corner wear=paper loss?

also edge wear. aren't these technically paper loss also? just happens to not be at a distracting area.

i'm wondering why sgc would dock an EX card down to a 1-1.5 for a tiny pin-sized paper loss while corner wear with much worse amount of actual paper loss on the corner would get a 4 or higher (i've seen recently sgc giving 30s to a fair amount of paper loss on front). i have no card at sgc with this dilemma, just wondering out loud...

I've wondered about this myself. It makes perfect sense although paper loss on the main surfaces tend to me more distracting than if it is on the edges or corners.

It's probably buyers like me who contribute to this discrepancy. I think you're absolutely right, but I'll buy a card with dinged corners; I would never buy a card with missing paper on the face or a pinhole. I don't know if I can even entirely explain why dinged corners are okay and other paper loss isn't. The latter simply reduces the visual allure of the card too greatly for me.

As I think more about it: Maybe it's because dinged corners just seem natural and semi-inevitable, whereas other kinds of paper loss seem like more of a defacement of the card (even if it's unintentional)?

LucasRiley wrote:As I think more about it: Maybe it's because dinged corners just seem natural and semi-inevitable, whereas other kinds of paper loss seem like more of a defacement of the card (even if it's unintentional)?

lucas, i've seen badly damaged corner where it still comes to a point, but there is a chunk of layer of paper on top missing...yet that can still get a 40.

alot of actual paper loss in the middle of a card is simply from the printing or litho flaking off (moisture, card's product) and not from any malicious defacement. you see more of this on caramel cards. imo sgc is being unfairly harsh, a little paper loss should not get the same grade as a corner missing (sgc20 cracker jacks).

i also agree with paper loss on the image or face is distracting, but paper loss should be judged on a case to case basis, not uniformly punished.

Couldn't agree more that it should definitely be case-to-case. Just yesterday, in fact, I watched a Hugh Duffy T206 that was a 40, and wouldn't have even been a 10 if there had been damage on the face anywhere near as bad as what was on the corners. That seemed like a definite case of under-prioritizing corner wear. In fact, I ultimately didn't bid because I just thought the grade was too high and the card didn't look good.