How does this not get an ST designation??

Comments

• ugaskidawg Posts: 882 ✭✭✭

  January 28, 2016 10:41PM

  Probably didn't want the qualifier. Even with that said, it looks like a PSA 5 without the stain. I would have thought that the stain would have knocked it down to a 2 or so (without the qualifier)

  0
• WinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭

  January 28, 2016 11:58PM

  Kirk, it has been my experience that the ST qualifier is reserved for wax/gum stains.
  
  
  
  Water stains like the one in that auction generally get a lower grade.
  
  
  
  

  Good for you.

  0
• Stingray Posts: 8,843 ✭✭✭

  January 29, 2016 3:58AM

  Originally posted by: WinPitcher
  Kirk, it has been my experience that the ST qualifier is reserved for wax/gum stains.
  
  Water stains like the one in that auction generally get a lower grade.
  
  

  
  
  
  
  Ah, get it, so it would just affect the grade.

  0
• packCollector Posts: 2,786 ✭✭✭

  January 30, 2016 1:28AM

  I don't know, that looks like a straight up water stain to me. you can see on the back where it is not smooth. probably should not be a 5 in any case but when you are talking sub $50 , sub NM cards in vintage commons I think many more errors are made

  0
• WinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭

  January 30, 2016 2:26AM

  One other point, in some cases, notably early Bowmans for example
  
  and Cracker Jacks the ST designation is entirely forgiven...
  
  
  
  Maybe someone with knowledge regarding CJ's will chime in regarding them.
  
  
  
  It has been my experience that Bowmans since so many have a stain
  
  1 card packs and all that, has created a phenomena that "allows" them
  
  to hardly ever get (again, at least in my experience) the ST qualification.
  
  
  
  

  Good for you.

  0