Impact of gumstains on value
 

Hi All,

It's been a long while since I've posted, as some other projects meant I had to take a break from collecting. But I'm looking to get back into the hobby, and taking a bit of a pivot. I've been a PSA collector, but I'm thinking of taking a step back, and collecting raw cards I can store in an album.

I specialize in '52 Topps, and I'm eyeing a few nice raw cards on ebay. But a few of them have gumstains on the reverse. Gumstains weren't really an issue when I collected PSA, as I was pretty selected and went for grade, but now I have some decisions to make.

Which leads to my question: what, if any, impact do gum stains have on a card's value, specifically, when they are on the reverse? Would you consider that to be card damage on par with holes or paper loss? Or are they more acceptable than other flaws?

I'd love your opinions!

Thanks all,

BR

Definitely a notch or two below pin holes and paper loss.

Gum stains, when they are on the back, don't bother me near as much as off-centered or diamond cut cards.

In general, I'd put a 10 - 20% penalty on cards with gum stains on the back.

Gum stains on the reverse don't bother me. To me, it just adds to the authenticity and overall vintage nature of the card.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The reverse gum stains don't bother me much either, especially if it allows me to pick up a card cheaply. But as far as resale value is concerned, it certainly affects the price considerably, because it is seen by many as a permanent 'defect.'

I think of them just like the PSA stain qualifier. Most people will completely ignore them; others will purchase them at 2-3 grades lower than the same card without the gum stain.
One reason that cards with gum/wax stains are removed by card alterers.

I read that title wrong at first glance and thought this was going to be really weird.

Yes, I am ten years old with a potty mouth, but is it all that surprising? I play with baseball cards.

How common is a gum stain on the obverse of a card? What does it look like anyway? I opened wax packs in 1952, but seem to recall that Bowman - maybe not Topps - placed a buffer in the pack to separate the gum from the cards. My memory may be off on that though. That has always caused to wonder if the very common stains on the reverse of early '50's cards is actually from something other than gum, since in all the packs presumably with no buffer, only one card would likely be touching the chewable item - the other five to six not touching. Of course, there was plenty of gum dust in the pack, the aroma of which is something that never left my data storage facility, but I don't think that dust could produce any staining. Anyone have any thoughts or evidence to bear on this conundrum?

Gum or Wax stain?
 

Gum or wax they are two entirely different stains. wax doesn't bother me a ton on a card for my collection. gum stain no thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l99b-M0KySQ&t=287s

This one was a travesty. You win some, you lose some.

Wax stains can generally be rubbed off with a cloth or panty hose, especially if they are on the front. They seem to stay on the surface of the card. And I personally have no issue with doing that.

Gum stains on the other hand, can penetrate the card's surface and cause 'bubbling' on the front. They seem to be a more permanent type of damage than the wax stains.

Probably some of the worst cards for gum stains were the 1981 Donruss and Fleer- their first issues. I can remember putting entire boxes of them in the freezer to be able to 'pop' the gum off the card. Hey, maybe there are still some boxes in there - I'd better check on that.

Yeah, but, it's 64 years old
 

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.:rolleyes: