PSA - Major Paper Loss = GOOD 2 ???

[BlueDevil89]

I don't care how nice the card looks overall...if you have significant paper loss, then the grade is POOR 1. This is awful, just awful. If they had given it a FAIR 1.5 based on the front eye appeal of the card, then I wouldn't argue the point, but a GOOD 2??? Come on!

Maybe my grading standards are too harsh...What do other Net54 members think?

[bobbyw8469]

This was my auction....I don't know....the front looked like a '6'. Yes, the card does paper loss...it depends on what your definition of "major" is. The loss is around 10% of the back. You still have the majority of the back. Me personally, I have never understood the automatic hammering of '1' for paper loss, pin holes, etc. You can have a card that looks like an '8', that has a tiny pin hole, and a '1' is supposed to be the acceptable grade for it? If that is the case, then give me '1's every day of the week!

[bobbyw8469]

Here is an example of a card that got hammered. A PSA '1'?? Really??? Like I said, I am sorta glad they got away from hammering cards to automatic '1's. When I think of the '1' grade, I expect a beater. I don't consider pin holes, paper loss, etc to be "beaters", and I am glad to see PSA start to get away from that practice.

[BlueDevil89]

Robert --- To be clear, I have no issue with your auction. You provided clear scans of the front and reverse side of the card that were able to be enlarged. Anyone bidding had all the info they needed and very representative scans to make their own conclusion concerning the value of the card.

My question is regarding PSA's grade of GOOD 2. Your point is well taken, that if you lump pinholes, paper loss, etc into the POOR 1 category, you are going to have a wide range of 1s, some that have very nice eye appeal. But that is the case for many grades --- there are a wide range of VERY GOOD 3 cards out there as well.

My question is, does paper loss qualify under PSA's own definition of GOOD 2?:

GOOD 2: Good
A PSA Good 2 card's corners show accelerated rounding and surface wear is starting to become obvious. A good card may have scratching, scuffing, light staining, or chipping of enamel on obverse. There may be several creases. Original gloss may be completely absent. Card may show considerable discoloration. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back.

I don't see any indication that would give me the expectation that a card with a nice size paper loss (whether it be on the front or reverse side) would qualify for a GOOD 2 grade.

[BlueDevil89]

WOW --- I can't see what is on that Mantle that makes it a POOR 1. Is there a small pinhole?

So, has PSA formally changed the standard of putting pinholes, paper loss, etc into the POOR 1 category? Was there any announcement that went out that I missed?

When I'm defining the grades of my own cards to potential buyers, I'm calling cards with pinholes, paper loss, etc POOR, and I'm pointing out the defect. I'll probably continue to do so despite any changes that PSA may have made in recent years, because I'm a baseball purest (I don't believe in the abomination called a DH that the one lesser league uses either).

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by BlueDevil89

WOW --- I can't see what is on that Mantle that makes it a POOR 1. Is there a small pinhole?

So, has PSA formally changed the standard of putting pinholes, paper loss, etc into the POOR 1 category? Was there any announcement that went out that I missed?

When I'm defining the grades of my own cards to potential buyers, I'm calling cards with pinholes, paper loss, etc POOR, and I'm pointing out the defect. I'll probably continue to do so despite any changes that PSA may have made in recent years, because I'm a baseball purest (I don't believe in the abomination called a DH that the one lesser league uses either).

Nope...no pinhole. The issue is with the reverse. That slight "swirly" mark is some sort of residue from where maybe it was scrapbooked?

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Nope...no pinhole. The issue is with the reverse. That slight "swirly" mark is some sort of residue from where maybe it was scrapbooked?

The Mantle looks like it has water warping. It would seem much worse in hand/out of holder.

[MattyC]

They are so wildly inconsistent it's almost humorous.

[glchen]

It's hard to say sometimes. This card that I own with scrapbook residue on the back is also in a GOOD 2 holder, and I don't necessarily think it's a misgrade. Perhaps paper loss should be considered stronger damage to a card than scrapbook residue, but it can be subjective.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

The Mantle looks like it has water warping. It would seem much worse in hand/out of holder.

I have seen the card out of the holder. Not that bad at all. When submitting, I was expecting a '4'.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by glchen

It's hard to say sometimes. This card that I own with scrapbook residue on the back is also in a GOOD 2 holder, and I don't necessarily think it's a misgrade. Perhaps paper loss should be considered stronger damage to a card than scrapbook residue, but it can be subjective.

They are exactly the same Gary. The Paige was in a scrapbook at one time. If you take your residue off the back of your card will look like the Paige.

[BlueDevil89]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Nope...no pinhole. The issue is with the reverse. That slight "swirly" mark is some sort of residue from where maybe it was scrapbooked?

Due to the minor damage that was done to the Mantle when removing it from the scrapbook, I would have also expected at least a grade of VERY GOOD 3 when taking into consideration all of the PSA grade definitions. If the Ruth that Gary posted as an example was given a GOOD 2, then the Mantle has to be a VERY GOOD 3 or even a VERY GOOD - EXCELLENT 4.

It's as Matt stated --- There appears to be wild inconsistency in the grading results when it comes to these types of imperfections. One would think that such inconsistencies could be largely avoided by more well-defined criteria. I realize that human error is always possible, but defining the criteria more precisely could help to some degree, IMHO.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by BlueDevil89

It's as Matt stated --- There appears to be wild inconsistency in the grading results when it comes to these types of imperfections. One would think that such inconsistencies could be largely avoided by more well-defined criteria. I realize that human error is always possible, but defining the criteria more precisely could help to some degree, IMHO.

I thought one of the purposes of TPGs was to have more well-defined criteria in order to eliminate the inconsistencies. In this regard they are a BIG failure.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I thought one of the purposes of TPGs was to have more well-defined criteria in order to eliminate the inconsistencies. In this regard they are a BIG failure.

When a card gets a MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT flag on one submission and subsequently gets graded the next go round.....well.....what does that tell you? It's their sandbox - I just play in it.

[jerrys]

Other examples of over-grading in regard to paper loss.

Bernhardpsa3.jpg

3443a_lg.jpg

[Laxcat]

I understand this grade completely. However there is no doubt that this presents much nicer than the other 1's I've seen. Most of the others are creased or written on. Paper loss is just a killer.

[MattyC]

I not only disagree with their "rules" but also how randomly they enforce them. This 1953 Bowman Mantle has a literal PINPOINT (perhaps a few millimeters in diameter) area of paper fading on ONE LETTER on the reverse. Barely noticeable. And it is a "lowly" 2.5. Meanwhile the front puts a beating on many a much higher graded specimen. To me, I wouldn't pay a penny to "upgrade" it to a lesser looking card they deemed superior. They don't account at all for how perhaps 1 in every 100 of this card is framed by even white borders. But fading on a letter on the back drops it to a 2.5. I certainly wasn't in the room when they codified their guidelines, and I simply reject them, philosophically.





Then there's this card. Not mine; I was the underbidder back when it sold (and it still stings, ver badly!). But the front of this card features very rare registration, which they don't at all account for. Meanwhile, yes, I concede the back is really rough, with glue staining and some paper loss. Sorry I do not have a back picture. Nonetheless, I would never slap a 1.5 on this card and another reason I simply use the slabs for protection and storage in the bank.





Then this back gets this Ruth a 1.5., yet they give this other card pictured a 2. The 1.5 is on the right, with its holder cropped out. The functioning human eye begs to differ. Any system that calls the left card better than the right is a system one can easily just laugh at and hit the mental "unsubscribe" button. A few years ago, I lost count of how many instances like this the silly grading game creates. For that reason I will never understand the grade whore mentality that lets a sticker somehow magically override the truth of what a collector's eye sees. I get deeply chagrined when I think of all the cards I could have bought, when I naively first returned to the hobby and thought high grades were everything. But live and learn, I suppose.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I have seen the card out of the holder. Not that bad at all. When submitting, I was expecting a '4'.

I think the Mantle received a 1 based on the warping also. If you still have the card, you may try re-soaking it, and then re-submit it again. However, it may still not upgrade the card. The back seems kind of lumpy like it may have water damage. If there's obvious water damage to the card, it would probably stay in a 1 holder.

[BlueDevil89]

The inconsistency in the application of the grading standards is the most frustrating aspect to me. The grading companies are getting paid to apply relatively consistent standards. I expect some level of discrepancy, but not to the extent being identified in this thread. I imagine a more detailed analysis would yield far wider variation.

[1880nonsports]

take a look at the last major auction from Heritage - there were N162's in 6's and 7's with front and/or back paper loss. I could only bid so high on a few of those cards on my list out of over 50 cards listed because I wouldn't be able to cross them to SGC even close to the same grades or at the very least that was my fear. I need the uniformity within my sets as I'm OMG - now known as OCD - but when I was a kid in the 1950's I only heard OMG........ SGC is more rigid about such loss in my experience. Recently purchased an N162 Anson PSA 2 with 3/4 POINT of a pin sized spots of P/L. It just shows a level of inconsistency. I'm crossing it and could care less about what they grade it. It's a beautiful card and for me the grade is only relevant when one goes out into the cold world of commerce and finance as a motivated seller.
In fairness I believe it's just a question of what criteria the particular TPG uses and whether your hierarchical priorities are aligned with theirs. One might think centering more important than whatever - doesn't make them right or wrong.
I'm not really comfortable with the number of cards the major TPG's make significant mistakes on but they offer a service people seem to want and are likely getting it "right (whatever that is - "I sent in my dog-eared card that I love and it got an 8! I LOVE my grading company!) most of the time. In reading Joe Orlando's comments about HIS graders - it's clear they are often spending as much time grading a 2001 foil as an E90-1 - a few seconds. It's a rare bird that can effectively evaluate such different cards and in addition I'd like a little more attention paid to my cards details rather than a cursory glance - I would think due diligence implied in the service I'm paying for.
The big boys process a great deal of cards - graders often rendering opinion in seconds to accommodate the volume - and it's subsequently proffered and sealed er entombed along with the card by nameless souls with unknown qualifications - undoubtedly barely of voting age and likely unfamiliar with many of the older cards and the nuances. OK. Done venting.....

[Joshchisox08]

I'm by no means a grade expert. I mainly am t206. But for a modern card to be in that shape with paper loss. I'd say it's a 1, easy.

[1880nonsports]

in most sports where they render an opinion or "make a call" which is by definition subjective - it's imperative they be consistent and impartial when applying the rules. I would ask the same of my grading company.

[bobbyw8469]

But for a modern card to be in that shape with paper loss. I'd say it's a 1, easy.

I still don't think 1953 is consider "Modern". It isn't like T206's.....but hardly modern.