How much does writing on cards hurt their value?

[wdwfan]

I picked up a lot of 1962s yesterday that all had writing on them. It was either initials (AA) or year (62, 52, etc.). Other than the writing, most of them are in pretty good, middle of the road shape for the 1960s.

I've included scans of a few of the bigger names from the lot I picked up. The Musial with the tape has a crease, and both Spahns are really rough with a crease and/or tape marks. Other than that, most just have the writing on them. Otherwise, they'd grade probably VG to VG-Ex.

My question is how far does the writing knock down grades? For example, what should I list the Maris at? Fair, Poor, Good, VG? What?

I'm going to be looking to sell these as I can't use them in my set due to the writing. But I was curious what to list them at when I do the listings/thread. Thanks in advance.

Here's scans of the best cards...

[swarmee]

I would grade those as Poor. The fact that it's so large and in the center of the front hurts it. PSA rule of thumb for MK is a 2-point drop, but that's presuming it doesn't further damage the card, which ballpoint writing does.

[Chris-Counts]

For me, writing on the back of a card is not nearly as bad as writing on the front. In fact, writing on the back matters so little to me that I regularly search for cards with "writing on the back" because I can find bargains.

[JollyElm]

Ink is the cardboard equivalent of the guillotine. Like John, I would assess them as poor.

[Jim65]

To me, intentional damage like writing or trimming is a big dealbreaker unless the card is super rare.

[Bored5000]

I am not being at all snotty when I say this, but the OP doesn't want them in his collection because of the writing; most other collectors are going to feel the same way about flawed cards that are so common. It is one thing if the card is extremely rare or an iconic card that is only available to most collectors if there are major flaws, but those cards are not at all rare or iconic.

[wdwfan]

Correct. I have no intention of keeping them. I was just curious what to list them at when I sell them as I don't deal with these types of cards.

I usually toss out anything that has creases, writing or paper loss. But I got these at a really good deal, and I feel I can make money off them even selling them as Poor.

Maybe there's someone out there doing a low grade set and can use a $5 Maris (or whatever I decide to sell him at).

Originally Posted by Bored5000

I am not being at all snotty when I say this, but the OP doesn't want them in his collection because of the writing; most other collectors are going to feel the same way about flawed cards that are so common. It is one thing if the card is extremely rare or an iconic card that is only available to most collectors if there are major flaws, but those cards are not at all rare or iconic.

[wdwfan]

I see a lot of cards from the 60s on back that have writing on them. For these, it seems the owner's initials were AA because that's what was on almost every card. Some of them have the team name crossed out and another team name written in its place. Why someone would write something on cards that were worth so much (or crease them up or put tape on them or put them in bicycle spokes or whatever). Heck, I was looking closer at the Frank Robinsons (and a couple of others) and there are tack marks. Like someone hung them up on the wall or something. I can't understand why people didn't take better care of their cards back then.

Originally Posted by Jim65

To me, intentional damage like writing or trimming is a big dealbreaker unless the card is super rare.

[bnorth]

Please quit throwing your beaters away. Several of us collect them.

As far as the cards you just purchased I would say you paid full retail or really close. You might be able to make a few $ if you consider your time to be completely worthless.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

For me, writing on the back of a card is not nearly as bad as writing on the front. In fact, writing on the back matters so little to me that I regularly search for cards with "writing on the back" because I can find bargains.

I concur completely here. Just purchased a 1925 Exhibits KiKi Cuyler rookie I had been looking for for awhile (just 15 total PSA and SGC graded) in VG(mk) 3. The mark was due to the fact that "1925" had been written in very small letters on the back at the bottom of the card, along with "A" in slightly larger font stamped on the back above it. Since the backs are blank anyway, it bothers me not at all.

Generally, the rarer and more significant a card is, the more condition defects are tolerated and the lesser effect they have on the card's value, percentage-wise, in my experience. Large writing on the front on cards not particularly rare is, however, a big-time negative, IMHO.

Best wishes,

Larry

[wdwfan]

Yea, I know I won't get much out of them. I bought them knowing I wouldn't get much out of them. I actually just listed them in a thread for 15 cents apiece. So we'll see how that goes.

Originally Posted by bnorth

Please quit throwing your beaters away. Several of us collect them.

As far as the cards you just purchased I would say you paid full retail or really close. You might be able to make a few $ if you consider your time to be completely worthless.

[mrmopar]

My comments were 15-20 years later than this example. By the time I started buying cards, the hobby was more developed and people knew better, but as a kid with no direct connection to the hobby yet other than buying packs at the local grocery store, I had no clue. I tacked some cards on my wall, taped others, trimmed some and even laminated several (the school had a real laminator and then we discovered the retail stuff you could cut from rolls! I can say I never wrote on my cards though. It was 1978 and cards were not worth anything more than the price of a pack to us anyways, so we were not hurting anything by taping them to our walls. I don't recall when I made my first visit to a card store, but do remember even then, some people would write prices on the backs of the cards themselves. Usually pencil, but sometimes pen!

Originally Posted by wdwfan

I can't understand why people didn't take better care of their cards back then.

[Jewish-collector]

For the guys still living, what you could do for example the Torre, is get it signed, so the "B" becomes "Best Wishes, Joe Torre" and that card all of a sudden becomes really desirable.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

For the guys still living, what you could do for example the Torre, is get it signed, so the "B" becomes "Best Wishes, Joe Torre" and that card all of a sudden becomes really desirable.

Pretty good idea there. Back when I started collecting in the late '80's, even an autograph on the card was considered defacing it. The current trend, is of course just the opposite (although personally, I still don't like it--cards are cards, and autographs are autographs--to each his own).

Good luck with them,

Larry

[Rich Klein]

For those card you showed the typical "retail" is 10 percent or less of book. But what you ask is up to you

Rich

[wdwfan]

Thanks everyone. I wound up selling the entire lot of 75 for $40 shipped. I sold the commons and semistars for 15 cents apiece and got $3 for the ones pictured (the stars).

I've got 1 last lot of 5 more (#1 Maris, #50 Musial (x2), #300 Mays, #320 Aaron) that I'm looking to move right now. I'm actually asking 6% of BV on that lot. So hopefully those will be able to move as well.

Thanks again.

[Bigdaddy]

I recently ran across a nice lot of '57s - centering very good and registration good across the board. However, they all had an ink stamp and a pen mark on the backs.

I ended up buying the lot and using them as the base of a new '57 set project. Probably the only way I'd actually start that project.

So for me, the ink marks on the back were actually an attracting factor because the decrease in value was greater than the impact on the 'eye appeal' of the cards for me. Different story though if the marks had been on the front.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

I recently ran across a nice lot of '57s - centering very good and registration good across the board. However, they all had an ink stamp and a pen mark on the backs.

I ended up buying the lot and using them as the base of a new '57 set project. Probably the only way I'd actually start that project.

So for me, the ink marks on the back were actually an attracting factor because the decrease in value was greater than the impact on the 'eye appeal' of the cards for me. Different story though if the marks had been on the front.

Tom, I think that's really great if it works for you! Obviously, you can eventually upgrade when and if the urge strikes. Way to turn a minus into a plus!

Sincerely,

Larry