PSA - Major Paper Loss = GOOD 2 ???

[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'.

[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]

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.