This is an interesting thread... 
I'll just add that if Citi's lowest card is now called 'Preferred' they have definitely changed it around from the old days. Back when they were still 'Citibank', their entry-level cards were referred to as 'Classic', and their Gold cards were referred to as 'Preferred'.
I got my own 'Classic' Visa upgraded to Gold, and the new card even had a different account number (specifically, the BIN was different, with some other digits remaining the same as before). As for underwriting, unlike the usual (at that time) instant CLI, the upgrade took several days to process, and a HP was required.
The card looked like this:
I actually thought it looked quite 'cool' myself. Also, back then to have a Gold card the minimum credit line was $5k. Of course eventually the 'Gold' moniker came to mean nothing, and now you can purchase a 'Gold' prepaid card at Wal-Mart. For a time, 'Platinum' meant something, but now it's about as special as a gold card, with many institution's most basic cards being 'Platinum'.
I suspect it won't be too long before WMC/WEMC and Signature Visa get devalued as well. I wonder what the next top card level will be?
(Sidenote: Amex charge cards seem to be an outlier here... their card levels have remained static over the years.)
They can call it anything they want too as long as I get more rewards, so they can name it the Snob CC, Exec CC, or the Dirtball CC, I'll take it as long as it works and the rewards are gooood.
BTW, Barclay Luxury cards, total RIPOFF.
Personal Cards: Amex Plat | Amex Delta Res | CSR | Citi AA Exec Business Cards: Ink+ | Amex BGR
In MHO, a preferred card in my mind does not have an AF, lol Cards like the CSP and virtually any card with an AF do not personally make me want to app for them, I would rather have a card with a single-digit low or fixed APR, either with or without rewards 
I guess maybe I'm too old-school, to want cards like the CSP and similar...
@Anonymous wrote:
Does "preferred" really mean anything?
Not in and of itself. Don't rely on just one word by itself. Be aware of the features and benefits of any product and how well it suits you versus how it is labeled.
@galahad15 wrote:In MHO, a preferred card in my mind does not have an AF, lol
Why? Are you carrying balances? If so, work on getting out of that.
Definitely consider total cost/benefit and not just AF. With sufficient spend it's certainly possible to have rewards that greatly exceed AF. All of my cards do so or else I wouldn't have them.
@takeshi74 wrote:
Why? Are you carrying balances? If so, work on getting out of that.
Definitely consider total cost/benefit and not just AF. With sufficient spend it's certainly possible to have rewards that greatly exceed AF. All of my cards do so or else I wouldn't have them.
As far as the question on carrying balances, the answer would probably be both yes and no. Some cards with lower APRs, especially non-promo single-digit APRs, I usually tend to revolve a balance on. There are a few cards I PIF, mostly rewards cards. Then there are cards with higher APRs that have some good 12-15-18 month 0% APR promos, that I am carrying balances on.
I guess in the end, maybe it all comes down to personal preference -- IME, I would rather pay small amounts of interest on a revolving balance with a card with a super-low APR than pay an AF on a card with no balance or that is PIF. YMMV.
@UncleB wrote:
+1000
There is nothing wrong with occasionally carrying a balance; sometimes I do myself, and it's not a cause for concern or 'introspection' of any kind. It's simply a difference in priorities and goals. I never judge those who feel differently, and I expect the same - especially on here.
That being said, I feel it's a shame this seems to somehow repeatedly get injected into threads that are regarding completely different topics.
Oops sorry my bad, I didn't mean to threadjack 
I will be sure to refrain from further commentary about carrying balances, on this thread, thanks for the helpful reminder.