General Forum

 Anyone have thoughts on how much the condition of the back of a card affects the value?  I just picked up a 1953 Topps Johnnie Mize, for example. Front is probably VG +. Back has a small paper loss--maybe 1/4 inch square--and some water marks. No one really talks about the back of the card in the guides and websites.

I don't much care--I'm happy with the card--but I wonder what other people's thoughts are, and I'm always curios about the approximate value of my cards.  Put another way, for those of you who talk in terms of grading, how many notches down does a poor back knock your view of a card?  

Discuss....

v3

 Personally, if the front is good and the back is poor... the card is poor.  Doesn't stop me from putting it into the collection though.

 Thx, Dixxy. Not sure I agree. We'll see what others say. (Also, I know how to spell "curious."  Wish I could edit posts.)

Paper loss = Poor in my opinion, whether it's front or back. I actually prefer buying when I can see both sides of the card, and I recently passed on several cards because there was staining on the back - even though the fronts were clean. If someone gives me a poor card, it goes in the collection, but I won't buy poor cards (only to want to replace them later on).

 What he said

Dixxy wrote:  Personally, if the front is good and the back is poor... the card is poor.  Doesn't stop me from putting it into the collection though.

I agree with most of what has been said so far. If the back is in poor condition then the card is in poor condition. I am also of the school that it doesn't stop me from putting it in the collection. I prefer for all the text on the back to be readable. I tend to stay away from vintage cards with too much paper loss on the back (or on the front for that matter) a little is OK so long as ALL text is still there and most of the front image.

I also prefer to see BOTH sides when buying cards, which is why I don't really like buying from sportlots but often I can get a better price for a card there than on Ebay, it depends on the card and also when I am trying to buy it.

In my pursute of completing the 1965 Topps Baseball set BEFORE next April. I had to get an upgrade to one of the cards I had gotten due to some paper debris that was glued to the back of the card. I had gotten the first copy from sportlots I think it was marked as being in "Good" condition, which is a low grade but usually can still be a nice looking card. I found an upgrade copy at my LCS a few weeks later.

Oh for the '65 set I have 174/598 (technically 176/600 since I have the checklist viriants for cards 79 and 508)

 For the record, I knew what the back looked like going in, and I mostly agree with folks. Only a tiny amount of text from the defensive stats is missing. I'm mildly surprised at the consensus, though. Look at it this way: I KNOW some of you put 18 cards in a nine card sheet. Does anyone have the backs showing?  

Good luck on the  65s, Kirk. That would be impressive. I've got 622 71s and I don't think I'll complete it until 2020. 

V3

I agree with vrooomed on this one, but as long as you're happy with it, that's all that matters. I personally won't get a vintage card with paper loss. Aside from creases, that (IMO) is the worst kind of damage. You did say it wasn't a lot of damage, so that's good. I am really picky about vintage grading. A John Mize card is still something to value, despite a little eye sore.  Enjoy it!

Aaron

 never! Never ever ever ever!!! Every card in my collection is in a page, single sided. Stretches the pages and shortens their life span. Not even my ccg cards are double sided and all the backs on those Re the same.