The Near Mint Set

RayBShotz

In the days prior to the advent of the grading craze, building a pre 1970's Near Mint Set was looked upon as a respectible and worthy goal. The quality of such a set was considered quite nice, especially as a whole (complete set).
Even buying a complete set in this condition was considered a serious investment and a real keepsake. You knew you could expect all of the cards to be pretty special with very few condition issues.

My question is has grading changed all that? Has the quest for the number 8 or the number 9 on the holder skewed some collectors who might ordinarily really like a Near Mint set that are now motivated to pursue only the NRMT/MT or MINT sets because of the numbers? Just doing like others do? Does the Registry encourage a collector to reach out beyond his or her means?
Do you think that there are so many partial sets at less than 10% complete because in reality most collectors are just working class good guys saddled with the perception that 7's aint worth crap and "I gotta go for the 8's or the 9's" even though their ability to finance this long term venture may be unrealistic. After all funding is an issue.

I guess I am talking late 50's and 60's sets here because PSA 7 can run into big bucks on many of the earlier issues and are highly sought after as well and demand considerable funding in their own right.

I, myself, think more graded collectors might end up happier in the long run if they could build a near complete or complete set from the late 50's or 60's in PSA 7 grade and actually accomplish the task, rather then reach out too far because they have to have an 8 or 9.
On a limited budget I have decided to try this approach myself with a 1966 Topps Baseball Set. I dont know about anyone else but I think that a Near Mint Complete Set of 1966 Topps Baseball would be pretty impressive as a whole and certainly pleasing to me.

I am really an advocate for making progress on your set; no matter what the budget is. Consider this before you start. Heaven knows, Ive had a few fits and starts on different sets myself. I am sure my choice of 7's on the 66' set makes the chase that much more achievable.

Any thoughts?
RayB69Topps

zardoz51

You'd be amazed at the number of people who are doing this. IMHO, the 7's represent an ideal opportunity for the astute collector to assemble a decent set at a reasonable cost. Sooner or later, the "stigma" attached to a 7 will disappear as the demand for these cards increases. There are many beautiful 7's as well as butt ugly 8's out there. Let's see, do we collect cards or plastic?

SAHDofTwins

IMHO -- if the set you are working on makes you feel satisfied, than that is all that matters. Wether it is a set of 7's or higher. The set registry for sure motivated me to add 10's to my player sets. I had never bought anything but 9's. I now somewhat regret buying the 10's. I was satisfied with 9's and I let the set registry change my focus. So in conclusion, if a set makes you happy, just sit back and enjoy it.

mikeschmidt

7s are very, very nice cards -- and it is an exceedingly affordable way to build sets. I think that there is probably still a perception, especially with sets 1960s and after -- that cards that are not in an 8 holder are probably not worth going the extra mile for the grading fee. With 1950s sets -- that is not the case.

But near mint cards are very nice cards -- I just think that most collectors still keep many of those examples raw -- and many of what you see on Ebay and elsewhere are either cards that are very low-pop in PSA 8 -- or cards that people submitting hoping for an 8.

MS

aconte

I understand the last two replies by z and SAHD. But let me ask this question. Have you been
told by many on the sets you collect that going for cards anything less than Psa 8 is a mistake?

When I started buying graded red man cards I was happy picking up 7's. But many dealers
and "expert" collectors told me to not buy anything less than an eight. I agree that some
sevens are nice. I have some that look better than my eights. But it is a little frightening
to think that if I buy sevens (or nice sixes) that I am not going to move my cards at a later
date. Plus I guess I'm shallow but I hate hearing "Nice set... Maybe you can upgrade to
a high end set some day." DOH! I know. I know. Buy the card not the holder.

Let's face it many near mint sets are nice but the ability to pick up high end cards has made
these sets lose a lot of their luster!

In most cases, I'll still pay SMR for near mint sevens on red man cards all day long.

aconte

Yzerman19C

Ray

You are correct , The registry has changed the way near mint cards are viewed. I think Vargha posted a comment a couple of weeks back that said "7's used to be considered nice cards". Are guys overstepping their limits by purchasing only 8's & 9's for their sets. Probably , i think that is why after so many high end sets are complete they are heading to the auction block . Once you sit back and look at the sizeable investment ,the dollars look too good.

You can build a fantastic looking set by purchasing the right high quality 7's. Im doing this with 1956 Topps baseball. Buying the stars in PSA 8 and the commons in PSA 7. I dont mind spending $1700 on a Mantle but i dont want to spend $600 on a lower pop 8 common when i can scoop up a nice PSA 7 for $40.00.

I think the major decision that has to be made when building a set is to look at what its going to cost you. The first thing i do is can i afford the star cards in the condition i want and then availability of the cards in the grade i want, and when im complete can i afford to keep it.

I think the major issue with the grading of nearmint cards into the 60's and beyond is the cost of grading itself $3000-7000 per set adds to the bottom line and the people spending that kind of money on sets want higher than nearmint

Randy

murcerfan

The wise men of the hobby have always said that if you are collecting for the $$ investment (and deep down most of us do, or will get to that point).....Buy the very best you can find.
The highest quality stuff is the most coveted and always will be, thus staying ahead of the growth curve. personally I agree that 7's are a bargain and have begun grunting together a psa 6 &7 '52 topps set buying 8's only when they are a steal. I could not be happier with the cards I hhave bought so far. Now if you are talking about 1970 Kelog in psa 7, forget it.

1954

This is a real interesting topic. I only collect sets that are condition sensitive and there is a limited amount available. I buy PSA 4's and I buy PSA 8's for those sets. Once I find a higher grade, I sell off my lower one. Let me tell you, I have done very well by doing this. What happens is that I will purchase a PSA 4 common card from the Wilson Weiners set for $75. A year later I find a PSA 6 for $400. I sold the PSA 4 for $375. You can actually accomplish your goal quicker and in some cases make a dollar while you are at it. There is nothing wrong with a PSA 7 card. There is always a buyer for everything.



leo

BBCI

I have to agree with Zardoz and others that the "stigma" attached to 7s (primarily pre-1965) is slowly fading. This ties back to a comment on another thread suggesting that anything above 20K-25K resale value is going to be tough to outlay for the average collector. Hence, the popularity of building and selling PSA 7+ sets may begin to make more sense. Just look at the 62 set for example, most of the sets currently registered are 7+ GPAs. Also, was anybody surprised when PSA "bumped up" the SMR prices for pre-1962 stars and commons in PSA 8. Looks like building pre-1962 sets in PSA 8 is going to get a little bit more expensive.

BBCI

gemint

I don't really think there's a stigma associated with 7's. If you build a graded PSA 7 set on the second hand market, you're going to pay a premium for the fact that it's slabbed. Take 1969 for example. You may pay $2 per card for many of the easy commons. But a handful of PSA 7 low pop commons would probably pull in $20 or more. Then there are the star cards. My guess is that building a PSA 7 1969 set would end up costing about $4,000. It's not enough to cover the grading fees but it is a premium vs a raw NM set.

I think the main reason NM cards go for significantly less than 8's or 9's is that NM is the highest "collector grade". Collectors of NM cards aren't as concerned about having third party verification of condition and having the ultra protective holders. When you get into NM-MT or MINT, it becomes more difficult to convince people that the card is that high of quality (We're talking vintage cards here) and therefore, collectors and dealers are willing to pay more for that reassurance.

I think if PSA continues to drive down their grading fees, you'll see more PSA 7 commons hit the market. But I think the value of PSA 7's, particularly commons, will not move higher since many NM collectors would be just as satisfied spending $1 for a nice 1969 raw common vs $4 or $5 for the same card in a PSA 7 holder.

Fabfrank

When I first discovered the Registry I thought people were crazy to grade their commons, till I saw what people were paying for them. Than I thought those people were crazy. Anyway I've always felt that a PSA 7 was a card that someone submitted hoping for an 8. They are a great value, especially when talking about condition sensitive years. What really convinced me to do a graded set was the fact that on a PSA 7 label it says NM (Near Mint). I remembered before grading that dealers would regularly sell cards and build sets as NM/MT- Mint. Many of those cards would be lucky to grade a 7 in the current market.
Once I finish my 71 set , if I can improve on a card at a reasonable price I will. But any PSA 7 set should be looked at as an enviable accomplishment.

qualitycards

I agree w/ most of the responses, they make sense. But the year in question has alot to do w/ it. As far as sets from the '60's, many can obtain PSA-8's at 7 prices, so it is understandable that they persue 8's all the way, stars & low pops not withstanding. ...jay

acowa

My opinion is that "Investor grade" cards are called that for a reason. Most of the purchases that I felt absolutely horrible about when I made them...turned out to be the best in terms of appreciation in value. It's all about knowing which cards are "worth" paying the money for. For instance, I just sold a 1953 Topps PSA 8 low pop high # common for 3X what I paid a few years back. That same card in a 7 might (and I emphasize might) have appreciated by 25 -30%. That's why PSA 7 and below are "collector" grade...it's simply a matter of volatility in price.


Regards,



Alan

RayBShotz

Thanks for all the well thought out replies.
As there are diverse opinions about PSA 7 grade material it is apparent that there are diverse grades of collectors responding.
The "Return on investment" crowd seems likely to avoid building their sets in 7 grade as they wrestle with the anxiety of the resale quotient.
The 'Buy and hold' crowd", the collectors looking to build a nice set for sets sake seem inclined to be satisfied with a 7 grade effort.
The "I really just want to own the nicest possible cards'" troops meld a cross between the other two groups.
I found some of the responses interesting. My original post talked more to the issue of the heart of collecting cards for the sake of collecting and the impact of the registry on collecting habits. Although graded cards are certainly a hard asset I for one never spend much time thinking about them in that way. Maybe I'm weird but its mostly just about the cards.
I do really like the chat, however. The comradery here on the boards is outstanding and cant be appreciated by non card, non collectors.
Keep those responses and great posts coming.
Fascinated as always.
RayB69Topps
By the way, In my first week I have 2% of the 66' set in PSA 7. ..and they are really nice cards.

mikeschmidt

<Although graded cards are certainly a hard asset I for one never spend much time thinking about them in that way. Maybe I'm weird but its mostly just about the cards. >

Ray-

Though I think many agree with you -- it becomes a whole different ballgame when you have perhaps two to three individuals who have 1952 Topps sets with retail values of over $500,000 - $1,000,000. Or some of the regular joes who have spent tens of thousands of dollars building sets from the 1950s. Though I don't collect for the money or to maximize ROI, I certainly have spent way too much cash in this hobby not to be aware of the money factor of such collections.

Happy collecting!
MS