PSA - Major Paper Loss = GOOD 2 ???

[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 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.

[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]

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.....

[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.