View Full Version : A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
Archive
08-30-2007, 02:42 PM
Posted By: <b>Neal</b><p>How tough is PSA VS SGC on cards with Paper loss to back but very very nice fronts. <br />
Archive
08-30-2007, 03:24 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>SGC is death
Archive
08-30-2007, 03:52 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i have seen psa graded cards with paper loss on frt grade 2.
Archive
08-30-2007, 04:00 PM
Posted By: <b>Turner Engle</b><p>I've had a few cards that suffered from back damage and were graded 2's by PSA. Sent them to SGC to cross, and they came back 10's.<br />
Archive
08-30-2007, 04:36 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I have a PSA 5 with paper loss on the back and an SGC 40 with paperloss on the back. But generally I think SGC is much tougher.<br />JimB
Archive
08-30-2007, 05:00 PM
Posted By: <b>jim</b><p>Would like to see a scan of that; I thought a paper loss meant the best a card would grade is SGC 20. Thanks,<br />jim
Archive
08-30-2007, 05:21 PM
Posted By: <b>gary nuchereno</b><p>I returned two cards to psa to be regraded. Both cards had very minute paper loss on the back, one was graded 5 and one was graded <br />6. Mr. Lopez told me that just because a card has paper<br />loss it does not preclude it from being a PSA 5 or 6. Personally,<br />I think if you buy a card graded PSA 6 you should expect a clean back. SGC might be murder on paper loss,but they are right and PSA is dead wrong on this.
Archive
08-30-2007, 05:24 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i guess it depends on who submits them.<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
Archive
08-30-2007, 05:37 PM
Posted By: <b>anthony</b><p>bob, you left out a couple of adjectives...<br /><br />it's a violent, bloody death
Archive
08-30-2007, 06:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul Kaufman</b><p>I personally viewed several caramel cards at the National in PSA6 holders that had small spots of paper loss on the front and/or back. Trying to cross these cards to SGC would had resulted in a 20 or 30 grade. Something wrong here and I view it as a recent decision on PSA's part to ignore small spots of paper loss.
Archive
08-30-2007, 06:31 PM
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>These grading companies are so dumb. Why doesn't either PSA or SGC come up with a Paper Loss qualifier, much like the hundreds of other qualifiers they have? If a card has a NM front, the card could be graded SGC 84 (PL).
Archive
08-30-2007, 06:48 PM
Posted By: <b>gary nuchereno</b><p>I agree James. paper loss is far more significant to me than<br />a gum or caramel stain, so I am all for a PSA 6 PL. If you<br />buy higher end psa graded cards don't forget to see a scan of the back.
Archive
08-30-2007, 07:24 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Even worse are Old Judges that have virtually no wear and superb photos, but because of a tiny bit of reverse paper loss get graded Fair.<br /><br />Conversely, I've seen them with light blurry photos, but because they exhibit no wear are graded Near Mint- and they look awful.<br /><br />We've had this discussion many times and nothing to date has been done about it. It's perhaps the one instance where collectors are unanimous that the grading companies are clueless.
Archive
08-30-2007, 08:12 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Both are nice looking cards for their grades, but... Here are the scans of the cards I mentioned above.<br /><br /><img src="http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/279/e98frontsvm8.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/859/e98backsxp7.jpg"><br /><br />I agree with James and Gary, a PL qualifier would be good. But there is paper loss and then there is PAPER LOSS. These two are noticable, but relatively inoffensive.<br />JimB