How much does writing on cards hurt their value?

[wdwfan]

I picked up a lot of 1962s yesterday that all had writing on them. It was either initials (AA) or year (62, 52, etc.). Other than the writing, most of them are in pretty good, middle of the road shape for the 1960s.

I've included scans of a few of the bigger names from the lot I picked up. The Musial with the tape has a crease, and both Spahns are really rough with a crease and/or tape marks. Other than that, most just have the writing on them. Otherwise, they'd grade probably VG to VG-Ex.

My question is how far does the writing knock down grades? For example, what should I list the Maris at? Fair, Poor, Good, VG? What?

I'm going to be looking to sell these as I can't use them in my set due to the writing. But I was curious what to list them at when I do the listings/thread. Thanks in advance.

Here's scans of the best cards...

[swarmee]

I would grade those as Poor. The fact that it's so large and in the center of the front hurts it. PSA rule of thumb for MK is a 2-point drop, but that's presuming it doesn't further damage the card, which ballpoint writing does.

[Chris Counts]

For me, writing on the back of a card is not nearly as bad as writing on the front. In fact, writing on the back matters so little to me that I regularly search for cards with "writing on the back" because I can find bargains.

[JollyElm]

Ink is the cardboard equivalent of the guillotine. Like John, I would assess them as poor.

[Jim65]

To me, intentional damage like writing or trimming is a big dealbreaker unless the card is super rare.

[Bored5000]

I am not being at all snotty when I say this, but the OP doesn't want them in his collection because of the writing; most other collectors are going to feel the same way about flawed cards that are so common. It is one thing if the card is extremely rare or an iconic card that is only available to most collectors if there are major flaws, but those cards are not at all rare or iconic.

[wdwfan]

I see a lot of cards from the 60s on back that have writing on them. For these, it seems the owner's initials were AA because that's what was on almost every card. Some of them have the team name crossed out and another team name written in its place. Why someone would write something on cards that were worth so much (or crease them up or put tape on them or put them in bicycle spokes or whatever). Heck, I was looking closer at the Frank Robinsons (and a couple of others) and there are tack marks. Like someone hung them up on the wall or something. I can't understand why people didn't take better care of their cards back then.

Originally Posted by Jim65

To me, intentional damage like writing or trimming is a big dealbreaker unless the card is super rare.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

For me, writing on the back of a card is not nearly as bad as writing on the front. In fact, writing on the back matters so little to me that I regularly search for cards with "writing on the back" because I can find bargains.

I concur completely here. Just purchased a 1925 Exhibits KiKi Cuyler rookie I had been looking for for awhile (just 15 total PSA and SGC graded) in VG(mk) 3. The mark was due to the fact that "1925" had been written in very small letters on the back at the bottom of the card, along with "A" in slightly larger font stamped on the back above it. Since the backs are blank anyway, it bothers me not at all.

Generally, the rarer and more significant a card is, the more condition defects are tolerated and the lesser effect they have on the card's value, percentage-wise, in my experience. Large writing on the front on cards not particularly rare is, however, a big-time negative, IMHO.

Best wishes,

Larry