When is a Stain NOT a Frickin' Stain????
 

This is a strange bit of something I've never seen before.

After seeing this 1969 Topps #50 Roberto Clemente on eBay for $XXX total, I jumped at it. His description made it quite clear that there's an obvious gum stain on front (so, no problem there), but I was just going to wipe it away with my trusty pair of pantyhose, so it was a bargain for such a nice card. In fact, I wanted it to be the star of a step-by-step stain removal tutorial video I was hoping to do.

Let's be clear. Every single human being on the planet (even that pesky 5th dentist who wouldn't recommend Trident in the 1970's) would say that's a gum stain there. It is exactly what a rectangular Topps gum stain has always looked like to every one of us who's opened a pack...

Attachment 536270


Here's where the weirdness starts. That is NOT a stain!!!!!! I swear to you!!!!!

Every last one of you is probably snickering right now saying, "Come on, man, it's just a basic goddamn gum stain!!!!!!!!!!! Get over yourself." But you'd be wrong. :eek:

Let me show you this composite. The first card is a scan of the untouched card. The second card is scanned AFTER I went to freaking town with said pantyhose to remove the gum build-up. You may notice that nothing has changed. It is still fully there!!! The right-most card is scanned AFTER I soaked the heck out of it, wielding (carefully, of course) a Q-Tip as I attacked the 'stain.' Again, NOTHING changed. What in high hell is going on?? A slab of gum can only leave residue on top of the card's gloss. That's it, on top, and it always comes off easily...

Attachment 536274


To further add 'scientific' proof, take a look at these pics shot in the warm California sun (taken after the pantyhose and soaking efforts). They are tilted ('scangled' in my Collectorisms parlance) to catch and highlight the glossy surface of the card right in the area of where the 'stain' took up residence. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING atop the gloss. Nada, zilch. Clear as day, everyone can see there's nothing there but the gloss. So this fake stain lies beneath the gloss and is a part of the printed card itself. As my Grandma would say, "What in tarnation?????" This makes no sense whatsoever

Attachment 536273


The other bizarre thing is, if I ever decide to get the card graded, it would undoubtedly be returned with an 'ST' qualifier, not a 'PD,' even though no stain exists.

Has anyone ever seen anything like this???

I remain befuddled.

My experience is that Panty hose only remove wax stains on the glossy side of cards

Yes, that's my point. The phantom gum 'stain' isn't on the gloss, it's under it, and therefore not an actual stain. Totally bizarre.

Something stained/spotted the cardboard before card front was printed ?

I am doing my absolute best to tell myself I do not now need a half dozen or so Topps 1969 Clementes :-{

Al,

we can create a support group if you'd like?

My reply; sure you do Al, what is 6 more at this point in time???

Maybe I am not cut out to help you here. :D

You are correct, a gum "stain" is not really the same type of stain as a wax stain. Only wax stains can be removed with pantyhose. The "stain" you have really equates more to embedding sugar and moisture into a card several thousand times and extracting it several thousand times during dry months. If we did that to just about anything, there would be relevant defects.


Fwiw, Beckett will accurately grade this with only a low score for the "surface".

FYI...or should it be FAWKI (for anyone who kare's information)...

Since I'm thinking of submitting the card in Bobby's SGC group sub, here's what they told me about the phantom stain after examining the photos:

"Concerning the stain on the Clemente card, my grading team uses lights and tools at their disposal. When they see a stain on the card, they use a jewelers loupe to further investigate."

Postscript to the story:

Roberto came back an SGC 6.5, so they did, in fact, stay true to their word and use a loupe (see post #7) to closely investigate the area and determined, "You bet yer sweet butt that ain't no stain."

When I originally bought it, my brain told me it was nothing short of a 6 with that pretty centering (this is always a tough card to find decently centered), so the grade matched what it was supposed to be (for once). Of course, the black of the tuxedo slab kind of makes the corners look worse than when it was on a 'normal' background, but that's life.

Attachment 544915

That is because you used SGC this time instead of the company that does a horrible job at getting the grade correct.

It is a nice looking card.

Interesting (well, that's quite dependent on what your definition of "interesting" actually is, but I digress) Epilogue:


Someone cue Chicago's "I've Been Searching So Long"...

I've been searching forever to track down another Clemente that looks similar to the star subject of this thread and guess what?? I finally freaking found one!!!!

Look what I ran across. The similarity here (mine is on the left) is striking. The anomaly going from the side of his face and neck, passing over his bat and continuing right into the white border. Pretty cool, indeed...

Attachment 567234


By request, the owner shone a flashlight on his to see if there was anything atop the gloss, and then opined it's not a gum stain, "It appears to be as if the print rollers created a smudge."


I can now finally put this one to bed. Be sure to tell your children to never give up on their dreams. "If you continue to put the effort into something, you'll reach your goals in the end." (But also tell them not to have stupid goals, like finding a Clemente smudge. Aim higher.)

Hey elm! Sure seems like what you are saying is correct. If it was caused during the printing process, seems like if you were able find a picture of a 69 sheet, and see who lives to the right of Roberto, you might be able to find images of that card with a continuation of the smudge/print process defect. Just a thought!

I always find your post interesting and fun to read.

Zoilo Versalles, I believe, is the card adjacent to Clemente. Middle of row 5.

There should be Versalles cards showning this defect if it is not damage.

Another thought - are the Clemente's both the bright white or the cream stock? Or are they different stocks?

Just like the Clemente, it's impossible to know whether the supposed gunk on this card is gum/wax residue or a 'printer smudge,' but it's something in the same vein...

Attachment 567710

To 'connect' to the Clemente, it would be better if the anomaly appeared on the left side, but it's also possible that whatever caused the Roberto smudge also separately caused this Zoilo smudge (if it is, in fact, a smudge, and not gum/wax) at a different (non-connected) time?

I would agree with those who have said that true wax stains are far easier to remove than gum stains. Whichever you have there Jolly, I would agree it looks typical. Sometimes my pantyhose (I just use a clean sock from my own drawer most of the time, instead of going on an actual panty hose raid in my wife's drawer...) scrubbing efforts get rid of them completely, sometimes it does next to no good at all.

If you have stuff actually under the gloss there I will agree that is odd. Strange to me how even SGC who actually knows halfway what they are doing can give a card like that a 6.5, yet if it were centered a hair worse they probably would have given it a straight 5...

Darren,

That is just Zolio's 5 o'clock shadow spreading to the edges of the card. :cool:

More (gum?) to chew on: Well, this throws a spanner in the works (wait, when did I become a Brit?). The former MVP Versalles card can often be found with gum/wax residue splashed across his face, so the first pic could simply be some of that gunk, rather than the production smudge we seek. The waters become murkier...


Attachment 567843Attachment 567844Attachment 567845