Grading Question
 

I was looking through the Goodwin Auction and there were two cards I looked at as possible upgrades for my N162 set. These cards are: Lot #61-SGC60 Andrews and Lot #62-SGC60 Caruthers. On closer inspection, however, both cards have a small amount of paper loss from the text area of the back. My question is, can an SGC60 card have any paper loss?

Looks like they made a mistake. I don't think an SGC 60 is supposed to have paper loss.
JimB

I don't think that I have ever seen a SGC60 with paperloss, minor or not.

I have a bunch of pre-war "SGC 60s" with slight paper loss on the back, but they are all SGC 20's. :rolleyes:

whereat?
http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotImages/19/Lot61b_lg.jpeg

Six lines up from the bottom, right column

Yep, that's pretty apparent. Think they just missed it.

Edited - paper loss already pointed out.

The other card has it as well, just not as bad.

Agreed.

Just another reminder, folks, that we should question all graded cards. Always.

.
 

This is one issue that I really disagree with the grading companies on. I know it's subjective, but a card with no creases, stains, etc. will often get a 20 because of a small amount of paper loss on the back of the card. Then a card with a crease, a stain, and worn out edges will get a 30.

The good news is you can get the nicer card in the 20 holder for cheaper than the other.

I agree
 

Dixon,
I agree with you. It really upsets me to see an SGC60 with paper loss because I have cards with minimal paper loss on the back and have received 30s, 20s, and even 10s. I agree you can get a 20 for cheaper so as one collector told me and I try to stick to, "Don't pay for the grade". Oh well I honestly believe that a card with the amount of paper loss we are seeing in this example should receive a nice grade but being subjected to the SGC's grading scale in the past I still feel a bit of heartburn to see this.

paper loss
 

I agree that many cards with a tiny bit of paper loss should not be downgraded so much. The grading houses have decided that paper loss is much worse than a worn corner. Cards that have blank backs with glue marks should not receive downgrades to a 30 because of that, if the front is an 80 or 84. It seems like the standard is decided by the grading companies but I do not agree with it. We, the collectors, have been told by grading companies that a great looking card is really a bad card.

In the pre-slab grading days my guess is many of those cards would be graded Ex-MT and described as having a minor paper loss or glue on back. In that era most of us would have wanted an aesthetically pleasing card and would have accepted paper loss products much more readily.