![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Was wondering about grading this 1952 Bowman. The back has a stain (which I hope is attached). First, is there anything I could do to remove it? If not, could I get it graded without qualifiers or should I just look for a card without stains?
Thanks for any suggestions. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
This debate is as old as cardboard time.
![]() Some people refuse to deal with any of the 'normal' stains associated with opening packs of baseball cards - gum, wax, etc. But others (myself included) have no problem with it, because that's what they looked like when we opened the packs back in the day. So, you have to decide which side of that fence you're on. If you try to remove that gunk, you will most likely ruin your card. There's no protection back there, just cardboard. Others will offer tips on trying to do it without damaging the card. On a side note, that isn't glue or anything, is it? That's a whole other issue. In general, I'd say back stains are much more acceptable than front stains to most collectors.
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land ![]() https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. ![]() Last edited by JollyElm; 09-29-2021 at 06:17 PM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Removing the stain would be considered alteration, despite the fact that PSA can't seem to detect it. I would recommend you find a different one if you have to grade it.
But the cheapest grading you can do right now is with SGC at like $30/card. Is it really worth having that card graded for $30? It looks like multiple corners have damage, there might be two spider wrinkles, and pencil writing to the right of BASEBALL(R). Congrats on your SGC 3, and that's before considering the stains.
__________________
-- 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The 1952 Bowman set was the first I collected as a kid, and then again thirty years later returning to childhood. At neither time, did I give a fig about back stains. If the front was in decent condition, as far as I was concerned, the card was a rare object d' art. The idea of having a third party appraisal was laughable to me, then and now. Card collecting is a hobby.
Last edited by Volod; 09-30-2021 at 02:14 PM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
1952 Bowman is my favorite set, and as of this week I'm only FOUR cards away from completing my set. I estimate at least 50% or more of my set have wax stains because it was very common with this issue. My set is mostly EX to EX-MT...so I avoid wrinkles, creases, and marks, but I don't think twice about wax stains, to me they are just part of the card.
Wax stains on the back of 1952 Bowmans are SO common, I'm not sure they really even affect the grade. I know they don't put ST qualifiers on the cards that have them. I only have a handful of graded, but my Mantle is graded a straight SGC 6 and it has wax staining on back similar if not a little worse than your card pictured. Maybe a 6 is as high as you can get with the stains, but as a previous poster mentioned, with those corners on your card, you aren't going to get above a six anyway. My recommendation is leave the wax stain, and don't bother getting it graded. Save the money and enjoy it raw....wax stains and all. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Weren't there also 1-card packs of this issue? That would explain why so many are stained.
__________________
-- 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I was curious about this, so I poked around ebay sold listings a little bit. I found some other 6 grades with staining, but no 7s. So maybe 6 is the cutoff. Although, I didn't spend very long searching, so it's possible there are higher grades with the stains.
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
updated 3/2 low grade stars, 1952 topps gray backs, low grade lot, sain error | Republicaninmass | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 16 | 03-28-2021 07:21 AM |
1964 Topps Baseball High Grade PSA 8+ Starter Set Investment Grade | paul1026 | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 1 | 03-20-2021 05:57 AM |
1970-75 Topps HOF/Stars lot (33), Clean, strong mid grade, high grade. ENDS 10-01 Tue | RedlegsFan | Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once. | 2 | 09-28-2019 07:30 PM |
(110) 1972 Topps Baseball for $15 dlvd (Low Grade)// (90) Diff Mid Grade '72 BB | mintacular | 1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T | 0 | 08-31-2018 07:30 PM |
Wanted: T206 mike powers in high grade, or nice grade with b. Hindu | CMIZ5290 | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 06-06-2012 04:07 PM |