I am a bit frustrated of late. Back in the heady 1980s and ’90s when speculative collecting was at its peak, the premiums that were paid for mint-condition items were outrageous. I am sure that many readers remember that time and the crazy prices paid for mundane items because they were perfect. I also recall the even more outrageous sums paid by collectors and museums to restore items back to their original look. A colleague showed me a 1950s advertisement in his museum’s collection that they spent five figures to restore because it was purported to be the only one in the world. I still doubt that it was the only one, and I really never could figure out the price tag for the restoration.
I also recall going to model train shows where collectors (generally older men with more money than sense) dropped huge amounts of money into train sets that were never played with. Similarly, I recall the collectors who hunted for the rare variant of construction. A rare purple rail on a caboose rather than the standard factory black rail could command a price triple what would be normally paid. In both cases, I found such buying incredibly speculative and not linked in any way to real collecting.
Then I met the hoarders. These were folks who would buy brand new trains (and this applies to other collectibles as well) and stash them away in their original wrappings in the hopes that the market would explode and they would make a killing.
Recently, I went to a gun show here in Wyoming. As I viewed the high-end merchandise, I was gobsmacked by the number of outrageously priced mint-condition weapons there were. Some were old, and others were new, but all had a price tag that reflected the view that none had ever been fired. Interestingly, when I looked closer, I noted that the price tags were a bit yellow and old, suggesting that perhaps these items had not sold in a long, long time.
Condition, of course, is vital in collecting, but I think it is highly overrated. We are, after all, trading, buying and selling secondhand goods. They should have some wear and tear. That to me is part of the reason we collect and part of the charm of antiques. Feeling wear on a chair leg or seeing the wheels on a Lionel train that are polished from numerous laps around the floor are wonderful, cool elements that show something was both loved and used.
I was talking to a sales clerk in a shop about this, and we both agreed that we preferred to acquire pieces that showed real age. Their age was proof that the antique was real and genuine. We were looking at a pistol together, and you could see visible finish wear where a prior owner’s fingers had chambered rounds into the barrel. It was honest and genuine.
So, while I do not advocate buying broken and really damaged junk, I also do not think hoarding mint-condition items for the future represents much of the true spirit of collecting. I say embrace the wear and tear of an item as proof that it was loved then as much as it is today.

Peter Seibert, a native Pennsylvanian, grew up in the antiques business and remains closely tied to auction houses, collectors, and dealers. Professionally, he has served as a museum director and public historian in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming. He holds a Master of Arts in American Studies from Penn State and has authored two books and numerous articles on decorative arts, interior design, and history.