PSA - Major Paper Loss = GOOD 2 ???

[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.