Saturday, September 10, 2011
Looks better coming than going
I snagged this Don Sutton card from the initial Kellogg's 3-D set a couple of weeks ago. It's my first 1970 Kellogg's card, and I've got three more Dodgers to go to finish the team set.
I acquired the card for a very cheap price, and I just attributed that to the lack of respect for the greatness that is Kellogg's cards from the '70s. The card is in tremendous shape and it really should be going for more than I paid for it.
But because I never pick up anything cheaply simply because I'm a shrewd consumer, I knew there was another reason for its low, low price. And that reason was that I never looked at the back of the card before I bought it.
It's a little difficult to see but it appears that the card was once glued with rubber cement to something. I can't believe it was pried off of whatever it was stuck to without at least part of the back being removed. When you look at the card back in person, it's actually quite ugly. At first glance, it appears as if someone sneezed on it.
But, you know what? I don't care.
I don't care because nobody sneezed on the front of the card. And since I store my cards back-to-back in pages in my binders, I rarely see the backs unless I want to see them.
I'll probably never try to upgrade this card because the flaw is on the back of the card.
There are several other cards that I own with card back issues. It's actually one of the best ways to acquire old-time, pricey cards without blowing a bunch of cash. And it's the kind of card imperfection that doesn't keep me awake, staring at the ceiling.
I'll probably never be this guy or even this guy. But it's the best I can do.
How about you? Do you let cards with unseemly backs into your collection, or do the card backs have to be as perfect as the card fronts?