No Stain No Gain
 

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
― George Orwell

Let me preface this with stating that this is not another exercise in PSA bashing, not at all. But shouldn't there be a different qualifier for wax and/or gum residue that's on the front of a card?? Using 'ST' can be so deceptive in so many cases. For instance, say an ebay auction is for a PSA 7 (ST) card and you can't see anything in the scans. Aren't you pouring over the pics trying to determine what in heck the stain is? Where is it??? Is that it? Is it hidden in the darker area of his hat? Where is it????????!!!!!!!!! On a glossy surface, gum and wax aren't staining agents, they haven't actually stained anything (obviously, with the non-glossy backs that's a different story, but I'm only referring to the fronts).

Case in point...

Attachment 288878

This Perranoski RC has the smallest amount of dross on it. I actually had to play with the photoshop settings just to make it visible here (slightly darker areas to the left of his chin). It is a thin strip and you can only detect this 'invisible' residue when the card is actively tilted in the sunlight, yet it got the dreaded 'ST' qualifier. If whoever sent this sucker in to be graded had a pair of his wife's or mother's (or his own :D) panty hose on hand, he could've completely eliminated this nuisance in a split second. But, alas, he didn't and now the card, tsk tsk, is looked down upon by collectors as a maligned, inferior 8.

Simply put, calling this a "stain" is completely wrong. If I'm reading a John Grisham paperback and I spill my coffee on it, that's a stain!! It is permanent and it ain't going nowhere. But due to a card's gloss, gum residue is easily removed without affecting any bit of the card. Nothing is being altered. A stain to me is something that's soaked in and has become a part of the overall whole (wax residue on the back of a card, for instance, would still fit this pattern and officially be called a stain). If you dip the corner of your '55 Clemente in a bowl of soup, that's going to be a stain. But eliminating the Perranoski 'stain' would be tantamount to nothing more than wiping crumbs off a table. Those crumbs are not a part of the table. So I wish PSA had a different designation for these types of things, like a 'G' for gum residue or a 'W' for wax residue. Something that, although it would still be a qualifier, could be looked at in a more positive light, as collectors would know it is no big deal.

I guess there is no point to this thread, but to me, my Perranoski is as 8 as it gets.

A quick look at PSAs web page shows you can still get a 9 with minor wax stains on the back only. So maybe with the stain on the card front they give the stain qualifier. Not sure how they handle gum stains.

Wait, Ben, you're replying?? But word around town is you don't actually exist. :)

LOL, that was just a vicious rumor started by someone using using a fake name.:)

I don't use PSA much but from experience they are way easier on wax stains than SGC. I agree with PSAs stance because they came that way from the packs.