|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I usually skip mid grade and buy low grade, because I love baseball history, the nostalgia and the images, not the sharpness of the corners. I can get every 60's set in low grade, or just one of them in near mint. The choice seems easy to me. Round corners, edge wear, a crease, a pinhole, none of these are a problem. It's the same card, with the same picture, the same stats on the back, and I get just as much fun looking them through as I do a near mint example. My low grade 1956 Mantle that cost $40 instead of $400 brings just as much joy for a fraction of the price. I often downgrade cards even, buying a low grade copy and selling a mid grade if I have one. I do get disgusted looks from some dealers at card shows when I ask if they have poor-good cards, but it works for me. It's a more relaxing hobby, in my eyes, to not care about being one of the hobby elite or worrying if there is a wrinkle that isn't visible in the scan, and just build sets for personal enjoyment.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Great stuff and very motivational! I have fancied myself a set builder over the years and have enjoyed that. However, I am getting increasingly restless. There are sooooo many cards out there that I want, and I just don't have the ability or perhaps desire to build that many sets. Then I thought I needed my star cards to be higher grade since I wasn't building sets. (I know...programmed robot ;() However, I love this list of cards, and it makes me realize what I could accomplish. Thanks for this!
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is exactly my sweet spot for 50’s cards. Low grade copies that retain a nice image. Readable backs matter too, as I love the Topps cartoons and over the top enthusiasm of the written descriptions. I’m around 95% of the way through a full 1950’s Topps/Bowman run thanks to cards like these |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Nice cards. My '56 Williams is an SGC 3. On many of the oversized 1950's cards, I think they can tolerate / "wear" their wear so to speak better than later cards because the card stock quality was better and the cards themselves were a bit thicker. Particularly '56 Topps - which I think was printed on slightly thicker card stock than '55. I don't like big ugly creases that break the surface, but '56 Topps cards can hide lesser creases well and remain very attractive. Once you get into most sets from the 1960's, and then the early 70's which I think were the worst - the card stock becomes terrible, much thinner and just generally of crappy quality. I think the late 60's and early 70's was worse on the whole for dramatically O/C and miscut cards as well.
__________________
Vintage Cubs. Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Last edited by jchcollins; 08-29-2018 at 09:04 AM. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Buying collectors grade (F-G) of these 4 1959 Topps | Ed_Hutchinson | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 07-06-2017 02:50 PM |
FS: Several Collectors Grade 1950s Mantles | j_bodensteiner | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 04-09-2016 01:55 PM |
Plank, Collins and Evers - Collectors Grade *reduced | Tao_Moko | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 03-08-2015 09:01 PM |
1971 T goldmine for off-grade collectors ~ 60% of the set! | JElwell | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 0 | 03-07-2014 08:43 AM |
Collectors Forensic Register = Grade Tech Services Inc.? | Peter_Spaeth | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 23 | 11-13-2010 10:10 AM |