Preference: writing or paper loss?
 

All things being equal, if you had to choose, would you prefer card that has writing or paper loss on the back?

Probably paper loss.

Writing, depending on what kind, adds a bit of character to the card. That's not a problem.

Paper loss, on the other hand, is a deal breaker for me. Cards with paper loss on the back, especially cards that contain player information like Goudeys, are too damaged for my tastes.

I think it depends on where the paper loss is (and how much) and where the writing is.

I prefer writing over paper loss personally.

Mark

Interesting. I haven’t really thought about it but now that you bring it up, I think I would prefer a card with writing. With writing on it, I know the entire card is there, intact. Paper loss is just that, part of the card is lost.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it were minor enough on the back, I probably wouldn't care between writing or paper loss. On the front - paper loss - so long as it's confined to a corner or small area of the border.

Writing is the lesser of two evils for me.

It had better be a very tough card either way, but the extent/size of either is a big factor also.

Best wishes,

Larry

Paper loss, intentional damage like writing, tack holes, trimming, etc is not generally allowed in my collection unless its a super rare item.

Either would make it a no from me. But if i had to choose I’d go with writing.

I'd rather have writing than paper loss personally.

I used to despise both, but I now have several cards in my collection that have been written on where the writing actually adds to the card (for me anyway). I love writing that adds to the history of the piece (I.e. stats, notes about the player, etc ). I even have a couple where the writing was the whole reason I bought it.

I kinda like some nice writing on the back, and am okay if it is extensive as well. I also usually am fine with paper loss, as long as it is not too excessive.

Now if you have a card that has been attached to a wood plague and has had the write-up on the back of card transferred to the back of the plaque and has had a little cross-hatched engraving to boot, well, nothing tops that.

Brian

Neither bother me if the card is priced accordingly. Here is my 55 Bowman Mickey Mantle with a spec of paper loss on the back.:eek::D:D:D

On a blank-back card, I'd rather have paper loss than writing. On a card with bio info or advertising on the back, I'll still take paper loss, but only if it doesn't significantly affect the bio infor or the advertising.

Paper loss. :D

It's hard to see because the scan is too large, but this one has paper loss at the bottom, and beneath it someone wrote Tinker. The paper loss bothers me much more than the writing.

Attachment 338128

Sean,

That is awesome! I've never seen that one.

I'd take writing over paperloss as well. I have cards with both, and writing doesn't seem to be as intrusive. Of course both have extremes that won't work in either case.

Writing.

I don't mind either. Tape stains are OK, too.

it really depends on the card...sometimes either can be acceptable...sometimes neither. On this cobb postcard...I don't mind too much!

The Dietsch Fielding Pose Cobb is a great acquisition in virtually any condition, Pete. If I didn't have my PSA 5, I'd have bought it and been quite proud to have it in my collection had I seen it at an appropriate price at the right time. I think that card will continue to increase in value for quite some time now, when it has become well-settled that such postcards are indeed baseball cards. Congrats!

May all your collecting bring you the joy that those pieces have,

Larry

How about a 1917 Felix Mendelsohn M-106 with paper loss not affecting the player's image, Brandon, with there being only four total graded when I bought it several years ago? I admit, I struggled with its' defects also before pulling the trigger, but these cards are so very tough, and with it being a very early, rookie-era Hornsby, I just had to go with it and haven't regretted it. My point is that it becomes something of a balancing act at some point for most of us, depending on the status of the player, and the significance and rarity of the card. But each of us has our own preferences.

Happy collecting and holidays,

Larry

Sometimes you luck out and get both!! Wait, what was the question again? :D

Seriously though, I generally try to avoid both. And there is no blanket answer for me - it depends on where the paper loss and writing are and how each interferes with the overall appeal of the card. Just like in real estate, I say "location, location, location."

Prefer not to have paper loss on the front. The back can have either depending on the the rarity of the card.

As a Venezuelan Topps collector, I would prefer glue residue left on the card than paper loss. Some even have legible pieces from the original album still attached. Looks much nicer than a fresh looking surface tear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the back, writing is ok to me as its usually not big or oppressive.

Thanks Larry...and I agree! I got it in an REA lot years ago with a bunch of other dietsche tiger cards. I wasn't bothered by the writing...in fact all of them had the names neatly penned with an old ink pen...but I was a bit disappointed to discover the trim.

Regardless...it's staying with me until I can buy a good car with the proceeds!!!!

Additionally the only virginia extra Dots Miller I've seen is in horrid condition...may have paper loss and writing...but if it's available I may have to suck it up!

Happy holidays and a happy healthy new year to one and all...even Kevin!!! JK Kevin!!!!! He probably won't see this til next year anyway!!!

While I'm no fan of paper loss, for me there is nothing worse than writing on a card. No greater sin. I know that others feel differently but that includes autographs. Writing is writing in my eyes.

It seems to me paper loss is always worse. If you don’t like the writing you can just remove the offending paper and transfer the card into state of ‘paper loss’ instead of ‘writing’. You can’t do the reverse.

With that said I can often accept cards with either.

I agree with the balancing act.

For me it's a combination of what card, what damage and at what price.
If it's a really common card I have kept several with paperloss, water damage, writing, tears etc. They came in lots I bought and I didn't have an example, so I just file them away with the others. Probably foolish, as the effort to figure out if a new card is an upgrade is often more than the value of both cards.


If it's an otherwise expensive card, any damage is ok with me as long as the price reflects the damage.

I was tracking a low price 53 Mantle on eBay. It had a giant "B" written then erased on the front. I was willing to live with it cuz it looked pretty nice otherwise but the wife, who knows nothing about cards, said "but there's a giant B on it, that's stupid"

So yeah. 2 viewpoints.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Writing for sure. Although I dont really mind paperloss I just think writing gives it a lot of character.

I'd take paper loss, as a minor amount of paper loss is (sometimes) hard to spot, whereas writing tends to jump off the page as a flaw. SGC, which I prefer, is FAR too harsh on most paper loss.

Not a fan of paper loss, but I can live with it if it isn't across the face or uniform logo or write-up text on the back.

Love me some period handwriting on the back. don't care for it on the front although I am partial to this card as it seems to say something about the day (I guess)

I agree ! - that is way cool Brian. one of the favorite "odd-ball" items I have seen on n54

It depends on where the paper loss or writing is. Paper loss on a blank area is a wonderful money saver for me. Insignificant writing isn't too bad. Paper loss on a crucial area is worse than writing in a crucial area, for my taste.

In general, I'd say writing, especially on the back, is more acceptable.

Some folks on here actually pay a premium for 'ink' (stamps) on the back of certain older cards as that generally indicates some provenance.