I Prefer My Cracker Jacks Stained

[ksfarmboy]

I must confess I don't even own a Cracker Jack card but have seen several lately. The thing I've noticed is the stained cards with rounded corners sure look good to me for some reason. Much better than the pristine examples. Would love to see some cards and hear others thoughts on the subject. Plus are there other sets in your guys opinions that look better to you used than in better condition? Feel free to share those examples too.

[Brian Van Horn]

Clint,

I hear you, sir, but you may be better served to post this thread in the discussion forum instead of the BST section.

[CrackaJackKid]

Couldn't agree more Clint. A 1914 CJ with no staining has a 90% chance of being altered/soaked. Plus Perfection is boring.

It makes no sense why PSA/SGC dock for staining on the 14s.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Right all this talk about not knowing a card is soaked and it should be disclosed.

Its obvious most of the CJs are soaked that have limited stains. People should bid knowing the card was soaked. Soaking isnt even close to wrinkling/paper loss/creasing

[ksfarmboy]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Clint,

I hear you, sir, but you may be better served to post this thread in the discussion forum instead of the BST section.

Ha, yeah I meant it to be on the main forum. Hopefully Leon can move it for me.

[Bruinsfan94]

I honestly think most sets look great in collector grade for prewar. Much better then post world war 2

[orly57]

Rounded corners and stained, you say? Here is my '14 CJ Cobb:

[Sean]

Here's my only Cracker Jack. Stained and missing a corner:

scan0011.jpg

[MattyC]

Agreed.

[rainier2004]

Stains are good.

I will say this though, water doesn't take out caramel stains though. I'm not ignorant enough to think CJs don't get soaked, but those stains are saturated into the thin card stock. A 1914 w/o stains has probably been ALTERED, not soaked.

[yanksfan09]

I agree, I like a little bit of staining that adds character. Little bit of corner rounding, just enough to show a card has been treasured and loved for the past century.

I think these cards fit the bill...

[JustinD]

Love that Cobb Orlando.

It just has the best eye appeal, great piece.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Stains are good.

I will say this though, water doesn't take out caramel stains though. I'm not ignorant enough to think CJs don't get soaked, but those stains are saturated into the thin card stock. A 1914 w/o stains has probably been ALTERED, not soaked.

I had that same thought, but didn't mention it. I don't see how soaking could remove stains that are deeply embedded in a card (for 100 years at that!). In fact, I don't see how anything can. But I guess guys are always a step ahead when it comes to money making scams.

-Thanks Justin.

-erick, that Clarke is SHARP. My eyes tell me it's a 6, but I don't know how much psa would knock off for staining. I am not even 100% certain they DO knock off for staining on '14s as someone else stated. They don't give (st) qualifiers on them (unless I have just missed it). If they don't do that, I don't think they reduce the grade either. Could be wrong.

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by orly57

I had that same thought, but didn't mention it. I don't see how soaking could remove stains that are deeply embedded in a card (for 100 years at that!). In fact, I don't see how anything can. But I guess guys are always a step ahead when it comes to money making scams.

-Thanks Justin.

-erick, that Clarke is SHARP. My eyes tell me it's a 6, but I don't know how much psa would knock off for staining. I am not even 100% certain they DO knock off for staining on '14s as someone else stated. They don't give (st) qualifiers on them (unless I have just missed it). If they don't do that, I don't think they reduce the grade either. Could be wrong.

Thanks Orlando, it's now in an SGC60 (5) case.

The picture I have of it before grading looks nicer!

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by orly57

I had that same thought, but didn't mention it. I don't see how soaking could remove stains that are deeply embedded in a card (for 100 years at that!). In fact, I don't see how anything can. But I guess guys are always a step ahead when it comes to money making scams.

-Thanks Justin.

-erick, that Clarke is SHARP. My eyes tell me it's a 6, but I don't know how much psa would knock off for staining. I am not even 100% certain they DO knock off for staining on '14s as someone else stated. They don't give (st) qualifiers on them (unless I have just missed it). If they don't do that, I don't think they reduce the grade either. Could be wrong.

second that on the Clarke! Such a great card. Love the image of him leaning on the bat. Orlando they are now grading very hard on staining. They will knock off 2 or more grades for stains. 4+ years ago they were more lenient and you'd see heavily stained cards or even cards with heavy print marks get grades as if the stains or marks weren't there. And in the really early days PSA would give (ST) grades but last time I requested one they declined to give it. PSA's inconsistency has made it really tough to gauge values in the marketplace.

I agree. My only Cracker Jack, with lots of gooey caramel! Looks like a 5/6 minus stains

[T206Collector]

[ksfarmboy]

Thanks for sharing your great cards guys. I also like the unique poses used in the set plus you get some horizontals too. How thin are these compared to other cards?

[CrackaJackKid]

I work in a Machine shop. I brought a raw one in once and measured it. 6 thousandths of an inch. A piece of notebook paper is roughly 3.

[rainier2004]

If you hold a 1914 up to the light you can read the other side they are so thin. 1915 are thicker but by no means are they sturdy stock. The ink is also very fragile on both years.

[orly57]

Originally Posted by CrackaJackKid

I work in a Machine shop. I brought a raw one in once and measured it. 6 thousandths of an inch. A piece of notebook paper is roughly 3.

Only on net54 does a guy rhetorically ask about the thickness of a card, and someone (who of course works in a machine shop) immediately responds with "6 thousands of an inch." I love this board.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by orly57

Only on net54 does a guy rhetorically ask about the thickness of a card, and someone (who of course works in a machine shop) immediately responds with "6 thousands of an inch." I love this board.

I was going to say 7 thousandths.....Yes, our board has a diverse membership and is well educated for a lot of technical questions.

[brianp-beme]

Then there are guys like me who are as thick as a plank.

Brian

[Yoda]

And when a nice group of '14s comes up at auction, such as the one prior to the current LTG auction, there is a feeding frenzy that would embarrass hungry sharks.

[jcc6252]

I respectfully disagree about preferring the stains. The LOTG auction (mentioned earlier - hi John) had amazing, virtually stain-free CJ's. These are tremendous examples, well worn around the edges, but with great surfaces. To me, they trump stained ones any day.

[darkhorse9]

To me...I much prefer vintage cards that show age. I had a chance to handle a raw T206 that would easily grade a 7 or 8. It just looked wrong.

My Goudeys, T206, and CJ must have rounded corners or I'm not a buyer, particularly with the price they'd get.

[CrackaJackKid]

I don't know why you would prefer a card that has been altered to look good over it in its original format. I would think the 1915s would appeal to you then but I guess it's to each their own.

[KMayUSA6060]

Excuse my ignorance on the subject, but how were these cards packaged originally?

[CrackaJackKid]

The 1914s were only obtainable by buying a box of cracker jacks. The 1915s were also inside the boxes but yet if you sent in 100 coupons or 1 coupon and 25 cents they would send you the entire set. So lots of 1915s are caramel stain free.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by CrackaJackKid

The 1914s were only obtainable by buying a box of cracker jacks. The 1915s were also inside the boxes but yet if you sent in 100 coupons or 1 coupon and 25 cents they would send you the entire set. So lots of 1915s are caramel stain free.

Perfect! I know '14s are right side up, and '15s are upside down, but are the checklists the same?

[CrackaJackKid]

Negative.
1914-144 players
1915-176 players
With some interchanging between the sets of some players not reappearing in 1915.

[yanksfan09]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Perfect! I know '14s are right side up, and '15s are upside down, but are the checklists the same?

1914 had 144 Players with a few guys exclusive to the set like Chance, Cashion, and couple others, plus Mathewson image different.

1915 had 176 Players. Most of same players as 14' with a few changes and additional high number cards, different Pratt and Mathewson images.

[CW]

Great thread! Your Cobb is amazing, Orlando! I also got a kick out of crackajackkid's "6 thousandths of an inch" trivia answer.

Back in 2007, at the DHL All-Star Fanfest for the MLB All-Star Game, Hunt Auctions held a live auction which featured a group of unstained 1914 Cracker Jack cards. It featured no less than 10(!) Cobbs, all with the same printing "defect": a small smudge in the red background over the word "Cracker".

Dean H. here on Net54 sent me the scans from the catalog years ago, so thanks to him for preserving the details of this amazing auction (the pricing notations are his. Ah, if only to have a time machine!).

Many of the cards were graded by SGC, and the intro paragraph to the auction lot mentioned that the cards came from the estate of someone in the printing business. Who knows the true story behind these cards. Perhaps similar to the cards from the Black Swamp find, it's possible that these cards were snuck out the back door at the printing company. Maybe not every 1914 Cracker Jack card saw the inside of a CJ box, and maybe not every unstained 1914 CJ is altered. For full disclosure, I am biased here since I own one of the cards which originated from this auction.

Here are some of the scans from the catalog, with the last shot being a composite photo I made up featuring all 10 Cobb cards.

[CW]

And a couple from the personal collection. The Tinker is primarily unstained, except for a caramel smudge by his top button.

[rainier2004]

Alright Chuck, you got me. Using the word every is dangerous...

So there is the complete set of 1914s that were cut and never saw the inside of the box, past that it all becomes debatable at best. Cobb was the stud of the day and it would make sense that someone got that pile out of the backdoor. But even that Tinker, as small as it is, there is a stain. Also, just b/c stains may not be evident in scans, lots of CJs still show light staining in hand or under a loop.

[CW]

Agree, Steve, and you know much more about this set than I'll ever know. The unstained, unaltered examples are far and few between.

BTW, my post wasn't meant to be in a "you guys are all wrong" tone, but rather an attempt to point out a rare instance in the hobby and share some info. It's also amazing to see all those Cobbs line up like that.

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by CW

Agree, Steve, and you know much more about this set than I'll ever know. The unstained, unaltered examples are far and few between.

BTW, my post wasn't meant to be in a "you guys are all wrong" tone, but rather an attempt to point out a rare instance in the hobby and share some info. It's also amazing to see all those Cobbs line up like that.

Oh no, your post didn't come across like that, it just point out why words like every, all, never, etc. are generally not correct. Seeing those Cobbs is crazy, also they came from the exact same run with that pattern. Nice score to get one back then opposed to now...your Cobby is so sweet!

[CW]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

Oh no, your post didn't come across like that, it just point out why words like every, all, never, etc. are generally not correct. Seeing those Cobbs is crazy, also they came from the exact same run with that pattern. Nice score to get one back then opposed to now...your Cobby is so sweet!

Thanks, Steve. I can see how my wording was a bit misleading, but I actually landed the Cobb in '09 from an eBay auction, 2 years after it originally sold in 2007. It was only after posting it here (the first of about 100 times, heh heh) that Dean sent me those catalog scans and revealed the card's history. Of course, 2009 prices were still a steal compared to today.

Other than my card and the one owned by Jeff L. here (SGC 60, iirc), I haven't seen another of those 10 Cobbs from '07. The collectors that bought them seem to hold on.

[garymc]

The grouping of three are 15's, the two are 14's.......they are stained and beat up a little but I love them and grateful to have them in my collection !!!

[yanksfan09]

Nice Yankees there Gary.

[canjond]

Some more stains...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by canjond

Some more stains...

Nice one Jon, I am a bit envious on that one.

[canjond]

Originally Posted by Leon

Nice one Jon, I am a bit envious on that one.

Thanks Leon. Wasn't this yours at one point?

[marcdelpercio]

I prefer mine stained AND notarized

The seal reads: "William H. Dye Notary Public Cattaraugus Co."

[CW]

Nice! You don't see many notarized baseball cards. (seriously, that's a pretty cool defect)

[Rich Falvo]

I'm a notary. I may have to stamp one of my cards now. A cheap one, of course.

[CrackaJackKid]

Ray Keating with Notary

[ZenPop]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Then there are guys like me who are as thick as a plank.

Brian

THAT is awesome.

[yanks4]

CJ's Rule.....

[jbl79]

Originally Posted by yanks4

CJ's Rule.....

Great looking picture of your Cracker Jacks! Especially love that wooden box and the vintage face mask and glove.