Grade or Not

[Volod]

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.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

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.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

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.

John, many of my sentiments, as well. Something I have never been able to figure out regarding the '52 Bowman cards is exactly how so many got stained in the production process. I find it hard to believe that any wax on the plastic wrappers actually stained the cards. Even if that were a possible source, only one of five cards in the pack would have been touching the wrapper. As well, only one card would have been in contact with the gum, if that were the source of staining. It seems more likely to me that the sheet cutting process, or perhaps the collating and packaging process involved the use of some oily substance that came into contact with most of the cards. Or, maybe, the guys on the production line just never washed their hands?

[swarmee]

Weren't there also 1-card packs of this issue? That would explain why so many are stained.

[Volod]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Weren't there also 1-card packs of this issue? That would explain why so many are stained.

Yeah, there were one-cent packs. I never saw a one-cent pack in the year of issue - as an eight-year-old in a small town in upstate NY. Maybe the small packs were sold in large cities, but not sure why that would have been the case. So, as a kid collector, I found only nickel packs. I seem to recall the slab of gum on top and perhaps a thin piece of wax paper buffering the gum from the cards, which were all together below. Strange, the things the mind retains for seventy years, while stuff from last week seems to evaporate easily.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by Volod

Yeah, there were one-cent packs. I never saw a one-cent pack in the year of issue - as an eight-year-old in a small town in upstate NY. Maybe the small packs were sold in large cities, but not sure why that would have been the case. So, as a kid collector, I found only nickel packs. I seem to recall the slab of gum on top and perhaps a thin piece of wax paper buffering the gum from the cards, which were all together below. Strange, the things the mind retains for seventy years, while stuff from last week seems to evaporate easily.

Just based on price guide quotes for wrapper value, it appears that the one cent wrappers are more scarce than the five cent wrappers. So, although I would assume that every card in the once cent wrapper could have staining, there still leaves a mystery as to why so many cards are stained...since only 20% of the cards in the five card packs would have been directly in contact with the back of the back.

And I don't think I've seen any cards with noticeable gum stains on the front...so that wax paper must have worked

[Volod]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

Just based on price guide quotes for wrapper value, it appears that the one cent wrappers are more scarce than the five cent wrappers. So, although I would assume that every card in the once cent wrapper could have staining, there still leaves a mystery as to why so many cards are stained...since only 20% of the cards in the five card packs would have been directly in contact with the back of the back.

And I don't think I've seen any cards with noticeable gum stains on the front...so that wax paper must have worked

Right, John. The stains seem to me more like some really oily liquid, not so much from gum or wax. I wonder if Bowman had a press mechanic come in and oil up the machinery a little too much just before the press run in '52.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by thatkidfromjerrymaguire

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.

It was around 3 years ago I sent several Ted Williams cards to SGC with wax stains and they all came back as 5.5s. Without the stains they would have got 7s in my opinion.

[thatkidfromjerrymaguire]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It was around 3 years ago I sent several Ted Williams cards to SGC with wax stains and they all came back as 5.5s. Without the stains they would have got 7s in my opinion.

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.