When is a Stain NOT a Frickin' Stain????

[JollyElm]

This is a strange bit of something I've never seen before.

After seeing this 1969 Topps #50 Roberto Clemente on eBay for $XXX total, I jumped at it. His description made it quite clear that there's an obvious gum stain on front (so, no problem there), but I was just going to wipe it away with my trusty pair of pantyhose, so it was a bargain for such a nice card. In fact, I wanted it to be the star of a step-by-step stain removal tutorial video I was hoping to do.

Let's be clear. Every single human being on the planet (even that pesky 5th dentist who wouldn't recommend Trident in the 1970's) would say that's a gum stain there. It is exactly what a rectangular Topps gum stain has always looked like to every one of us who's opened a pack...

1969clementesurfaceglossAUCTIONPHOTO.jpg


Here's where the weirdness starts. That is NOT a stain!!!!!! I swear to you!!!!!

Every last one of you is probably snickering right now saying, "Come on, man, it's just a basic goddamn gum stain!!!!!!!!!!! Get over yourself." But you'd be wrong.

Let me show you this composite. The first card is a scan of the untouched card. The second card is scanned AFTER I went to freaking town with said pantyhose to remove the gum build-up. You may notice that nothing has changed. It is still fully there!!! The right-most card is scanned AFTER I soaked the heck out of it, wielding (carefully, of course) a Q-Tip as I attacked the 'stain.' Again, NOTHING changed. What in high hell is going on?? A slab of gum can only leave residue on top of the card's gloss. That's it, on top, and it always comes off easily...

1969clemente50staincomp.jpg


To further add 'scientific' proof, take a look at these pics shot in the warm California sun (taken after the pantyhose and soaking efforts). They are tilted ('scangled' in my Collectorisms parlance) to catch and highlight the glossy surface of the card right in the area of where the 'stain' took up residence. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING atop the gloss. Nada, zilch. Clear as day, everyone can see there's nothing there but the gloss. So this fake stain lies beneath the gloss and is a part of the printed card itself. As my Grandma would say, "What in tarnation?????" This makes no sense whatsoever

1969clementeSTAINsurfacecomposite02.jpg


The other bizarre thing is, if I ever decide to get the card graded, it would undoubtedly be returned with an 'ST' qualifier, not a 'PD,' even though no stain exists.

Has anyone ever seen anything like this???

I remain befuddled.

[jmoran19]

My experience is that Panty hose only remove wax stains on the glossy side of cards

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jmoran19

My experience is that Panty hose only remove wax stains on the glossy side of cards

Yes, that's my point. The phantom gum 'stain' isn't on the gloss, it's under it, and therefore not an actual stain. Totally bizarre.

[ALR-bishop]

Something stained/spotted the cardboard before card front was printed ?

I am doing my absolute best to tell myself I do not now need a half dozen or so Topps 1969 Clementes :-{

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Something stained/spotted the cardboard before card front was printed ?

I am doing my absolute best to tell myself I do not now need a half dozen or so Topps 1969 Clementes :-{

Al,

we can create a support group if you'd like?

I am doing my absolute best to tell myself I do not now need a half dozen or so Topps 1969 Clementes :-{

My reply; sure you do Al, what is 6 more at this point in time???

Maybe I am not cut out to help you here.

[murphy8276]

You are correct, a gum "stain" is not really the same type of stain as a wax stain. Only wax stains can be removed with pantyhose. The "stain" you have really equates more to embedding sugar and moisture into a card several thousand times and extracting it several thousand times during dry months. If we did that to just about anything, there would be relevant defects.


Fwiw, Beckett will accurately grade this with only a low score for the "surface".