[uffda51]

Below is what PSA says about grades 3 & 4 and stains. The words "stain" and "paper loss" do not appear in the VG-EX 4 description. The word "stain" appears in the VG-3 description but only with regard to gum stains. The stain on this card is ugly and impossible to miss. Like Barry, IMHO I would grade the T-3 as "good." I'm less personally bothered by paper loss generally, especially in a set in which all of the backs are essentially the same. On a card with career stats like a 1961 Topps Stan Musial, paper loss on the back would be a different story.

VG 3: Very Good.

A PSA VG 3 card reveals some rounding of the corners, though not extreme. Some surface wear will be apparent, along with possible light scuffing or light scratches. Focus may be somewhat off-register and edges may exhibit noticeable wear. Much, but not all, of the card's original gloss will be lost. Borders may be somewhat yellowed and/or discolored. A crease may be visible. Printing defects are possible. Slight stain may show on obverse and wax staining on reverse may be more prominent. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back.

VG-EX 4: Very Good-Excellent.

A PSA VG-EX 4 card's corners may be slightly rounded. Surface wear is noticeable but modest. The card may have light scuffing or light scratches. Some original gloss will be retained. Borders may be slightly off-white. A light crease may be visible. Centering must be 85/15 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.

ST (Staining):

Cards with staining below the minimum standards for the grade will be designated "ST."

If PSA is going to apply their own standards then this card cannot be a PSA 4. It also can't be a PSA 4 (ST) because there is no mention of paper loss in the VG-EX 4 description, or any other PSA card category, for that matter. The words "paper loss" on the PSA web site appear only in descriptions of the grading standards for tickets. BTW, references to borders all seem to assume white borders. It's a tall order to create grading standards that will fit all card issues and all card sizes. However, if there is an unwritten rule about applying easier standards to "older" cards then maybe it should not remain unwritten.

Having now seen the front of the card, it's a nice looking card and it's a HOFer. Regardless of the "technical grade," paying around $700 for it may not be so terribly out of line. If the seller clearly stated "no returns on graded cards" then that should really settle the matter. One possible course of action, if the seller agress. Ask the seller to offer the card to the underbidder and pay the seller the difference between the two bids. The sellers comes out even, the underbidder get the card at his price and Scott pays a pretty small price to unload what is now an unwanted card.