1952 Bowman

[swarmee]

I would be disappointed to receive that many with wax stains as well. They should have commented it or shown pictures.

[Volod]

I tend to think that a tech grade of EX to EX+ would include the strong possibility of gum stains on the backs. Maybe if they had been NR MT, you would have a legit beef, but in any case, couldn't you have asked for back scans before the auction end? Man, I wonder how long it would have taken me to complete a '52 Bowman set with no gum stains - many years, no doubt.

[Republicaninmass]

Was stains ok....gum stains not so much

[ALR-bishop]

Both are marks of character in ....or on a card. . Gum and cards are the history of the hobby. Removing gum stains is like trying to erase history

[Volod]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Was stains ok....gum stains not so much

Have to wonder why back stains on the '52 Bowman cards are sometimes attributed to "wax staining" and other times to "gum staining." When ripping open the packs back then, I found five cards all facing up, so that only the last card was touching the gum slab. My memory is fuzzy as to whether there was ever a waxed separator between the cards and gum in the pack. But, in any case, since only one card out of five in a pack was in contact with the stuff, why is it so tough to find unstained cards? Maybe there was some other staining process going on at the printshop, apart from gum or wax.

[pingman59]

Originally Posted by Volod

Have to wonder why back stains on the '52 Bowman cards are sometimes attributed to "wax staining" and other times to "gum staining." When ripping open the packs back then, I found five cards all facing up, so that only the last card was touching the gum slab. My memory is fuzzy as to whether there was ever a waxed separator between the cards and gum in the pack. But, in any case, since only one card out of five in a pack was in contact with the stuff, why is it so tough to find unstained cards? Maybe there was some other staining process going on at the printshop, apart from gum or wax.

Perhaps more 1 cent packs back then, thus abundance of wax stains? A nickle in 1952 had to be harder to come by for a kid, compared to say 1969, the last year of nickle packs.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by pingman59

Perhaps more 1 cent packs back then, thus abundance of wax stains? A nickle in 1952 had to be harder to come by for a kid, compared to say 1969, the last year of nickle packs.

I thought of that - the possibility of many more penny packs being sold in those days, but at least in my small hometown, the only size I saw were nickel packs. Maybe the penny size was a bigger seller in large markets.

[tjb1952tjb]

Originally Posted by Volod

I tend to think that a tech grade of EX to EX+ would include the strong possibility of gum stains on the backs. Maybe if they had been NR MT, you would have a legit beef, but in any case, couldn't you have asked for back scans before the auction end? Man, I wonder how long it would have taken me to complete a '52 Bowman set with no gum stains - many years, no doubt.

This

[hcv123]

Mho - via picture or description it should have been mentioned - would not prevent me from doing business again, just doing so expecting to be responsible for asking more pointed condition based questions for anything I was interested in.

[Exhibitman]

AH should have either shown backs or mentioned it. No reason to needlessly disappoint a bidder. A bad business decision; you aren’t likely to do business with them again.