I've written many times that I discard most of my rules for condition for a card from the 1950s or earlier. If I have a shot at getting a card from at least 70 years ago, I will not care if the corners are rounded, that there are a few creases, that it shows wear as a card like that should. (But I'll usually veer away from old cards that are stained or drawn on).
But those relaxed rules don't apply to most of the cards in my collection. Anything from the 1970s forward better be in tip-top shape. If it isn't, I'm probably going to upgrade it at some point.
But what about those cards between, say the mid-1950s and 1970? Where am I drawing the line?
I never thought about that until I acquired card #1 in the 1963 Topps set. It showed up yesterday.
This card has long been a Dodger need for the 1963 Topps set. It's fallen under the radar -- for years -- because 1) There are five rookie cards from this set with Dodgers on them that I still need and a couple are impossibilities so why bother even thinking about 1963 anymore? 2) Look at the guys with Tommy Davis on this card! How am I ever going to get that?
But I saw this obviously worn card on ebay a little while ago and I thought, why not? For 10 bucks, I'll give it a shot and threw it in my cart. Then, surprisingly, the cost was knocked down to 5 and I grabbed that thing. FIVE BUCKS. FOR DAVIS AND FRANK ROBINSON AND STAN MUSUAL AND HANK AARON ... oh, sorry, Bill ... AND BILL WHITE. Let's go!
And that right there, I discovered, is my threshold, where I draw the line on condition. I had no regrets when it showed up in my mailbox with worn corners, slight paper loss and some handling. The card is perfect.
So if '63 is OK in that condition, is '64 OK? Is '65 OK? I thought about it a little bit. ... I'm trying to complete the 1969 Topps set, and I've been looking for cards that are at least in VG-EX shape. I've been successful and I like how they look. If they're less than that, I definitely look to upgrade.
I'm also trying -- feebly -- to complete the 1967 Topps set. My condition standards are less stringent, because the prices are more, and also I know if I have any hope to get some of those high number cards, I'm going to have to settle for cards that look like they were eaten by rats.
1968 I have no intent of completing, but I do like if the cards look fairly sharp. Same goes for 1965 and 1966. So I think the line is right around 1964 for me on when condition means less to me. But that line gets closer to the present if I'm trying to complete the set -- a set that's not impossible, like 1967.
There's the back, so you can see all those classic names and that big drop before we get to Ron Santo. Ouch.
Super-happy to finally get this card recognizing Tommy Davis' fantastic 1962 season. It's really the last piece of the 1963 Topps Dodgers that I feel is essential. All those other floating heads to get are rookies, a few who I barely even know -- Jack Smith, Bill Haas, Ken Rowe with no logo? OK, those sure aren't worth the price.
But let me know if there's a beat-up copy for 5 bucks. I might get that.
Comments
Glad you got the card, and hope you can at least get the rest of the Dodgers to finish that team set.
B. Kenny took the words right off of my keyboard.
In general though I think my cutoff is actually 1978/79 where I'm good with some wear and tear on the 78s and earlier but with 79 and newer I like them to be pretty crisp. Why 1979? Probably simply a function of what I used to find "new" in repacks when I was a kid and what was "old."
There's also another cutoff though where if the card is too clean I think it looks wrong. Not sure where exactly this but my gut tells me it's somewhere around 1963. I'm not sure why but I suspect it might have to do with the card stock switching to white that year.