Crossover Question
 

Do you think this would cross over to SGC with the same grade? Note the ink(?) spots on the back.

no

The ink spots alone would disqualify it from a 5, but if the breaks in the printing on the back are actually paper loss, that would also severely affect the technical grade. It is a very nice looking card.
JimB

Correct. That was the first thing I noticed. Whenever I look at a PSA card, that is the first thing I look for because they tend to ignore or overlook minor paper loss like that. I'm guessing SGC will grade it a 1.5 or 2.

My guess would be an SGC 30

Amazing. I never expected these comments. Does PSA overlook such traits only w/pre-war or do they grade with the same standards on post-war?
Is this viewed as a weakness of PSA or just "their grading style"?

I'm bias, so I'll let someone answer. However, even w/o the ink or paper loss, it still should not have graded a 5. From their own website a PSA 5 "must be 85/15 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back." That is definitely not 90/10 centering on the back. I'll ge generous and call it 97/3

my guess
 

my guesses.....SGC would grade it a 20 or 30....BVG would grade it a 1.5 to 2......There are some small amounts of paper loss on the back, where the factory markings are, along with the ink? spots.

Paper loss
 

Funny this discussion about paper loss. I just got this Eclipse Ruth in today (from Legendary). The first picture is from the Legendary listing, which was obviously too small, and I should've probably asked for a larger scan. Lesson learned.

So if I cracked this card out, would it be able to make it into a PSA 3 holder? Or if I cracked it out, would it even make it back into an SGC 40/3 holder? The card is very nice looking except for the paper loss in front.

Gary,

If you're talking about the bottom edge, I consider that wear, not paper loss. It would be like saying a card with rounded corners has paper loss.

Example: The Duffy below has rounded corners. I am sure the corners were sharp when the card left the factory. Does that mean it has paper loss? No, it's considered wear altough technically the paper is no longer there.

Anyway, that's my opinion, but I would love to hear others.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x.../T206Duffy.jpg

Here is a closer scan of that area. It looks more like paper loss to me, but I guess it's possible it could be called wear or chipping. These cards are also hand cut, so that bottom area would not have been cut at the factory, but by some previous owner of the card. Not sure if that matters.

The second scan is a modern card that I used to own. That card was described by the auction (Legendary again) as EX-MT. When I received the card, I was very dubious of the grade. I thought it would get around a 3. Miraculously, it still got a 6.

I just think that the T210 was overgraded and that PSA failed to do their job. They missed the ink (no MK), they missed the paper loss, the back is OC and to me the general wear alone would put it in the 3-4 range. This is a card I would think hard about sending it back to them for review.

I think the Ruth would still get a 3 from PSA, its a strong card overall even with the bottom edge wear.

That Jordan looks like a counterfeit to me, but it could be the scan. See the triangle next to the word "PREMIER" (kind of looks like the symbol on the Star Trek uniforms)? That is supposed to be an orangish color. The box with the word "PREMIER" is supposed to be yellow and the traingle is supposed to be orange. On the counterfeits, both the box and the triangle are yellow. Again, it could be the scan though. Is there a color difference?

Here is a clearer scan of what it's supposed to look like.

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1986-Fleer-57...kbVttQ~~_3.JPG

Either way, the Jordan probably looks like a 5 to me, but I never argue over just one grade. The spot on the right edge I also consider wear, and not paper loss.

On the Jordan, I never knew that. Learn something new every day. I don't really know if it's my scanner or the card since I no longer own the card.

Thanks for the comments on the Ruth card. That'll give me more confidence to crack it out and send it to PSA (probably in a month). I'll report back with the PSA grade then.

Eclipse Ruth
 

This is probably going to continue to fan the flames of the PSA/SGC debate, but just wanted to report back on this. So, I cracked out the Eclipse Ruth in SGC 40/3 from Legendary, and sent it to PSA with some other submissions. The card came back Authentic (first picture). I know that in general PSA is very tough on hand cut strip cards, requiring full borders and minimimum size. So I measured this card against another Eclipse Ruth that I had (in Poor condition, but still a number grade), and and this card definitely met the size requirements. Therefore, I sent the card back to PSA again. This time the card came back as 4 (VGEX), so what do I know. Second picture is the scan.

PSA wins, you got to pay grading fees twice.
At least you got it into a numbered holder.

double post

I just recently submitted a group of T210's to SGC and 2 had a mark on the back as well.They received 30's and were not in nearly as nice of shape so my guess would be a 40.

This is one that psa definitely missed, and badly at that.... I agree with most of the opinions as to where it would grade with sgc. My guess would be an sgc 20 or maybe a 30

I bet this guy would drop a few points :(

http://i.imgur.com/AezwI.jpg

Yea I cracked out a PSA 8, 7, and 6 1948 Bowman Bob Feller to get them signed (sorry not pre-war but cross-over issue), sent them to get authenticated and numerical grade, they all received the previous grades but the PSA 7. Cracked it, re-sent it back, it got the 7 grade again...

on the R337 Ruth card, they are strip cards and Ive seen quite a few of them with the top layer missing along the edge. Its a charactoristic of the set in some ways.
I think it is graded OK, maybe a grade too high (I would have guessed SGC-30 or PSA-3)

glad you got it back in a numbered slab after the crackout, nice card and fairly tough especially compared to the extremely common R319 Ruths its copied from