Is there a Coating on the 1997-98 Bowman's Best Refractors

[rogueriver]

I have a few of these refractors that look a little greasy I took a couple commons and there seems to be a coating on the outside that comes off a bit, before I hit my Jordan and Kobe I was wondering if anybody has taken that coating off before.

[PLB9eight]

Originally Posted by rogueriver

I have a few of these refractors that look a little greasy I took a couple commons and there seems to be a coating on the outside that comes off a bit, before I hit my Jordan and Kobe I was wondering if anybody has taken that coating off before.

I think I’ve heard of people taking it off but don’t think it was intended that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[duron]

Yea it’s some residue that plagues it. Can be microfibered off.

[MANNAXMAN]

Originally Posted by duron

Yea it’s some residue that plagues it. Can be microfibered off.

I've used a microfiber cloth moistened with isopropyl alcohol. If you use a dry microfiber cloth, it will likely just smear. You'll eventually get it off, but it's much quicker with IPA.

[duron]

Originally Posted by MANNAXMAN

I've used a microfiber cloth moistened with isopropyl alcohol. If you use a dry microfiber cloth, it will likely just smear. You'll eventually get it off, but it's much quicker with IPA.

Alcohol can't possibly be ok for card stock long term, can it?

[frisbeesteve]

I think this same residue can be found on some of the 1996-97 Chrome as well.

[MANNAXMAN]

Originally Posted by duron

Alcohol can't possibly be ok for card stock long term, can it?

I guess I'll find out one day. Given the 97-98 Bowman's Best are not old school paper cards, that I only moistened the microfiber cloth rather than applying IPA directly to the cards, and that the alcohol evaporates quickly, it's not likely to have a long term effect. If BO and I are still around 20 years from now, I'll post some pics of the cards I cleaned with IPA.

By the way, if I really thought using IPA would damage the cards, I wouldn't have used it. The cards I cleaned were Kobe and MJ refractors and atomic refractors, both base and inserts.

[imbluestreak23]

Spit works great on these.

Natures natural enzymes and emulsifiers

[dictoresno]

if its anything like the 1997 Bowmans best baseball (especially the mirror image) and 1997 Topps Chrome, yea there's a nasty thin layer of clear coat on the outside of the cards that dries up and flakes over time. the coating can be removed with ALOT of rubbing to reveal a beautiful shiny undercoat, clear of the flaky flat look.

[sonic311]

I have a Kobe REG and Atomic Refractor that were graded BGS 8 and 7 respectively and the surface was definitely the main reason for the low grade. I'm thinking about getting them cracked out and cleaned by a professional. I have ruined cards in the past when attempting to clean them so I wont even try to clean the Kobes myself.

[mrdallas]

Jumping late on this thread. Someone posted similar in basketball thread so I posted this there. Now I'll post here and see if I can get a response

This thread has me curious about another So I have been and put put together the 1996 Chrome Baseball Refactor set. Half of the cards have the glossy shine the other have the coating, which can look very funky IMHO.

But here is the question. I bought a Don Mattingly refractor PSA 8 which I cracked out. Centering is a little off and a few Surface scratches but is has a Super Glossy Shine , almost say mirror like.
. Then, I just bought a PSA 9 Frank Thomas (Needed an Upgrade and also was curious if it had the shine or coat. From what I can tell through the case it has the Coat. So how is PSA grading these? If the Mattingly came back an 8 and the Thomas cames back a 9 with one of each type of surface, it seems like they are simply grading on how the Surface looks rather than if the coating is on. But does anyone know?

In addition, I had picked up a Set on eBay a few years ago for dirt cheap. Looked like someone collected it early on (probably late 90s as the whole set was still in a 9 pocket sleeves and binder. And apparently didnt know what they had because there were some refractors mixed in, including a few that are real glossy without coat, that have the gloss/shine, while other refractors had the thin coat that looks like it was there to protect the undergloss. But now I am curious. Does anyone know about PSA standards on these?

I don't grade cards ever, (why I cracked the Mattingly out even though I bought it that way). But I want to understand. I have also had three separate Chipper Jones, and each one I have had/has the gloss but no film over the top. Sold the best one a few years back when like an idiot but oh well.

So the question again, can someone give me clarification regarding the Coat and the affect on the grade from PSA. Does the coat matter or simply the condition of the Surface regardless of coat. Considering the Mattingly without coat got an 8 and had subpar centering and some surface scratches I am guessing the latter, but not sure