![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I don't think any kid opening a pack in 1955 would have encountered a "stain" of that kind. The back of that Conlon card, and maybe the next one - Ted Gray to some extent, were heavily stained, but the other seven cards appeared to be unblemished. So, the gum oil only managed to penetrate the top two cards over the course of 60-plus years. I imagine Topps was also in the practice of inserting the gum slab on the top (obverse) side of the cards, which would strongly suggest that the stains on the reverse side almost always came from wax, not gum. But, if the wax wrappers tended to stain the back of the bottom card, wouldn't that indicate that wax staining only appears on 20% or fewer of all cards from the period? It is questions of this enormity that I appeciate for taking my mind off of world events. ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who had a positive impact on your collection ? | Baseballcrazy62 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 151 | 05-15-2025 07:21 PM |
Impact of the MC and/or MK designation | TheBigRedOne | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 15 | 02-27-2017 05:43 AM |
Where do you all stand on gumstains? | Brianruns10 | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 13 | 10-30-2013 01:32 AM |
Impact of Net 54 on SCP/Sothebys | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 18 | 09-15-2007 05:44 PM |
Impact of the Card | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 45 | 07-17-2007 02:17 PM |