General Forum

We've touched on this before, but I'm always having a debate with myself when I buy vintage cards, which is everything that I don't buy brand new. I get close to completing a set, and what's left is often the big ticket items. So for 1969 Topps baseball, I'm looking at Ryan, and Rose AS, and Stargell, and McCovey. For the 1971 Topps coins, it's Mays and Palmer, for example. Usually, I'm looking for cards in about Excellent condition. But that gets pricey when you're looking at a 1969 Ryan. So my internal debate is: should I get a nice one of these, because he's a star, even though it's expensive? VS should I accept a lower condition card so I can afford the darn thing just to have it? 

I don't have an answer. I can tell you that we collectors are bit nuts, but you knew that. I picked up the McCovey, which seems to sell for $10 to $15, for $1.56 because mine has the tiniest, 3 mm crease at the top. I am very pleased with this transaction and am glad that its valued lowered so much with such a tiny defect. The Rose AS I got for $2.80 because it has a bigger crease, but still looks good. Seems to sell at about $15-$20 otherwise. I'm fine with it. A $1.25 Stargell is coming, with a crunched corner. Obviously, in my frenzy to wrap up this set, I'm compromising on condition. We'll see what I do with the Ryan and a couple others I need. 

I guess my quick survey question is this: for old stars do you want the nicer card because it's a star ("I mean, it's frickin' Nolan Ryan; it should be a really nice sample") or do you take the lesser card so you can afford the star ("Who cares about the condition; I have a '69 Ryan?")? 

v3

I would always rather have a higher number of cheaper cards than a couple of expensive cards. I would rather do without than have a fraction of a card, though. I also am no fan of paper loss or writing. I will still add them to my collection though, if they are free. I've given homes to people's castoffs for more than 20 years. 

I have more appreciation for an item that may have a technically lower grade but good 'eye appeal' than I do for one with a technically higher grade but is less good looking.  To me, a minor flaw that knocks the price way down makes it a good value.

Another aspect to think about;  If the lower priced card filles the hole and satisfies the 'gotta-have-it-now' urge, then it is worth getting.  Once the hole is filled, then you can be patient.  If a good opportunity for a deal comes along, you can always upgrade later, but until then you won't have to fight the desire to buy every example that comes along.

-Tom 

A fair point. But I know me. I am highly, highly unlikely to ever upgrade unless the sample I have is atrocious, which I wouldn't buy. I have a '68 Seaver missing a corner that just wound up in my collection somehow, but never would have bought. I'll probably upgrade that. But if I settle on a vg 1969 Ryan, I won't ever go after another one.  (I'll be saving for the '68). 

v3

v3 - I hear you. I go through the same thing with my Phillies collection. There were 4 cards dogging me, got it down to 3 with a pretty lucky ebay purchase. But I'm having the same thoughts about these three cards. Should I go for a beat up Stargell (for Herrnstein) RC or do I keep waiting and looking and hoping that I get a comparable deal on one (like I got the 67 Bunning)? Obviously, for me, the answer is currently wait it out. But, I can see myself caving in one of these days and buying a cheap beat up one. But, there would be that inner voice saying "That cards is in terrible shape - upgrade". :)

I have the same debate when buying vintage. I find that if it's a player I really like, I'll spend time trying to find a higher grade at a resonable price other wise I will buy the card at a lesser grade to save some $$$.

Like Billy, I want buy a card if it has writing or paper loss on it. Maybe that will change when I get to the really expensive vintage cards on my list.

Rick

Upgrading from a bad card, or upgrading from zero card, you're pretty much in the same boat if the money isnt a factor, like the prices mentioned above.  If you want a good one, and you see a cheapie in the meantime, you might as well finish the set for the satisfaction. You still need the nice one either way, and once you get it, you can probably resell the first one for what you paid.

Everyone has made pretty good points. I'll give my own example as a player collector and not a set collector. It depends on how bad you want to complete the set vs. how much you want great condition. I waited 20 years to get my hands on an Ozzie Smith RC. I wanted one that would get a high condition grade (or had one). I didn't want one that was all beat up. I passed on buying any that I could afford b/c of their condition and even passed on trading for ones in lesser condition. I just couldn't afford so much for one card in the condition I wanted. Finally, my time arrived. I was able to trade a new pack-pulled card (in 2008) for an Ozzie RC that I guarantee would grade at least an 8. On the flip side of that: when I started tracking down vintage Lou Brock cards, I'd take nearly anything offered in a trade (still haven't bought a single one of my vintage Brocks). After I got one '78 Brock (my birth year) that was pretty beat up, I was able to get another one in much better condition. I sealed the beat-up card in a hardcase and teambag and gave it to my nephew. I knew he'd be thrilled to have a card as old as me, even with all the creases. About 6-7 years later now and he still has that card and it's still the same way I gave it to him.

I guess that was the long way of saying that if I'm buying, I want quality. If I'm trading, it depends on the card I'm after for the condition I'll accept. I acquired 3 Musial vintage cards last year and I bought all of them. Two are graded at a 7 and the 3rd one is not graded but would probably get about a 6. I still feel like I got a good deal on all 3 cards, especially since they are the only Musial vintage cards I've ever owned.

I own a 1965 Topps #16 Joe Morgan RC, 1966 Topps #1 Willie Mays, and 1939 Play Ball #65 Harry Craft RC that each for its own reasons would be graded as Poor to Fair at best. The Morgan has two corners that look as if they were gnawed on by a rat. The Mays has creases that look like a map of rivers. And the Craft has been trimmed and his name written lightly in pencil on the front.

I made a trade with a TCDB member who agreed to upgrade a Dave Parker card and I agreed to accept his lesser quality one in addtion to two other cards for the upgrade.

All this to say, I want to own certain cards. As long as a card is not defaced or so tattered that it cannot be distinguished as a card, then I'm okay with it. I cannot afford what I want in many cases even in VG (Mays and AS cards on my Want List). I just traded a perfectly nice Morgan rub off for a '59 Mays in Poor condition. I haven't seen it, but I don't think I'll be displeased.

To me most of this is a response to the question: Why do you collect? Whatever the answer is, then use that as your guide to do what you please in your collection.

Commish, 

I think your final question is what's leading me to ease up on my already medium condition standards. Why do I collect? I like having old cards with a history. I like completeness. I like thinking about the old players and the memories they've created for me, for others. Put the other way, I don't collect to have some pristine piece of cardboard from the past. I don't collect to have perfect centering or perfect corners. Obviously we all draw our lines. I, too, hate writing and paper loss. But even on that, I'm easing up a bit. A tad of paper loss on the back? Ok. Writing on the back of 100+ year old card? That's actually kind of cool. On the '69 Ryan, I'm probably looking for about a 3 now. When I someday seek the '68, I'll probably take a 2 or less. In the end, I think I'd rather have a lesser version of the star than nothing at all. 

Thanks, all. 

v3