1952 Topps Pafko Print and Surface Issues--Effect on Grade?

1951TP

Hello,
I have a few questions:
The 1952 Topps Andy Pafko seems to be commonly found with the ink from another card's back on its obverse. The PSA 6 exemplar on the info page for the card demonstrates this--it has a red block on the left side, and black type visible from the center to the right. Is this the result of a factory issue or is it just from rubber-banded cards sticking together? What effect does it have on the grade?
The example I have on hand also has a patch of wavy imperfections (micro creases?) on the reverse of the cardstock. They are invisible except at a very specific set of angles. Do they affect the grade or are they sort of looked over as a flaw of the issue?

Finally, what grade does this card appear to you?

Thanks in advance for your help

PSA CardFacts image
https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/baseball-cards/1952-topps/andy-pafko-1/22875

Front of card in question

Back

1951WheatiesPremium

I’ll start by saying your upside is limited because of the centering.

Second, you could get a microfiber cloth and carefully wipe the surface of the card as it looks like it could be wax. And it’s just good policy to wipe a card down - from center to edge - before submission anyway to remove any loose debris, wax, fingerprints or other similar issues that can hold back a grade. With the rounding on the corners, I would say that if there are no creases, that’s a nice 3.5.

The back of that card is normal; vintage cards have a finished from and an unfinished back; an experienced grader should not hit you for that because it’s not really a flaw - it’s how the cardboard was made and aged over time normally; an extremely important difference between vintage and modern cardboard, if you ask me.

The different color backs of a vintage card (think gray vs white backs in ‘56) is often about a result of the different and varying types cardboard stocks used by Topps and Bowman, even within the same years. Some probably experimental, some need based, some cost based - year dependent.

JoeBanzai

1951TP

Thanks! I don't think it's wax unfortunately; I tried gently rubbing with a microfiber and no dice. Again the most likely candidate is ink from another card. Just don't know if that PSA 6 with similar staining is an exception to the rule or if that knocks it down. Corner rounding looks much worse in the pictures I think due to magnification, plus that bright spot in the top right hides the sharpest corner. I agree that centering is bad but not horrible, no problem for a 5 or lower. The ugly top left is partly the old Topps factory fuzzy corner.
Also I should have taken a full-frame photo of the back. Sorry.

1951TP

@JoeBanzai said:

Okay--so it does impact the grade? I suppose they consider this damage now? I have seen this stain quite noticeably on cards from 2-6 which is why I'm a little confused.

1951WheatiesPremium

It’s probably easier to just show your card in its entirety in a scan front and back.

It’s already in a PSA holder so it clearly has a grade you’re unhappy with but funny angles and bad lighting won’t help you get a fair assessment.

If you want to know what to compare it to now, compare it to cards in the current flip.

Cards graded 20 years ago don’t always hold up to todays standards, to put it mildly.

coinkat

I like the card, the player and would like to own one- thanks for posting. I am interested in the opinions as well- the print issue on the front might create opinions that vary- perhaps widely- I won't offer a grade opinion. I think the earliest Pafko card I have is the 1954 Topps card- I believe he was already with the Braves then. For whatever reason, Pafko did not spend much time in Brooklyn- I suspect he may have wanted to get back to the Midwest. Not really sure why he went to Brooklyn in the first place.

Estil

From Home Improvement episode S3E09 (Dollars and Sense):

Randy: Hey, Dad! Check this out...an Andy Pafko!
Mark: Who's Andy Pafko?
Tim: He was...$1300! Keep browsing!

That'll get you a PSA 5...or a 6 if you adjust for inflation.

Say are there any other card #1's that have this kind of legendary status for the same reason? I think 1986 Donruss The Rookies Wally Joyner was kinda like this once upon a time (do I really need to explain why?). Wow, you can get a PSA 10 for $65? Imagine if the dude ended up being a HOFer...

1951WheatiesPremium

@Estil said:
From Home Improvement episode S3E09 (Dollars and Sense):

Randy: Hey, Dad! Check this out...an Andy Pafko!
Mark: Who's Andy Pafko?
Tim: He was...$1300! Keep browsing!

That'll get you a PSA 5...or a 6 if you adjust for inflation.

Say are there any other card #1's that have this kind of legendary status for the same reason? I think 1986 Donruss The Rookies Wally Joyner was kinda like this once upon a time (do I really need to explain why?). Wow, you can get a PSA 10 for $65? Imagine if the dude ended up being a HOFer...

1989 Upper Deck #1 Ken Griffey Jr.

1951WheatiesPremium

@coinkat said:
I like the card, the player and would like to own one- thanks for posting. I am interested in the opinions as well- the print issue on the front might create opinions that vary- perhaps widely- I won't offer a grade opinion. I think the earliest Pafko card I have is the 1954 Topps card- I believe he was already with the Braves then. For whatever reason, Pafko did not spend much time in Brooklyn- I suspect he may have wanted to get back to the Midwest. Not really sure why he went to Brooklyn in the first place.

I believe this is Andy Pafko’s first card.

Estil

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@Estil said:
From Home Improvement episode S3E09 (Dollars and Sense):

Randy: Hey, Dad! Check this out...an Andy Pafko!
Mark: Who's Andy Pafko?
Tim: He was...$1300! Keep browsing!

That'll get you a PSA 5...or a 6 if you adjust for inflation.

Say are there any other card #1's that have this kind of legendary status for the same reason? I think 1986 Donruss The Rookies Wally Joyner was kinda like this once upon a time (do I really need to explain why?). Wow, you can get a PSA 10 for $65? Imagine if the dude ended up being a HOFer...

1989 Upper Deck #1 Ken Griffey Jr.

I think by that point most kids knew better than to have rubber banded stacks of cards stuffed inside their back pocket.

1951WheatiesPremium

@Estil said:

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

@Estil said:
From Home Improvement episode S3E09 (Dollars and Sense):

Randy: Hey, Dad! Check this out...an Andy Pafko!
Mark: Who's Andy Pafko?
Tim: He was...$1300! Keep browsing!

That'll get you a PSA 5...or a 6 if you adjust for inflation.

Say are there any other card #1's that have this kind of legendary status for the same reason? I think 1986 Donruss The Rookies Wally Joyner was kinda like this once upon a time (do I really need to explain why?). Wow, you can get a PSA 10 for $65? Imagine if the dude ended up being a HOFer...

1989 Upper Deck #1 Ken Griffey Jr.

I think by that point most kids knew better than to have rubber banded stacks of cards stuffed inside their back pocket.

Take with a grain of salt - it’s not my collecting wheelhouse - but I thought I remember hearing that the little hologram, which is apparently very condition sensitive, can have a significant impact on the grade.

Estil

@1951WheatiesPremium said:

Take with a grain of salt - it’s not my collecting wheelhouse - but I thought I remember hearing that the little hologram, which is apparently very condition sensitive, can have a significant impact on the grade.

Well it's my understanding that the reason the Pafko is so expensive and legendary in high grades (remember it got a Home Improvement shoutout!) is because then as is now collectors typically sort cards numerically (or some might sort them by teams) and in a rubber banded stack, card #1 would be at the top and get the most wear and tear, especially if also crammed in a boy's back jeans pocket or whatever other forms of damage and wear that top card (no not the old TNN game show) would especially get. What's puzzling is why other card #1's don't also get that same legendary status for the same reason (obviously I mean if the card #1 is a common or at least a non-HOFer).

Come to think of it, I wonder what Andy himself thought of all of this...he actually passed away just a little over ten years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Pafko

1959

Pafko is valued not only for rubber band problem but is almost impossible to fine dead centered. Years ago the lower graded cards were very cheep, but Al Rosen drove the price up. As he also did the Mantle.

coinkat

@1951WheatiesPremium - Thanks for posting the Pafko card-

gemint

I can see the Pafko being expensive in high grades but I never understood why low grade examples sell for much more than other cards in the series. The #1 card condition sensitivity doesn't come into play for low grade examples. A Pafko in PSA 1 is still a $100+ card while card #2 Pete Runnels is a $20-$30 card in PSA 1.

JoeBanzai

@gemint said:
I can see the Pafko being expensive in high grades but I never understood why low grade examples sell for much more than other cards in the series. The #1 card condition sensitivity doesn't come into play for low grade examples. A Pafko in PSA 1 is still a $100+ card while card #2 Pete Runnels is a $20-$30 card in PSA 1.

Because people are stupid.

That is all.

RonSportscards

@gemint said:
I can see the Pafko being expensive in high grades but I never understood why low grade examples sell for much more than other cards in the series. The #1 card condition sensitivity doesn't come into play for low grade examples. A Pafko in PSA 1 is still a $100+ card while card #2 Pete Runnels is a $20-$30 card in PSA 1.

As high grade Pafko's get more expensive, they become unattainable for some, who then have to pursue a mid grade.
That drives up demand, and those mid grades become priced out, then people settle for the low grade, which brings the low grade price up. Plus the Pafko has become more recognized and iconic compared to a Runnels.

coinkat

Just a thought...

I think the 52 Topps might be the only card with Pafkco in a Brooklyn uniform which might account for some demand.

JoeBanzai

@RonSportscards said:

@gemint said:
I can see the Pafko being expensive in high grades but I never understood why low grade examples sell for much more than other cards in the series. The #1 card condition sensitivity doesn't come into play for low grade examples. A Pafko in PSA 1 is still a $100+ card while card #2 Pete Runnels is a $20-$30 card in PSA 1.

As high grade Pafko's get more expensive, they become unattainable for some, who then have to pursue a mid grade.
That drives up demand, and those mid grades become priced out, then people settle for the low grade, which brings the low grade price up. Plus the Pafko has become more recognized and iconic compared to a Runnels.

Everything you said is correct, hence proving my "people are stupid" comment.

The only value in this card is if it is in high grade, because it's condition sensitive in a iconic set, so when you can't afford a nice one, there's really no sensible reason to pursue a low grade one.

The final card in the set Eddie Mathews is different. He's a HOFer, so a low(er) graded copy is still a card that has "value".

"Stupid" is a bit harsh, many collectors/investors are merely sheep buying for no logical reason. It's ok if you have the money to waste, and if there are enough sheep out there, you might even make a profit.

The '52 Parko in mid/low grade is just a common. You can choose to pay as much as you want for one.........not me, unless its a very nice copy.

RonSportscards

@JoeBanzai said:

@RonSportscards said:

@gemint said:
I can see the Pafko being expensive in high grades but I never understood why low grade examples sell for much more than other cards in the series. The #1 card condition sensitivity doesn't come into play for low grade examples. A Pafko in PSA 1 is still a $100+ card while card #2 Pete Runnels is a $20-$30 card in PSA 1.

As high grade Pafko's get more expensive, they become unattainable for some, who then have to pursue a mid grade.
That drives up demand, and those mid grades become priced out, then people settle for the low grade, which brings the low grade price up. Plus the Pafko has become more recognized and iconic compared to a Runnels.

The only value in this card is if it is in high grade, because it's condition sensitive in a iconic set, so when you can't afford a nice one, there's really no sensible reason to pursue a low grade one.

I think the person collecting 52 Topps is more likely going to be a set builder, so they're going to need a Pafko.
An outmoded concept today, as collectors pursue 1/1, RPAs, and completing player rainbows.

JoeBanzai

@RonSportscards said:

@JoeBanzai said:

@RonSportscards said:

@gemint said:
I can see the Pafko being expensive in high grades but I never understood why low grade examples sell for much more than other cards in the series. The #1 card condition sensitivity doesn't come into play for low grade examples. A Pafko in PSA 1 is still a $100+ card while card #2 Pete Runnels is a $20-$30 card in PSA 1.

As high grade Pafko's get more expensive, they become unattainable for some, who then have to pursue a mid grade.
That drives up demand, and those mid grades become priced out, then people settle for the low grade, which brings the low grade price up. Plus the Pafko has become more recognized and iconic compared to a Runnels.

The only value in this card is if it is in high grade, because it's condition sensitive in a iconic set, so when you can't afford a nice one, there's really no sensible reason to pursue a low grade one.

I think the person collecting 52 Topps is more likely going to be a set builder, so they're going to need a Pafko.
An outmoded concept today, as collectors pursue 1/1, RPAs, and completing player rainbows.

Expensive set to complete, can't be many able to get it done, but hey, people are free to spend their money any way that makes them happy.