Grading vintage cards with back damage

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

These cards all have minimal paper loss on the backs from being removed from scrapbooks... but what grades do you think they would have received WITHOUT back damage??

(I ask because since the backs were blank, the paper loss does NOT really affect the cards in any way to me)










Thanks for your thoughts...

and do any of you AGREE that a "damaged" back on a BLANK BACKED card should NOT affect the "value" of the card as much as if the stats on the back were missing or something??

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

You used the right phrase:

- a "damaged" back on a BLANK BACKED card should NOT affect the "value" of the card as much -

I agree, blank backed cards should probably be penalized less harshly. But I would think that a back damaged card (like an N172) should not be allowed to be called EX either. I could see allowing the grades to go as high as VG/EX, if and only if the card is absolutely beautiful without regard to the back. 1's and 2's seem to be the norm today. I have blank back cards that have some type of damage or residue that have been graded as high as a 6. It just goes to show how inconsistent the grading services are.

I submitted a few cards that were nice on the front but have scrap book residue and the grading service just gouged the grade. None of the back damaged (glue residue on most) cards received higher than a 2.

Hal, it looks like you got a few stinker grades. The cards look nice. If you ever want to sell them for their graded values, please let me know. Somehow I don't think I should hold my breath.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

but I would pay full price for the Mack, if I had the dough--great card!

I couldn't care LESS about the backs of truly blank-backed cards. However, a Mayo doesn't qualify.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Are you planning to unload any of these anytime soon? Nice cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

I had an ExMt E98 Mack graded PSA 2 recently because of some light back damage. I thought that was too steep of a drop. I have had VGish caramel cards with light back damage grade "Good" but have had more than one ExMtish caramel card drop down to the same PSA 2 because of back damage.
Hard to figure these guys out...

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I knew the grades would stink because of the backs...

but I needed them slabbed to protect them from my clumsiness.

It just goes to show that not all SGC 10's are alike.

I could take that beautiful Wilbert Robinson out fo the slab...

draw all over it, chew it in my mouth, poke holes in it, and color it with crayons...

and it would STILL be graded SGC 10.

Oh well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Williams

Just my opinion, but a card with back damage (missing paper, scrapbook residue etc.) would grade no better than Vg/Ex (I really want to say Vg but if the card is stunning otherwise, Vg/Ex gets the nod). I have a M116 Walter Johnson with paperloss from top to bottom (light, but obvious) and SGC graded it Ex.

Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: Howie

Cards with back damage regardless of what's on the back must have the damage taken into account when assigning an official technical grade. If you have two identical card fronts, one clean back and one damaged back, they can't be graded the same. In these cases the technical grading is meaningless to how the card should be priced. The act of slabbing was more for authentication than it was for grading. Educated buyers of a cards like the Mack and Robinson know this. Casual buyers passing them over because of the low grade number don't get it.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

It really depends on the degree of paper loss, too. A tiny nick at one end of the spectrum and maybe you get to vg; a big pull and the card is fair at best.

I've had the same thing w/SGC grades on OJ cards w/back damage. Irksome as it is, they are correct about the technical grade on a card with back damage. Ask yourself this: if you were the buyer of these cards and they were described accurately, would you give them more than a fair to good grade when assessing their potential?

I also think there is already a bit of a built in "fudge factor" with OJ grading. If there wasn't we'd all get clobbered for the toning apparent on 99% of the cards. OJs that have been well protected from light and air have almost a black and white quality to them (I have two like this), yet the grading services routinely grant high grades to yellowed cards. If they were being completely strict, they would downgrade for fading. I am not exactly eager to see further compromise based on back damage.

[Archive]

Posted By: ErikV

Folks,

I'm glad this topic came up. The card below has some moderate to heavy paperloss. The front of the card looks EX. I've been thinking of submitting it to a grading company for grading, but am hesitant due to the probable low grading it will likely receive. Anyone want to take a stab as to what this card may grade as? Any help would be appreciated.

[Archive]

Posted By: ErikV

Folks,

I'm glad this topic came up. The card below has some moderate to heavy paperloss. The front of the card looks EX. I've been thinking of submitting it to a grading company for grading, but am hesitant due to the probable low grading it will likely receive. Anyone want to take a stab as to what this card may grade as? Any help would be appreciated.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

but still is nice and worth a lot more graded than not.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

When still Mint, some cards look better than others because their color, contrast, gloss, or other characteristics are superior. As their state of preservation deteriorates through use, these cards retain their superior qualities until they become very well used.

The grading philosophies currently employed do not address this consideration. Similarly, overemphasis is placed by the available services on factors including centering, toning and damage to blank backs.

In my opinion, in addition to rarity and demand for a card, both its degree of preservation and its original quality should be computed to establish value.

Since third party grading services employ techniques which factor in a skewed value system, the grade which they label a card with does not always reflect the card's value to a collector, as shown in these graded examples of attractive OJs. Therefore, the assigned grade does not always provide useful information in the determination of a card's value.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I feel the most important factor in grading an Old Judge is photo quality. What would you rather have- an N172 with a little corner wear, a bit of back damage, but a perfectly clear and rich photo; or one with square corners, clean back, but a light and blurry photo? Unfortunately, the grading services will give a higher grade to the latter. No factor is more appealing in an Old Judge than a rich photo, which should always be given extra consideration. But it never is.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

But if slabbed, the "professional" grade can negatively affect the cards market value (at least to many potential customers). Hal, could you share scans of the backs to see what brought these beauties this far down? It would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Joe Gonsowski

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

but black and white? I've only SEEN one black and white Old Judge--in the last Mastro auction, a Delahanty with a little back damage--no, writing. So: can a "toned" (really?) Old Judge have a "rich color"?

(Are all my Old Judges duds?)