border chipping vs paper loss
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>ive been looking at some cards online and have had this topic on my mind for a while. how do you guys feel about border chipping vs paper loss? i see a ton of mayo's and t205's with horrible border chipping but they are still receiving PSA 3 or SGC 40 grades while cards with a tiny miniscule amount of paper loss on the front or back are automatically graded in the 1 to 2 range. to me, it seems like it should be the same standard, no? a border chip is paper loss isn't it? i'm just curious how you guys feel about it and reasons for why the defects should be viewed differently.

border chipping vs paper loss
 

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>I think the difference is the most important rule of real estate.

border chipping vs paper loss
 

Posted By: <b>Phil Garry</b><p>I think the examples you mentioned, especially the Mayos, are incorrectly looked at more leniently than other card issues by the majority of the gradiong companies. The solid gold/black borders easily lend themselves to chipping but should not be overlooked any more than other card issues. I also think the majority of the grading companies overkill the grades on cards with very minute paper loss, especially on blank back cards and otherwise empty white card borders.

border chipping vs paper loss
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>In theory, I agree that both are paper loss and could be treated equally. However, I believe the different standards stems from the fact that chipping occurs in the border area. The border area, as others have mentioned in the past, is intended to not only frame, but protect the image from damage. So to the extent that there is chipping to the border, it has done its job. Most paper loss that results in a downgrade to a 10, 20 or 30 is found on the image itself or on the reverse where there is writing present (caveat - I dont know why blank back cards are downgraded so heavily for minor paper loss).

border chipping vs paper loss
 

Posted By: <b>ali_lapoint</b><p>here is an example:<br /><br />this is an e107 in the last REA auction graded by SGC. <br /><br /><a href="http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=9909" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=9909</a><br /><br />as you can see, there is a tiny spot of paper loss in the top border. doesn't affect the image and is pretty tiny. it received a 2.<br /><br />here is a mayo:<br /><br /><a href="http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=9831" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=9831</a><br /><br />as you can see, there is a pretty significant border chip on the bottom right hand corner that i feel like is way worse than the tiny spot of paper loss on the e107, and this card was given a 4.<br /><br />thoughts?

border chipping vs paper loss
 

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>The e107 appears to have a spot of paper loss on the back as well. Look at the s in players... <br /><br />That Mayo seems over graded when compared to other later cards IMO.<br /><br />James G<br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

border chipping vs paper loss
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Personally I don't feel a card should be downgraded as much for chipping on any blank area (without any writing or color) as much as one with chipping on areas of writing or color. Most of the times they do downgrade the same....which I disagree with.....regards

border chipping vs paper loss
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Not only does the e107 have paper loss on the reverse, the paper loss on the front extends beyond the border and into the picture. The mayo is completely contained in the border area - plus, mayos are terrible examples to use as comparables because as mentioned above, the grading companies appear to be much more lenient when grading that particular issue than they are with white bordered cards.