How much paper loss = AUT?

Quick grading question: how much paper loss on the back of a card does there need to be in order to receive an AUT from SGC/PSA? Will SGC give a numerical grade to a card with, let's say, 35% paper loss on the back? Do SGC/PSA have the same grading standards when it comes to paper loss?

I don't have a scan handy, Ben, but my AB back T206 Speaker had almost all of the back lost (including the entire advertisement) and to my great surprise got an SGC 10.

If you are just talking about paper loss to the back surface of the card, it shouldn't get dinged beyond SGC 10. In the past, they would give the "A" if enough of the card was missing (all the way through), but if it is a complete card with just back damage - regardless of how severe, I think it can still get a 10.

The only caveat I can think of is if it is a photo that is mounted on something and that portion on which it is mounted is gone, it'd probably get an "A", but there again, that would result in a part of the entire card being missing (like the mount / border of a W600 for example). I don't know enough about how OJs were mounted, but they might be a second example.

Regardless, paper loss (similar to being ripped out of an album) shouldn't get an "A" from SGC. Brian D. may correct me on that, but that is my understanding. (I can't speak to how PSA does it.)

Thanks guys. Sounds like my card will have no problem getting a numerical grade.

what about corner/chunk missing? what's over the line? seems like sgc has gotten progressively more lenient the last few years. i think i'd be more comfortable paying "authentic" price for the card below than borderline "sgc10".

current goodwin:

SGC said that there was too much missing from this corner to get an SGC 10.

Richard- Don't you also have an AUT E103 Wagner with about as much corner missing (maybe a spot more) as the Jackson above?

I don't mind the missing corners getting a 10...I think it's what they should get if it doesn't affect image...but the inconsistency, as always, really sucks.

Ray - a little more missing than the Jackson.



a little bit more than the Wagner:



a little bit more than the Matty:



But you gotta take what you can get sometimes

rman444 wrote:

But you gotta take what you can get sometimes

Believe me, I've shuffled my cards in my head at least 11-12 times wondering what I could sell, trade, or borrow to get that Wagner. E103, besides Voskamp's, is the only Wagner I've ever really wanted. Probably won't happen for a long while now, with my new project...

Ray - that's funny. I have 18 people watching the card, by far and away the most number of watchers on any of my items, and I probably get an email about it every couple of weeks. Yet, no one has pulled the trigger.

I don't mind lining up the Wagner, Cobb and Matty and staring at them from time to time. Give me these in collector grade + a car over the same 3 in SGC 50 holders any day!

Here are a couple more "corner missing" SGC 10s.

I think SGC is reasonably consistent with their distinction between an "A" and a 10 on paper loss. If the paper loss cuts into the image part (and not just the border) then the card gets an "A", otherwise a 10. I do have to say, tho, that the Kelley e107 looks pretty marginal, as I would lean towards an "A" with almost all of the name missing. (sorry Brian)

However, I'm not sure how much it really matters price-wise as we can all see the reason for the grade either way and determine the price that we are willing to pay given our own grading preferences. There is no question that in the A/10 grade level there is the largest variation in eye appeal and relative value than any other grade.

pro9 wrote:I think SGC is reasonably consistent with their distinction between an "A" and a 10 on paper loss. If the paper loss cuts into the image part (and not just the border) then the card gets an "A", otherwise a 10. I do have to say, tho, that the Kelley e107 looks pretty marginal, as I would lean towards an "A" with almost all of the name missing. (sorry Brian)

However, I'm not sure how much it really matters price-wise as we can all see the reason for the grade either way and determine the price that we are willing to pay given our own grading preferences. There is no question that in the A/10 grade level there is the largest variation in eye appeal and relative value than any other grade.

No worries, E. The Kelley was in a PSA 1 and crossed to SGC 10, so they both called it a 1. I can see the point about infringement on the border of the picture being borderline. With both of those cards, I wasn't sure whether they would give them an A or a 1 (submitted only once and at different times). I wanted both in SGC slabs regardless, so I didn't give them a minimum grade. Whenever it is an "A", there is always the question of whether something is trimmed or restored or recolored, etc., so I was pleased that they both got a number grade in order to remove that suspicion. If SGC had a designation of why a card received an "A", not only would it be better for clarification purposes, but it would lessen the "A" stigma a touch, I would think.

I second your comment that both with "A" cards and with "1" cards, the appearance and value can vary widely. Granted, I am pleased those 2 cards are in a 10 holder, but they would still hold the same place in my collection if they were in an "A" holder from the corner damage. It's kinda tough to collect some sets in mint condition, ya know?

This nail victim I bought raw got a 10 to my surprise.