why is sgc so hard-up about paper loss?

hey as most of you have seen, a nice VG-EX or EX card is bloodbathed by sgc down to an sgc20 and in the rare exception would never get pass a 30 or 40. this has always ticked me off. shouldn't paper stock missing from the middle of the card be weighted the same as stock missing from corners? i.e. corner wear/rounding corners that routinely get 40s and 50s. technically speaking a little paper loss is more pleasing since it's only the top layer, where corner wear it's missing a corner of a whole card...if that makes sense.

i could either live with/without grading but this has been one of my hobby peeves.

I agree with SGC on this issue.
Paperloss from the body of the card impacts the text, advertisement or image of the card.
Which to me is the card.
Whereas damage to the borders constitutes damage to the frame of the card.
The frame of the card is expendable, in my view, because its job is to protect the card.
And a measurement of the extent of the frame damage can be related to the amount of circulation which a card has experienced.
While paperloss on the card is resultant from an accident independent of the quantity of circulation.
Therefore it is not an element of wear, but of injury to the card's main device.
imho.
Further, deliberate removal of coupons, advertisement or other relatively extraneous material from the border of a card, by its original user; and removal of the borders, as a choice related to strip cards, has a far less significance in my opinion than that expressed by the grading copanies. This is because to me, these original owner choices are a part of our Americana.

After seeing several SGC 30's and 40's (including the T206 Drum common in the last Mastro auction) with chips out of the corners, I have to agree with Quan on this one. I would much rather have a nice card with only some minor corner wear/rounding and a small piece of paperloss than a card with a chip out of a corner (which should have been a 10 in my book).

I'm with Gil on this. Paper loss in the main area means a big hit on the grade. That's the way I was originally taught. If you guys don't mind the paper loss on the main part of the card and SGC hammers grade low. then that means you get a card you find desirable for a cheaper price than if they graded it the way you like them.

Jay

If you could show examples, that would help.
There are trivial paper losses, chipping and rounding of corners.
But we are talking about cards (I think) in the 1-4 range.

Gil

I will admit that I find it annoying that SGC will hammer a card for chpping on the edges, ala what they do to red Colgans, nortorious for chipping on the edges on the back. That, I think should handled less severely than paperloss that affects the main area of the card.

Jay

ok sorry guys for abandoning my own thread, just had time to scan some images. here's a clarke 20 and a plank 20. i would argue that the plank have much worse "paper loss" and it presents horribly compared to the clarke. to me they are not or should be graded the same. if the plank is a 20 (which i kinda of agree with) then the clarke should be a 30 at least. i'm with psa on this one even though the paper loss on the clarke do affect some of the text area...but the big picture is it still presents much better than the plank.