Opinion on Clemente RC and more generally on paper loss

[samosa4u]

PSA 2.5?? You gotta' be kidding me! If I had been the one who sent it to PSA, then it would have come back as a PSA 1. The paper loss on the back is pretty bad.

[oldjudge]

For a common card like that it would end my interest in it. There will be plenty more opportunities to find an undamaged copy. For a scarce/rare card I have no issue with some paper loss, as long as it is on the back. I consider that amount of paper loss as somewhere between small and moderate.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

For a common card like that it would end my interest in it. There will be plenty more opportunities to find an undamaged copy. For a scarce/rare card I have no issue with some paper loss, as long as it is on the back. I consider that amount of paper loss as somewhere between small and moderate.

I would agree with Jay. The paper loss attributed to tape removal is at least moderate IMO and in a prominent place (I consider the paper loss and tape stain to be one defect). I would pass, absent a really good deal, and even then, would likely just hold it for resale.

[profholt82]

Beautiful 2.5. For important cards like that, issues on the backs do not bother me. I would definitely buy that Clemente with no reservations.

Along these same lines, I purchased a 51B Mantle a while back that is an SGC 2. The front is well centered and presents very well, much better than a 2 in my opinion, but the back has some wax/gum staining and a similar amount of paper loss as your Clemente. I'm quite happy with it. For important vintage cards like that, it's all about presentation for me. The backs are not nearly as important.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by profholt82

Beautiful 2.5. For important cards like that, issues on the backs do not bother me. I would definitely buy that Clemente with no reservations.

Along these same lines, I purchased a 51B Mantle a while back that is an SGC 2. The front is well centered and presents very well, much better than a 2 in my opinion, but the back has some wax/gum staining and a similar amount of paper loss as your Clemente. I'm quite happy with it. For important vintage cards like that, it's all about presentation for me. The backs are not nearly as important.

I completely agree about blank backs. I love writing and damage on them as they generally sell for a lot less and look the same to me.

Even this amount of damage to the back border doesn't bother me, knowing I paid a low price for it, relative to it's eye appeal. There are almost an infinite number of ways to collect.
.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

PSA 2.5?? You gotta' be kidding me! If I had been the one who sent it to PSA, then it would have come back as a PSA 1. The paper loss on the back is pretty bad.

I agree. I have never seen a card with that much paper loss get above a 1.5. I would call it moderate. Granted, the front of the card is very nice and I would prefer this card over a 2.5 with poor centering and creasing but the grade is definitely not the norm for regular small time submitters to PSA IMO.

[V117collector]

SGC would most likely grade the Clemente RC a 2.5....But, yeah I guess it's all about who's submitting the cards.

This Mantle sold for a premium not too long ago. I was actually surprised it sold.

[JustinD]

No issue at all with minor paper loss on the back. The front is a different story, but I seek out cards like this honestly for the value.

[Wanaselja]

Originally Posted by JustinD

No issue at all with minor paper loss on the back. The front is a different story, but I seek out cards like this honestly for the value.

Same. Great looking Clemente.

[T205 GB]

Absolutely not at the least, and tiny speck of paper loss.

I would absolutely buy and may pay strong for and example of a card like described for the PC. Sometimes the significance of the front outweighs the back issues.

[paul]

Half the cards in my collection look like that. I love the discount I get for a little bit of paper loss. And since I'm not an investor, I can accept the fact that the card will appreciate at a lower rate than a high grade example.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by JustinD

No issue at all with minor paper loss on the back. The front is a different story, but I seek out cards like this honestly for the value.

^^This.^^

[MattyC]

I’ll take it.

[darwinbulldog]

The paper loss itself is no worse than moderate, but it's a fairly significant area of damage if you include the surrounding stain. Still, with front as nice as that, I'd probably go as high as whatever the PSA 3 VCP average is.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

PSA 2.5?? You gotta' be kidding me! If I had been the one who sent it to PSA, then it would have come back as a PSA 1. The paper loss on the back is pretty bad.

You are joking, right?

[Carter08]

My kind of card. I would hope to get lucky and that it would have a discount attached to it but, even though paper loss generally is no fun, I’d pay a little premium. The front is that good.