grading cards

[Archive]

Posted By: Dennis

I know that the different grading companies appear to grade somewhat differently. Can someon tell me how much degradation occurs in grading for paper loss on the back of a card??

[Archive]

Posted By: Henry Eshelman

Paper loss will usually take the card to a definite one unless the rest of the card is nice and the paper loss is small in which case you could push a 2.

Thanks, Henry Eshelman

Website:www.freewebs.com/vintagebaseball

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

We've talked about this one here and there so you may want to do a search.
In the interim, I have found that my cards tend to end up a good (very rarely a vg),no matter how top drawer the front is, when there is readily
noticeable paper loss on the back.
I have a Matty white cap 206 that is easily a 6 or better but alas a 2
due to paper loss on the back.
As you check the searches, you will notice that there is some discussion
about loss of paper on corners/borders compared to internal body of card.
I think that we sometimes get cut some slack when the missing paper is
not central to the card,i.e.on the periphery.

best

barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Here's a good example of what paperloss might do to your grade:

The near mint front:



That gets only a 30 (2) due to a small amount of paperloss and glue stain on the reverse:

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

One more example - the front is not as nice as the Johnson but is not creased or wrinkled and still a solid 4. The paperloss, however, is more severe (going through several layers) and takes the grade all the way down to a 1:

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

thanks for the illustrative,corroborative pictures, Josh.

you must be as hacked off as I am about how much 'power' the graders
give to backs!!!

best

barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

I can sort of understand it with a back like the t206 matty that actually has writing. Its hard to believe it is considered as highly relevant with a blank back card like the Johnson.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dennis

thank you all for your answers. I read some previous threads to ascertain some better insight on paper loss on backs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Shannon

My Lajoie has sharp corners and no creases but with paper loss and glue residue on the back the result is the same as the Johnson pictured above. Before grading companies this card would have been considered EX+ condition and the Johnson above would have been NRMT.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shawn Adkins

This one is a mystery to me. Found it on ebay a couple days ago and saved the scans.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

some companies are much more lenient on paperloss than others. Ive found this to be particularly true of GAI.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

Josh- Funny you mention that, I just received 5 1909 Obaks back from GAI with vgexish fronts and small paper loss and graded 1.5 (fair). GAI hasn't cut me any slack when there is paper loss.
I recently bought a great looking E98 HOFer with about 60% of the paper missing on the back and SGC had graded it as "authentic" (solely because of paper loss)so you never know. It used to be that SGC graded these cards as 10s.
Bob

[Archive]

Posted By: barry arnold

Bob,

Re: E98HOF incident

I've never had any of the grading folks refuse to grade due to paper loss
(admittedly my worst has been around 30-40% or so).
Granted, they have refused when a corner has been clipped off or a 'chunk'
is missing.
Have you found the graders refusing to grade due to paper loss on a number
of occasions or is the E98HOF incident incredibly rare for you.
I'm hopin' the times are not a-changin'.

thanks,

Barry

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Bob,

All I know is Ive seen gai cards with paperloss graded as high as a 3.5. As for sgc refusing to assign a grade to s/t with significant paperloss, that is most likely because too much of the card layers were missing. At least they now grade that auth. I recall an e98 jennings that I won from you that was graded a gai 1. SGC wouldnt cross it b/c of the massive amount of paperloss on the reverse.