A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

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 />

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>SGC is death

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i have seen psa graded cards with paper loss on frt grade 2.

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

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 />

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

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

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

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

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

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.

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i guess it depends on who submits them.<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

Posted By: <b>anthony</b><p>bob, you left out a couple of adjectives...<br /><br />it's a violent, bloody death

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

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.

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

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).

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

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.

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

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.

A Grading Question-regarding Paper Loss!
 

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