Minimum grade you will collect on vintage cards?

KendallCat

Just curious as to what everyone uses as their "floor" so to speak on vintage baseball cards - those from the '50's-early 70's? I have always been a PSA 8 person, and with the new half grades 8.5's are finding their way into my collection. I have bought a few 1956's in PSA 6 of Clemente and Ted Williams along with a 5.5 of a 1955 Williams recently that are all very nicely centered, but when I look through a 10x loop it is like watching hot dogs being made - too much detail Might go back to only 8's or higher, but budget would prefer some 7's and 6's.

vintagefun

My 2 cents...rethink your strategy. I was of the same opinion at one point, which out lots of cards I wanted out of reach. Reading and viewing threads of people like DM23 forced me to re-think and I have added some gorgeous 3-4s to my RC collection, which present quite well of guys like Musial, Campanella, Snider, Aaron, Banks, Kaline, Koufax, Clemente.

I can honestly say, that I am more happy with some of my 4s than many of the 7s I've seen and they were had at a fraction of the cost. That being said, I'm willing to let corners and surface slide a bit in exchange for centering.

I've come to the conclusion, that grade is irrelevant to a degree and I'm looking at the eye appeal to budget ratio.

Good Luck.
Jim

WalterSobchak

Here are my completely arbitrary cutoffs for the minimum grade I will consider for my collection:

*1956 or earlier: PSA 6
*1957-1971: PSA 7
*1972-1979: PSA 8
*1980-present: PSA 9

Why PSA 6? Because that's the lowest grade where you can be assured (at least in theory) that the card has no creases or wrinkles.

TheMick6

That's list seems about right for me also. Can get some incredible deals on early 50's stuff in the 4-6 range.

mattyc_collection

Over the years I've found that shopping within a grade or grade range can lead one to miss out on both gorgeous-- and sometimes superior-- cards, and big savings that can be put into the collection. I now take things on a card by card basis. Just my two cents, but I feel it's best to utilize your eye as opposed to the stickers, because there's just so much subjectivity and errors are sometimes made in the grading game. There are lots of under graded cards out there. I've just seen too many bumps upon review and crack-resub to shop based solely on the grade. For example, there have been times I wanted a MINT card, and wound up finding it hiding in a 7 holder.

When I look back, I think my initial grade-centric approach was pretty myopic in that I can now add a slew of cards I love that are rare for their eye appeal, for the same price I was initially willing to pay for just one of them in higher grade.

I can definitely see how one's preferred way of enjoying the cards can inform a shopping range; using regular magnification could definitely necessitate a higher grade. For an online gallery or wall display, I'm continually amazed at how some cards in lower grades can present themselves. I've seen 4s hit the eye like 8s in a wall display from a foot away, and 7s that hit the eye like 9s or even 10s. There are some amazing values out there and they are really fun to hunt for, too.

KendallCat

Excellent points and I read a lot of posts on here which made me change my way of thinking. I still believe in buy the card and not the holder, and have seen some 7's that look as nice as 8's for a fraction of the cost. I have (4) versions of a Hank Aaron card with 1 PSA 8, 2 - PSA 8.5's, and 1- PSA 9. The 9 without question is the best of the group obviously, and the 8 and 8.5's have different features where you could almost switch them around without too much notice. The other key thing is the price gap between grades. For a 1976 Brett an 8 will run you $300 or so but a 9 will run several $1000's of dollars. In this case is the extra $2500+ worth it, and for that amount think of all the other cards you could pick up for $2500.

JoeBanzai

Minimum for me is generally an 8. Some issues like Topps Venezuelan cards and some OPC's there are few, if any, that grade this high. These cards I pick up at any grade and watch for upgrades.

Mainstream cards I want 9's and would love a Killebrew rookie in a 9, but $7,000.00+ is more money than I can afford paying for a card.

Once you get into the 1970's, nines are almost required for me.

I am in no way criticizing anyone's collecting habits, if you have a beautiful "5" and are happy with it good for you!

Have fun collecting!

mattyc_collection

Speaking of the '76 Brett, here is an 8 from eBay that is germane to this discussion. This 8 cost me a few hundo. Looks like a solid 9 to me. A review or crack-resub may very well make that the case, too. I was thinking of buying a 9 and would feel downright chagrined to brandish a $4000 PSA 9, and then see this card for a fraction of the cost. So thankfully I looked a grade or two below my initial goal, and wound up satisfied, and able to grab a T206 Walter Johnson today with the leftover loot!

TheMick6

That Brett is strong! Nice card

KendallCat

Very nice Brett and goes to my point exactly. Great card and under $300-400, and to get a 9 you are at $3000 give or take a few 100.

cardcountry

Keith- You've amassed some great stuff in the time you have been back. Just keep buying what makes you happy (especially the cards you're still thinking about a day or 2 after you first see it! them).

Jeff

CenteredMantles

As a kid well before third party grading was a thing, if I wanted say a 1985 Topps Dwight Gooden, I went to the shops in my neighborhood and looked through every example. I always eliminated the OC cards right off. Next up was corners. If those looked good the card got tilted in the light to check the surface. When I found one that passed my inspection it came home with me. It was a very pure experience and it was the only way I knew to collect.

When I returned to the hobby a few years ago I discovered VCP. I checked the grid and picked the highest grade for any given card I could afford and that was what I wanted. So many times I ruled out a card because it was in a lower holder. After seeing some stunners hiding in lower holders I decided to go back to the approach I took as a kid. If i want a card I now search just the year and player name. I'll go through the virtual stacks and when I see the one I like at a good price I take it. Grades are a great guideline but as DM23's Ryan thread shows, sometimes that PSA 7 really is a PSA 9 and there are still some raw out there that can be a 10! Buy the card not the holder is the best advice I ever heard.

KendallCat

Jeff - appreciate the kind words, and your inventory has made it very easy to find centered high end cards to put in the collection!

DM and Centered - excellent advice especially the buy the card not the holder. Since getting back into collecting full steam I have really tried to follow that theory, and with buying cards online it is much easier to determine centering versus corners - despite the best scans all of the details are not always visible on the corners.

Appreciate all of the advice and info, and it has been a big help in getting me back up to speed again.

larryallen73

It depends on the card. I would allow a '52 Mantle into my collection as a 1. Wouldn't you?

BaltimoreYankee

For me, it depends on the era. I mainly collect 1950's through 1975. Most of my early (1952-56) Topps cards are PSA 4 or 5. Anything between 1957 and, say, 1962 are generally a 6. Later 60s through 1971 are mostly 7s. Anything later would be 8 or better.

NickM

For certain sets, Authentic.

Nick

Ndoggy88

I'll take a Psa 1 Wagner t206

Ndoggy88

I'd also take an sgc 10 or Psa 1 Eddie plank t206

GWilsh1999

7 or better for 50's, 8 or better for up to 63, 9 and better post 63

gemint

For me, I don't have a hard and fast rule. I generally only purchase PSA 8 or better but it also must pass my visual test to weed out weak 8s. If I'm building a MINT set, I will still pass on the cards that sell for ridiculous premiums like the '73 Don Wilson. I'd rather have a nice 8 for $20 than shell out $600 or more for a 9. Here's my personal general guideline:

1950s/60s sets - PSA 8 or better - Exception - '67 target is 9 and '69 target is relatively inexpensive 9 upgrades
1970-2 - 8
1973/4 - 9
1975 - 8 plus cheap 9s
1976 -9s

Why this strategy? The 1970s sets with a 9 goal are because my raw submissions were able to get me well into the set with limited investment. I've owned a lot of '75 vending but it's too hard to get 9s to push me close to the 9 marker with my own submissions.

Griffins

I'd much rather have evenly matched cards in my set than evenly matched numbers on a holder.