Crossover Question

[ullmandds]

no

[E93]

The ink spots alone would disqualify it from a 5, but if the breaks in the printing on the back are actually paper loss, that would also severely affect the technical grade. It is a very nice looking card.
JimB

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by E93

the breaks in the printing on the back are actually paper loss

Correct. That was the first thing I noticed. Whenever I look at a PSA card, that is the first thing I look for because they tend to ignore or overlook minor paper loss like that. I'm guessing SGC will grade it a 1.5 or 2.

[bcbgcbrcb]

My guess would be an SGC 30

[John V]

Amazing. I never expected these comments. Does PSA overlook such traits only w/pre-war or do they grade with the same standards on post-war?
Is this viewed as a weakness of PSA or just "their grading style"?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by John V

Amazing. I never expected the these comments. Does PSA overlook such traits only w/pre-war or do they grade with the same standards on post-war?
Is this viewed as a weakness of PSA or just "their grading style"?

I'm bias, so I'll let someone answer. However, even w/o the ink or paper loss, it still should not have graded a 5. From their own website a PSA 5 "must be 85/15 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back." That is definitely not 90/10 centering on the back. I'll ge generous and call it 97/3

[Leon]

my guesses.....SGC would grade it a 20 or 30....BVG would grade it a 1.5 to 2......There are some small amounts of paper loss on the back, where the factory markings are, along with the ink? spots.