Preference: writing or paper loss?

[gregr2]

Interesting. I haven’t really thought about it but now that you bring it up, I think I would prefer a card with writing. With writing on it, I know the entire card is there, intact. Paper loss is just that, part of the card is lost.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

If it were minor enough on the back, I probably wouldn't care between writing or paper loss. On the front - paper loss - so long as it's confined to a corner or small area of the border.

[Sean]

Writing is the lesser of two evils for me.

[ls7plus]

It had better be a very tough card either way, but the extent/size of either is a big factor also.

Best wishes,

Larry

[Jim65]

Paper loss, intentional damage like writing, tack holes, trimming, etc is not generally allowed in my collection unless its a super rare item.

[BearBailey]

Either would make it a no from me. But if i had to choose I’d go with writing.

[CobbSpikedMe]

I'd rather have writing than paper loss personally.

[Chris-Counts]

I don't mind either. Tape stains are OK, too.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by BearBailey

Either would make it a no from me. But if i had to choose I’d go with writing.

How about a 1917 Felix Mendelsohn M-106 with paper loss not affecting the player's image, Brandon, with there being only four total graded when I bought it several years ago? I admit, I struggled with its' defects also before pulling the trigger, but these cards are so very tough, and with it being a very early, rookie-era Hornsby, I just had to go with it and haven't regretted it. My point is that it becomes something of a balancing act at some point for most of us, depending on the status of the player, and the significance and rarity of the card. But each of us has our own preferences.

Happy collecting and holidays,

Larry

[brianp-beme]

I kinda like some nice writing on the back, and am okay if it is extensive as well. I also usually am fine with paper loss, as long as it is not too excessive.

Now if you have a card that has been attached to a wood plague and has had the write-up on the back of card transferred to the back of the plaque and has had a little cross-hatched engraving to boot, well, nothing tops that.

Brian

[bnorth]

Neither bother me if the card is priced accordingly. Here is my 55 Bowman Mickey Mantle with a spec of paper loss on the back.

[ValKehl]

On a blank-back card, I'd rather have paper loss than writing. On a card with bio info or advertising on the back, I'll still take paper loss, but only if it doesn't significantly affect the bio infor or the advertising.

[irv]

Paper loss.

[Sean]

It's hard to see because the scan is too large, but this one has paper loss at the bottom, and beneath it someone wrote Tinker. The paper loss bothers me much more than the writing.

scan0036.jpg

[tonyo]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Now if you have a card that has been attached to a wood plague and has had the write-up on the back of card transferred to the back of the plaque and has had a little cross-hatched engraving to boot, well, nothing tops that.

Brian

I agree ! - that is way cool Brian. one of the favorite "odd-ball" items I have seen on n54

[Leon]

It depends on where the paper loss or writing is. Paper loss on a blank area is a wonderful money saver for me. Insignificant writing isn't too bad. Paper loss on a crucial area is worse than writing in a crucial area, for my taste.

[Bigdaddy]

In general, I'd say writing, especially on the back, is more acceptable.

Some folks on here actually pay a premium for 'ink' (stamps) on the back of certain older cards as that generally indicates some provenance.