectors. And for both types of cards in a collection. There's also room for a third sort of collector.

Having collected fairly constantly since the late 70's but always on a budget my collection includes some very nice cards and some really beat ones. And if I had to pick say 20 cards to keep, it would probably be 50/50 between nice and beat. I have a fair appreciation for the players, but obviously need a bit of studying on the older ones.

One of the things I find cool is the different ways people collect. Some go for condition, some the opposite. Some only HOF players some only one player. The different collections are endless. And I admire the focus some people can sustain.

The third type of collector? Those are the ones that know a good deal about the players AND look for cards in fantastic condition. We usually only get to see bits of those collections, but what we see is wonderful, inspiring, and humbling all at once. Sort of like going to a good museum, or seeing the work of a great artist up close. I think there are a few more collectors like that here than most places.

Some of the best threads are the ones where someone shows an item and explains why it's incredibly cool to them. The director of the Smithsonian wrote a column for the magazine that was like that, different item each month some national treasures, some just really interesting. It was the first part I read.

If all someone wants is the best of some particular set assembling the finest known examples verified by grading, that's fine too. Even if that's all they care about.

Steve B

[Ronnie73]

For me, condition depends on the year of the cards. Anything 1980-2011 must be PSA 10, 1951-1979 must be PSA 8, 1930's to 1950 must be PSA 4 to 6, Pre 1930's I collect in any grade except qualifiers and authentic's. Pre 1980 PSA 10's I feel can be a waste of money unless money is no object. You can buy 100 PSA 8 1973 Topps commons for the same price as 1 PSA 10 common. I would rather enjoy the 100 cards over the 1.

[abothebear]

When I got back into collecting last year it was six months before I got back to my mom's house to dig out my old childhood collection. I already knew they'd be virtually worthless since I collected during the 80s and early 90s, but when I realized the condition of them my heart sunk even further. Since then I have been tempted to auction off selected lots of them just to get them out but I can't bring myself to do it because they are the actual physical cards I invested so much of my time, energy, and money into. I probably won't ever get rid of them even though they will never have any market value.

Not quite the same thing, but cards mean different things to different people, and some cards mean something different than other cards to the same collector. Some of what I have I keep because of my history with them, some I collect because of the person on the card, some I collect because of the deal. And sometimes the various motivations come together in sweet harmony.

[xdrx]

As someone who re-entered this hobby after a long hiatus (and mostly with an intent to sell some cards) I was sort of worried that the collecting bug might bite me hard. That feeling faded after a month or two, as I really became sort of disillusioned by the whole grading/condition thing.

If I were to start collecting again it would definitely be in the VG-EX raw realm. A 60 year old card of some player I've never heard of with razor sharp corners for a $1000 entombed in hard plastic and labeled with a serial # and grade is definitely not my idea of collecting baseball cards.

[tbob]

I am one of the group who still loves pre-war beautiful cards in A holders because of slight trimming or with incredible fronts and small back damage. It's great to have the 5s and 6s and 7s in the collections but I appreciate the misfits too.
Speaking of the Washington Senators, I think it's a crying shame that the Minnesota Twins don't celebrate their connection with the Senators more. Maybe if the Twins had kept the name "Senators" they would but I think it's a shame they don't cherish their lineage although in the last few years there has been a little more appreciation....

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by tbob

I am one of the group who still loves pre-war beautiful cards in A holders because of slight trimming or with incredible fronts and small back damage. It's great to have the 5s and 6s and 7s in the collections but I appreciate the misfits too.
Speaking of the Washington Senators, I think it's a crying shame that the Minnesota Twins don't celebrate their connection with the Senators more. Maybe if the Twins had kept the name "Senators" they would but I think it's a shame they don't cherish their lineage although in the last few years there has been a little more appreciation....

For me, teams don't belong to whoever happens to own them at a particular time (the "franchise"), they belong to the city they're playing in. And this seems especially true when those owners actually remove the team from said city. Yes, I followed the fates of some of the Twins players for several years after they were taken from D.C., but for there to be any claimed connection now is ridiculous. Likewise for the Rangers. And I cringe any time I hear any kind of lineage perceived between the Nationals and the Montreal Expos. The only true heritage for the Nationals are Washington's previous major league teams from 1886 through 1971.

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

For me, teams don't belong to whoever happens to own them at a particular time (the "franchise"), they belong to the city they're playing in. And this seems especially true when those owners actually remove the team from said city. Yes, I followed the fates of some of the Twins players for several years after they were taken from D.C., but for there to be any claimed connection now is ridiculous. Likewise for the Rangers. And I cringe any time I hear any kind of lineage perceived between the Nationals and the Montreal Expos. The only true heritage for the Nationals are Washington's previous major league teams from 1886 through 1971.

I agree with this whole-heartedly.