Would you guys call this slight wax staining?

schr1st

I wasn't aware that a PSA 7 card could indeed have wax stains on the back of them without getting a qualifier. But what amount is "slight"? According to the definition:

A PSA NM 7 is a card with just a slight surface wear visible upon close inspection. There may be slight fraying on some corners. Picture focus may be slightly out-of-register. A minor printing blemish is acceptable. Slight wax staining is acceptable on the back of the card only. Most of the original gloss is retained. Centering must be approximately 70/30 to 75/25 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.

I picked up the following card for my 1957 Topps Registered set:



Would you guys consider the three wax stain marks to be "slight"?

calleocho

yes

mikeschmidt

To me, that is slight. I would suggest that PSA is terribly inconsistent in this department. I have quite a few 1982 Fleer cards that have much less wax than this that get the qualifier in PSA 7 and PSA 8 grade. So I don't know. From an eye appeal perspective - it really is not that bad. Some people notice those things more than others, though.

mikeschmidt

Also - I've seen many PSA 9 MINT cards with wax on the reverse - and that is "allowed" to. I've most notably seen it on 1951 Bowman cards - but to me the amount of wax on the back of your card ranges from "slight" to "very slight"

srs1a

They are slight, more like very slight, in my book...don''t bother me at all.

perkdog

I dont have a problem with that amount, I would absolutley say it is slight. I have a few 1952 bowman baseball/football cards that graded out at a 7 and have a little more gum staining on the back than that card does. I have not seen many Qualifiers put on these cards with that amount of staining, One other thing I have noticed that there seems to be a little leeway with is roller ink marks on the front of these cards (52 bowman) with no qualifiers as well.

WinPitcher

I agree with MS, I too have cards with such minimal staining that have the ST qualifier. The Early bowman cards seem to not get the qualifier I think cuz so many have them. They were sold in 1 cent packs as well as nickel packs. Every card from the 1 cent pack has that stain. Also the darker paper stocks look much worse then those with the lighter ones.

perkdog

I assume that the 1 cent packs only had one card? How many did the 5 cent packs hold? I would assume that you are correct in saying that it gets a little less attention when graded because more than half would have the staining?

CON40

That wax is minimal... I have several PSA 8 '50s cards with at least as much wax on them and none are qualified.

imafishinnut

Actually, I have seen a lot worse than that card that didn't receive qualifiers. I used to own a couple PSA 7 rookie cards (e.g., Richardson and Mazeroski if I remember correctly) in my 1957 Topps PSA graded set that had worse wax staining than that seen in your scan. I don't believe that is the Mazeroski that I had in my set that I recently sold, but it could be. Like you, I was very disappointed when I received the cards and checked the definition myself. The definition does allow for some staining, but I think PSA could definitely be more consistent when it comes to assigning ST qualifier.

WinPitcher

perk....the 1 cent paks held 1 card, the 5 cent held ( i believe) 6

as for staining i have a 69 mantle white letter with very slight staing that recieved the ST qualifier, as well as mars attacks card which i can't see any staining and it too was given the dreaded ST qualifier. both were submitted at the same time. i have bought a few cards on ebay that did not have the qualifier yet showed more wax. i wish that psa had 2 different ST QUALIFIERS one for wax and another for a true stain ( not from manufacturing)

jimtb

Just wondering, those of you that consider that stain small enough not to get a qualifier; would you have the same answer if the stain was on the front of the card?

mikeschmidt

<< <i>Just wondering, those of you that consider that stain small enough not to get a qualifier; would you have the same answer if the stain was on the front of the card? >>



Perhaps not - but I would suggest that most collectors seem to be comfortable with removing stains from the (glossy) front of a card with pantyhose. I've never done it myself (as most of the cards I have have wax stains on the back....), but am told it works wonders.

tnfan67

I have a 1957 Bobby Thompson that I have been reluctant to send in because of wax stains. After seeing your card, I think I will give it a shot. Thanks for another helpful thread for a rookie PSA user.

schr1st

Glad to be able to help, I guess! I was just more or less ticked at seeing the stain, as I was not aware that a PSA 7 could have a wax stain. Guess you live and learn. Just for proper perspective, here is the front of the card.



It's nice overall except for the centering and the stains. Thanks for the opinions guys!



<< <i>I have a 1957 Bobby Thompson that I have been reluctant to send in because of wax stains. After seeing your card, I think I will give it a shot. Thanks for another helpful thread for a rookie PSA user. >>

magellan

That really is a nice card and the stain on the back wouldn't bother me. I have a ST qualifier on one of my cards which is about as minimal.


Marc, pantyhose works great ! Thankfully my wife runs hers often enough that I have a never ending supply.

tnfan67

That Maz card is very nice. That set is so beautiful that a little wax stain here and there does not get to me. Thanks for sharing.