Post v. Prewar Discussion (In the Postwar forum)...
 

I think of this kind of like the earlier thread on high grade cards v. mid-grade, and the tradeoff between having a few things of super high quality, or many things of lower but acceptable quality. I kind of have been having the same debate with myself lately on pre- vs. postwar cards. Does anyone else do this? From all I have been able to tell lately in searching out many auctions and sales, it's the same type of trade-off proposition. With postwar cards, mainly 50's and 60's for me - I can have a fairly sizeable collection of stars, HOFers, some graded some not - in the PSA 4-6 range without breaking the bank or at least without going to divorce court.

Every now and then I get a hankering to look at something in the same category nice for prewar, and I'm blown away. Here lately it was with 1915 Cracker Jack cards. My examples there are even beat-up HOF'ers routinely go for north of a grand. For example I was lusting over an SGC 3 Grover Cleveland Alexander for sale now at like $2300. Technically I could afford that, but it would mean selling off 5 or 6 other post-war slabs, higher grades - that at the end of the day is a tradeoff I'm not willing to make for just one card. Ok, so maybe my example there would be more realistic if the same Alexander card in like a 1 or 2 was $700 or a grand cheaper...

Does anyone else tend to look at the difference in eras this way? At the end of the day, though I'm often really enticed by a lot of nice prewar cards - I find I'm never really willing to make the tradeoff since for the same money I can get so much more bang for the buck in the postwar dept. I'm sure things would have been different had I been old enough to have been exposed to prewar at an age when I could have afforded it - say had I started collecting in the mid 70's instead of the late 80's. As a kid (I was 9 in '86) there was plenty of postwar vintage in shops, but any kind of mass prewar collections were rare to be seen. I saw the occasional T206 at a show or something like that, but just never had great reason - and certainly not the money at that age - to get into them.

Thoughts? Thanks.

PS, my examples are going to be off if you are a set collector or a type collector or anything like that. I go mainly after mid-grade star and HOF singles.

I would rather have 1 nice card than 10 cheaper cards. It doesn't matter what era, although I am a little more lenient on grades for prewar, I will take 5-6. For postwar I like to be in the 7-8 range.

My budget doesn't play at that level. For prewar I'm 3 or less, for postwar I think PSA 6 is an ideal grade, although I have plenty of 5's, including some 5's that are better looking than other 6's.

In a little over 30 years of collecting I have collected almost everything at one point in time.

Got the T206 bug when I joined here. Bought around 100 of them before I decided I really didn't care for them. Did the same thing with T210's except I kept the Ft Worth players. Also tried being a pre-war type collector and then sold them.

Have collected 50's and 60's star players off and on the entire time I have been collecting. Have sold traded most of them away for other stuff or different star cards from the same era. Have only ever tried collecting one complete set card by card from that era. Have been working on it for a few years now and am 2 cards away from finishing it. It's a 55 Bowman set with every card coming from a Net54 member. I did buy one complete set from a fellow member. A 1959 Fleer NrMint Ted Williams set I had SGC grade. If not for the amazing condition of the cards I would have never had it graded.

I have also dabbled in autographs from pre-war to present. Same way with memorabilia. Another member got me into collecting bats and now have a decent Wade Boggs bat collection.

My true love and the cards I have always collected are junk era error cards.:D From the mid 80's till 2000 I went to a few hundred games. I still get my biggest thrill looking at cards of players I watched play in person.

As far as condition the only thing I care about is the players face has no paper loss or a huge crease running through it. Tape on a card is also something I just can't stand. Writing, creases, paper loss(except on face), trimmed, or centering do not matter to me at all.

I prefer my cards in their natural state. I do have some slabbed cards but they are mainly because one of the grading companies screwed up on the flip.

If it is just a hobby collect anything you like.:D If trying to make $ then learn how to pump and dump. I have done both and find collecting for fun really is fun.:D Trying to make $ isn't, so now I stick to having fun.

Thanks for sharing in detail...all interesting food for thought, and makes me feel not quite so bad for starting prewar endeavors and then suddenly changing my mind. ;)

Actually I think it still applies for set collectors. Now that I've slowly started getting in to vintage card collecting as a hobby, I found that building a set is the most fun, "active" way to enjoy the hobby (for me).

And I agree, the EX to NM grade is great condition. Taking stars and HOF out of the mix for a moment, you can collect most post war sets by spending less than five bucks for a raw common in EX condition. And then you can add most HOF players in that grade for under $500 (yes, I know there are exceptions with the early Mantle, Mays, Aaron, etc.).

You just can't get that experience in most pre-war sets. But I do find pre-war cards just an interesting...just mostly out of budget. So I've been eyeballing a few less popular pre war sets (1935 Goudey, 1929 Kashin, etc.). Also, as a Kansas City Royals fan, I'm planning on going after a small subset of t206 cards...the Kansas City Blues (only seven cards, one minor hall of famer).

So yeah, I could save up and spend my entire yearly card budget on one or two nice pre-war cards, or I can spread that money out and actively build a nice post-war set...which lets me spend more time with more cards. So to me, that's more fun!

Agreed. It's just a lot easier to do with postwar. I'm a Cubs fan and doing prewar there (albeit not the HOF'ers) can be basically affordable.

John, you and I have had this discussion a couple of times [emoji1787] As you know, I have dabbled in prewar a couple of times at least. However, I have learned that I enjoy postwar collecting more...especially 1950s baseball. For the most part, it is more affordable for me, and I get more of what I want. To me, the players of the late 40s through the early 60s are larger than life. I am also a set builder by nature (although I have quit set building a few times and can quit again anytime I want [emoji3]), and I like the 50s sets for that. I have also branched off into postwar football the last couple of years, and I am having a blast with that as well! There are some great sets and colorful characters to be found there!

Dabble or specialize. Team collect, player collect, type collect, set collect, collect stars only, etc. Do what you like, and then show it off!! I like to see what drives other collectors.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

We have, and clearly it's something I can't quite get off of my mind. Here lately I will tell you I have been way more interested in early 70's stars and RC's for some reason than anything else. I guess all collecting could be thought of as changing seasons, or at least for some people. From last year back at least probably 5-7 years I didn't care much at all about 70's cards and didn't have anything noteable in my collection. Weird.

I go in and out of post war (mostly to sell). They are generally just too common for me to like very much. I like rarity and scarcity and pre-war is better than post war, to me, in that respect. Good debate though.

My childhood collecting years were 1971-1980. I love the cards from that era so I collect them. I started back up with all four sports about 6 years ago and at the time bought a lot of slabbed cards. I've since decided that I am better off and enjoy raw cards more except for the superstars, so I am selling off the slabs and replacing with raw cards instead. So my Ryan run is slabbed but my Blylevens are raw. I don't get too hung up on technical grades, I just want them to look like they did when I opened the packs, so centering is a nice but unnecessary thing.

In terms of prewar, I've always preferred a bunch of lesser grade cards to one high grade cards. Take Babe Ruth: when I decided to fill in a bunch of his cards about 10-15 years ago, I went for lower grade in quantity. I suppose it has to do with my childhood collecting. I did not see high grade cards from the 1920s-1930s, I saw g-vg cards. I 'feel' those. And I far and away prefer having a stack of Babe Ruth instead of one card. I left a lot of money on the table not going higher grade I suppose, but WTF, it is my fun not my career.

I know for me, my collecting evolves over time as I learn more about certain issues and my interests are piqued. I believe reevaluating things is one of the benefits of collecting, it's a good opportunity to reset your priorities and perhaps move in a different direction.
I first dabbled in pre-war when I bought a Tris Speaker T206 with a Sweet Cap back. It was a great card and I loved it. But as I learned more about the T206s, the different backs really struck a chord with me, so I started a new project to get all the Red Sox players and each one with a different back. I sold that first Speaker to help fund other purchases.
One reason I like prewar is that I'm more inclined to get lower grade examples and not worry much about dings here, a crease there, etc. It's freeing. I also collect modern issues (Topps team sets of the Red Sox for every year), where I am much more picky about condition (naturally).
Collecting doesn't need to be an all or nothing venture in this way, my priorities for one part of my PC aren't necessarily the same as in another.

I collect and appreciate cards from different eras and enjoy owning them all. I get that pre war cards, especially in decent shape, will cost a lot more than a comparable post war card. And that's fine with me. They should command a premium due to their scarcity. There are a few pre war cards that probably wont ever be in my price range unless my income dramatically changes, but I've been able to own a few and generally look for cards in the 3-4 grade range.

Post war is great too because even the most iconic cards can be found for a relatively affordable price in low grade. And nicer examples are often in reach, depending on the card of course.

Even modern cars have an appeal, especially 80s and 90s cards, because that's primarily what I collected as a kid and those are the players I watched growing up.

If you remember about a month and a half ago or so, you and I talked about 70s baseball cards because I was starting to get interested in them. Ultimately, I opted for some 50s Dodgers star cards and then 50s and 60s football. However, I won't rule out eventually building some 70s sets...although the enormous # of cards in those sets is a bit of a turn off. So I get what you are saying.

I used to worry about my collection having focus, now I don't. If I get on a 50s and 60s football kick like I have been off and on for the last three years, that's what I do. If I get to wanting more 50s baseball, that's what I do. If I get to liking 50s Brooklyn HOFers, I buy some and enjoy them. I recently finished off a nice little 1954 Topps baseball set and might someday build 1955. I think those black 71s are beautiful, and if my OCD allows me to, I might chase that set someday. I will probably never buy another tobacco card again because I just don't want them personally, and I tried liking them a few tines... I just didn't relate to them. You have some good cards and some good ideas, and you like baseball cards. Buy the ones you like. You won't go wrong, my friend!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I'm in that boat and I agree with those grades. Nowadays, there are outstanding examples of "low" grade that present very well.

Collect what you like, but most importantly what you can afford.

I mostly fit into this range, too.