Grading Question

[oldjudge]

Six lines up from the bottom, right column

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Six lines up from the bottom, right column

Yep, that's pretty apparent. Think they just missed it.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Yep, that pretty apparent. Think they just missed it.

Agreed.

[Rob D.]

Just another reminder, folks, that we should question all graded cards. Always.

[rdixon1208]

This is one issue that I really disagree with the grading companies on. I know it's subjective, but a card with no creases, stains, etc. will often get a 20 because of a small amount of paper loss on the back of the card. Then a card with a crease, a stain, and worn out edges will get a 30.

The good news is you can get the nicer card in the 20 holder for cheaper than the other.

[nameless]

Dixon,
I agree with you. It really upsets me to see an SGC60 with paper loss because I have cards with minimal paper loss on the back and have received 30s, 20s, and even 10s. I agree you can get a 20 for cheaper so as one collector told me and I try to stick to, "Don't pay for the grade". Oh well I honestly believe that a card with the amount of paper loss we are seeing in this example should receive a nice grade but being subjected to the SGC's grading scale in the past I still feel a bit of heartburn to see this.

[Delray Vintage]

I agree that many cards with a tiny bit of paper loss should not be downgraded so much. The grading houses have decided that paper loss is much worse than a worn corner. Cards that have blank backs with glue marks should not receive downgrades to a 30 because of that, if the front is an 80 or 84. It seems like the standard is decided by the grading companies but I do not agree with it. We, the collectors, have been told by grading companies that a great looking card is really a bad card.

In the pre-slab grading days my guess is many of those cards would be graded Ex-MT and described as having a minor paper loss or glue on back. In that era most of us would have wanted an aesthetically pleasing card and would have accepted paper loss products much more readily.