50's Topps Singles - worthless?

baseballizlife1

Hey guys...
I dont post often but not a day goes by that I dont log on to check out the new topics.

As I sit and get ready to watch the Bills walk all over the fish...hopefully...
I came across an interesting comment by Satan.

All the commons from the 56,57,58 and 59 sets in PSA 5, PSA 6 and PSA 7 are basically worthless

I would like to know how many of you agree with this.

I certainly agree that PSA 5's and 6's dont have much for resale value. But as for PSA 7's in the 50's I think the potential is decent.
For 56 and 57 specifically I see PSA 7's as a pretty inexpensive investment.
I recently started a 56 Topps Baseball Set in PSA 7 condition and am intrigued to see what the board members think!

thanks !
Brian

Virtualizard

Brian,

Though I don't collect many cards from the 50's, I would have to agree with you. PSA 7 cards (and even PSA 6 and PSA 5 cards) are generally what I would deem "collector grade" cards. Everyone seems to forget that PSA 7 is NEAR MINT and PSA 5 is EXCELLENT condition. Although these cards may have some minor wear, I believe they are probably the same cards that filled many "near mint" or even "mint" sets a decade or so ago before grading was even a thought.

Collect what you like. I have several PSA 2 - PSA 5 cards that are nearly 100 years old. They still present very well, mostly downgraded for some rounding of the corners.

So, I guess my answer is no, they are not worthless. If you stockpile these lower grade cards, eventually the supply of high grade material will dry up and the new collectors will be happy to obtain these currently "less than desirable" cards.

JEB.

BigKidAtHeart

I agree.
Not everyone has the millions that a Vogel has
to collect vintage 10s.
I have the best I can afford and what I like.

IF you are just buying or grading simply to resell
then you will want 8s, 9s, or 10s... but if you are
COLLECTING then you do not have to pay the
extra money. Instead of 1-psa10 get 10-psa7s!

~jeff

Virtualizard

<< <i>... Instead of 1-psa10 get 10-psa7s!

~jeff >>




Jeff,

Amen. But, if you're talking 1950's PSA 10s, you could probably complete an entire set in PSA 7, minus a few stars, for what one PSA 10 would cost.

JEB.

downgoesfrazier

To call a PSA Near Mint 7 graded, unaltered, two-generation old sportscard "worthless" was a bit reckless. True, there are some fairly high population cards in PSA 8 and that will de-value a NM 7 some but for the collector, the PSA NM 7 is the best deal in town. I've done very well with my 52's and 53's in 6,7 on & off-line. Even my 57's in PSA 7 sold above SMR (whatever THAT means) within the last couple of months. My opinion of 5's is that something is generally unappealing to me. Either it's fairly crisp and clean with severe centering problems or layered, scuffed, paper loss, etc. The stuff is really plentiful in that grade raw as well. Well centered 6's and especially 7's offer the collector tremendous value. Actually in addition to PSA 7's, the greatest thing out there value wise would be Global or SGC 7.5's. These are generally screaming cards that hold up favorably to the more expensive, but often no more attractive PSA 8 examples.

If you're a collector of a certain brand, simply get familiar with the norm for the grade that matches your tolerance for flaws and collect that grade and enjoy yourself! This advice is painfully obvious, but we seem to lose sight of it sometimes...

dgf

PSAtan

I think my comment was taken slightly out of context - I'm not saying the cards are worthless. Hell, I wish I had cards like that. However, 50K for that collection is ridiculous. You can put together a 56 set in PSA 7 for way under the 13 to 15 grand the seller of the ebay lot poured into his selling price. PSA 7s are defnitely high grade and I've seen 7s that are nicer than 9s. However, commons from the late fifties are not going to set the world on fire. You're not going to find insane bidding wars on these cards because they come up again and again. However, the PSA 8 commons in the late fifties seem to really stir interest. Also, PSA 7 for Topps 1952 - 1955 are coveted and have better resale. The comment wasn't aimed at the sets of the early to mid 50's.

All of this was directed at the Ebay lot for 50K. Taken out of context, it makes me sound like a snob. I'm far from that. I just think that PSA 7s commons are 60 - 80 percent of book unless they are SP.

Hope that clears it up a little,

S.

acowa

PSA 7's don't provide you with the roller coaster ride that investment grade cards do...however, you can do fine with them if you are patient and selective. An extremely well centered 7 is just as presentable as an 8 that's centered at 70/30. At half the price, I will take the well centered 7 anytime.


Regards,


Alan

NickM

dgf - a lot of vintage 5's have back wrinkles that the submitter overlooked, and thought he would get a 7 or higher. Those often present extremely nicely. BTW, paper loss should knock the card well below a 5.

Nick

downgoesfrazier

Nick,

Should, but it doesn't always...especially if it is around an edge/corner. I'm well aware of the reverse wrinkle. We are speaking generally. Oodles of 5's around town that have a rather unattractive component. If they didn't...they wouldn't typically be 5's (reverse wrinkles would be an exception). On the subject of wrinkles, I find fish-eyes to be far more offensive than a stock flaw. They have more visual impact and they are called picture cards, after all. I'd venture a guess that you have some 5's that "present very nicely"?

dgf

pc

<< <i>I came across an interesting comment by Satan.

All the commons from the 56,57,58 and 59 sets in PSA 5, PSA 6 and PSA 7 are basically worthless

I would like to know how many of you agree with this.

I certainly agree that PSA 5's and 6's dont have much for resale value. But as for PSA 7's in the 50's I think the potential is decent.
thanks !
Brian >>



"But as for PSA 7's in the 50's I think the potential is decent."
you meant descent not decent right?!?

NickM

dgf - absolutely. They weren't my submissions, though, so I got the benefit.
I would estimate that between one-third and one-half of commons from '54 to '59 that ended up as PSA 5's were cards where the submitter thought he had a 7 or better, but missed something (more than likely a wrinkle). As to semistars and stars, I think many more of the 5's were the less visually appealing cards. This I think is due to the economics of submitting.

Nick