1957 Topps….size variance?

[the 'stache]

Hey all.

I was looking at a raw 1957 Topps Pee Wee Reese I bought last year, and it struck me that the borders were just the slightest amount thinner than I expected. I pulled out another ‘57 Topps, a Gil Hodges I bought direct from Battersbox, and compared them.

The width is spot on, however, the height of the Reese card looks to be slightly under a millimeter short.

Examining the Reese under a loupe, the edge cut doesn’t jump out to me as being trimmed.

Do these ‘57 Topps ever exhibit any size variance. Is less than a millimeter top to bottom within normal variance? It’s a beautiful card, otherwise.

Thank you. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240223/01e4335f0e9ab9c0ce38decd419afe1c.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the 'stache]

Nobody?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Factory minsizes on vintage are incredibly common. This whole ruse of standard size being exact, especially with 1950's cards is a way for the graders to perpetually frustrate us, IMO. There were no exacting standards 70 years ago. Some cards came out slightly short. Especially if we are talking 1/16 of an inch or less, both short and "large" are very common. I've had many 1958 Topps cards that will not fit into my UltraPro One Touch cases because they are too tall. Would PSA deduct for this? Not sure. As evidenced by the fact that sometimes they have to use the "larger" insert slabs meant for pre-1957 Topps cards even on newer ones - I don't think that they do.

My advice if you are planning to leave raw and there is no obvious signs of trimming or alteration - just enjoy the card. The size discrepancies are more common that many people think. That's a nice Reese!

[the 'stache]

Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[7nohitter]

I have been putting together the '57 set for a long time and this type of variance is very common.

[G1911]

If you take a stack of current year Topps cards, place the stack flush on a solid flat surface, you can see that if you look closely the cards are all ever so slightly different heights. They still aren’t all the exact same size. Some variance is normal. However, there is a reason that most of the cards that jump out as short are otherwise nice condition hall of famers.

[Zach Wheat]

I have heard, but no verified, that vending cards are slightly smaller than regular issue cards in the earlier years. Here is one of the links where that was discussed:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=110763

[bnorth]

Not specific to 57 Topps. What I have noticed on unmolested cards is that the width should almost always be exactly the same. The height can vary slightly on pretty much every set.

[the 'stache]

Not specific to 57 Topps. What I have noticed on unmolested cards is that the width should almost always be exactly the same. The height can vary slightly on pretty much every set.


And the Reese’s width is absolutely right on the button, as are all the raw ‘57 Topps cards I have thus far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the 'stache]

I have been putting together the '57 set for a long time and this type of variance is very common.


I just started, and I figure that, based on the condition and eye appeal I want, it’s going to take me at least ten years to complete it. That’s okay, too. Building the set is the fun part, especially knowing you did it one card at a time.

My focus at the moment is on the ‘57 Braves. I picked up a PSA 6 Warren Spahn, and have beautiful Johnny Logan and Billy Bruton examples. My Joe Adock was listed as delivered today, but no sign of it. The mailbox was empty, so I’m going to have to hunt it down.

I also have beautiful examples of Reese, Gil Hodges and Ted Williams, and this really strong Willie Mays. The eye appeal of it far surpasses the technical grade.

Centering on all the cards I buy is a must. It will cost me, but eye appeal is so important to me. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240305/1ca0ec5155427e1d027fac0d2dce01ec.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk