![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Looking for some thoughts on the grade of this card, which is nice but has a noticeable stain on the front (and back). Do the grading standards allow for such a high grade for a card with a stain like this?
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...MyBids-101116# https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...MyBids-101116#
__________________
Contact me if you have any Dave Kingman cards / memorabilia for sale. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Very unlikely to get higher than a PSA 4 at this point. Could be soaking/bleaching damage that wasn't visible when the card was graded over 10 years ago.
https://www.psacard.com/resources/gr...andards/#cards Their standards for VG 3 read "Slight stain may show on obverse and wax staining on reverse may be more prominent."
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. Last edited by swarmee; 11-10-2019 at 02:03 PM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I would say yes, but WITH a a "ST" qualifier on the flip.
__________________
Seeking very scarce/rare cards for my Sam Rice master collection, e.g., E210 York Caramel Type 2 (upgrade), 1931 W502, W504 (upgrade), W572 sepia, W573, 1922 Haffner's Bread, 1922 Keating Candy, 1922 Witmor Candy Type 2 (vertical back), 1926 Sports Co. of Am. with ad & blank backs. Also 1917 Merchants Bakery & Weil Baking cards of WaJo. Also E222 cards of Lipe, Revelle & Ryan. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Good point; I've seen Ramlys before in person and do realize they are multiple layers, it just slipped my mind at the time.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The last two statements above are false.
The number of Ramly cards that are not solid stock is very, very small, (I have seen one small group in nearly 30 years of collecting and a few singles here and there). The embossing will not soak out nor press out fully, it will still be present even if placed under pressure. The half-tone will get very fragile and can easily be damaged while wet, creating very small spots of paper loss, with just the lightest touch of fingers or other contact. The offered card exhibits some of the above characteristics. Last edited by sb1; 11-10-2019 at 04:45 PM. Reason: To expound on the facts |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
One or two here and there, but very unusual to find the two part ones, in fact quite difficult. That being said, I have talked to some old time collectors 1960's/70's that did think all Ramly's were two parts, apparently due to the scarcity of all Ramly's and pre-internet era, these were the perhaps the only ones they had encountered.
Having handled a few thousand of them over the years, I have one small original group that are in fact two-pieces and pretty easy to see, as the front and back are markedly mis-aligned on most of them. Oddly they were removed from an album, apparently with very little direct water, as they have back stains and paper pulls where they were glued in with the old brown horse glue. I have soaked a few solid stock Ramly's to remove excess paper and find that they get extremely fragile on the front, just a few touches and the top layer will rub. They are printed directly onto to the paper stock and then coated with a clear coat of some type. Most T-cards are printed on clay coated paper and you can soak and handle them without any fear of disturbing the front image, the back which is just paper stock will however suffer the same surface damage if you get too aggressive with a q-tip or such when trying to get stubborn paper to release. Last edited by sb1; 11-10-2019 at 05:43 PM. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks, Sc0tt. Glad to know I wasn't too far off.
__________________
-- PWCC: The Fish Stinks From the Head PSA: Regularly Get Cheated BGS: Can't detect trimming on modern SGC: Closed auto authentication business JSA: Approved same T206 Autos before SGC Oh, what a difference a year makes. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
... http://imageevent.com/derekgranger HOF "Earliest" Collection (Ideal - Indiv): 250/346 (72.3%) 1914 T330-2 Piedmont Art Stamps......: 116/119 (97.5%) 1923 V100 Willard's Chocolate............: 180/180 (100%) |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
With respect to the stain on the first card, I once got a Ramly in the cigarette pack it presumably came in and both the card and pack had water type stains just about in that same place. I think Bill C ended up with it. That was a beautiful card. And I think even with the little stain they gave it a 6 (it was a long time ago so not positive.) Good info to know about soaking Ramlys. I don't think I have tried any.
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gone with the stain | BigBeerGut | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 130 | 09-12-2019 05:53 PM |
No Stain No Gain | JollyElm | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 3 | 09-25-2017 06:53 PM |
What is that stain on the card? | Pythonfactory | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 03-30-2014 10:13 AM |
Stain or Transfer | Bwstew | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 12-11-2012 04:21 PM |
33 Goudey gum stain? | mighty bombjack | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 10-12-2011 08:43 PM |