The Beauty of the Ungraded Card

[orly57]

But the idea that "paper loss is paper loss" is not very logical. Paper loss on Cobb's face or arm, for example, is not the same as paper loss in an innocuous area like on my card. To put a beautiful card in the same grade category as others with pinholes and enormous flaws is just inconsistent and stupid.
Having have said that, i knew is was going to get a 1.5. I slabbed it SOLELY for protection.

[irv]

Originally Posted by orly57

But the idea that "paper loss is paper loss" is not very logical. Paper loss on Cobb's face or arm, for example, is not the same as paper loss in an innocuous area like on my card. To put a beautiful card in the same grade category as others with pinholes and enormous flaws is just inconsistent and stupid.
Having have said that, i knew is was going to get a 1.5. I slabbed it SOLELY for protection.

When I read this post yesterday, I thought the same as what you wrote above and it got me thinking. I wonder if it would be possible to have grades for the front of a card and also the back?

I personally, and I assume others as well, don't necessarily care as much about the looks of the backs as I do the fronts.

In rare/expensive cards, I can understand someone wanting a pristine card that is as perfect out back as it is on the front, but I think the majority don't really care to be honest?

[orly57]

Yeah Dale, I am with you. My suggestion would be to add a "presentation" subgrade to be incorporated along with corners, edges, surface, and centering. That way, cards that are not "technically" a 5, but present like a 5, would be a 3 instead of a 2. The presentation sub would bump up the grades of beautiful cards that have minor or hidden technical flaws.
Personally, i buy the card and not the holder and love to take advantage of these cards at lower prices. But i think that ultimately, smart collectors that arent hung up on high grades (or arent extremely wealthy), will pay the premium to buy the nicer card. My cobb will hopefully never be sold, but if it is, VCP is not a consideration in my mind. Cards that present THIS well for the grade will not and should not sell for the same price as the 1.5 that looks like a 1.5.

[Luke]

That's "minor paper loss" when you're selling, and "significant paper loss" when you're buying

All kidding aside, it's an absolutely beautiful card. I don't mind a little bit of paper loss on the edges of the back at all especially when you can pay fractions of the price of a 4 or 5 for the a card that looks just as nice on the front.

[Leon]

This reminds me of the time I was at a good hobby friends house (Hi John E.). I was perusing his binders as he is an old time collector with great stuff. As I was going through his E92 binder I noticed all kinds of backs, Crofts and Allen, Crofts Cocoa, Dockman etc.... He doesn't care what is on back he only collects those by the fronts. He has the player for the set....check. No need to look at the backs .... (however, I have always been a back collector too so of course looked)

Originally Posted by irv

When I read this post yesterday, I thought the same as what you wrote above and it got me thinking. I wonder if it would be possible to have grades for the front of a card and also the back?

I personally, and I assume others as well, don't necessarily care as much about the looks of the backs as I do the fronts.

In rare/expensive cards, I can understand someone wanting a pristine card that is as perfect out back as it is on the front, but I think the majority don't really care to be honest?

[irv]

Originally Posted by Leon

This reminds me of the time I was at a good hobby friends house (Hi John E.). I was perusing his binders as he is an old time collector with great stuff. As I was going through his E92 binder I noticed all kinds of backs, Crofts and Allen, Crofts Cocoa, Dockman etc.... He doesn't care what is on back he only collects those by the fronts. He has the player for the set....check. No need to look at the backs .... (however, I have always been a back collector too so of course looked)

I understand, for the most part, I think, the rare backs of some of the cards you speak of so I can understand the importance of those being in good shape.

I think of my card, as an example, with the paper loss on the front and if it were on the back instead.

I believe, based on what I have read/seen, that in either case, my card would come back with a PR-1?

I guess, depending on the mindset of the collector, I would have more buyers and likely higher bids if it were on the back instead of the front, but at the same time, I think paper loss on the back should be graded slightly different, or with a qualifier which states that, than what it would be if the paper loss were on the front?

Not likely to happen based on what I said above, but it is something, imo, for the TPG's such as SGC, PSA and BVG to consider.