R327 Diamond Stars

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>I just bought a couple PSA5 Diamond Star commons and was enjoying staring at them when my wife looked over my shoulder and asked why one was 'smaller' than the other. Sure enough one is almost 1/16" narrower in width than the other and is probably trimmed. <br /><br />Has anyone found much variation is size in this set? All my raw cards are the same size. Are trimmed cards in PSA holders found often? Looking at raw cards on eBay it seems like many with toning and an aged look have remarkably sharp edges and corners. Am I now a hopeless paranoid or is trimming this set common?<br /><br />Since this set isn't as popular as Goudey's or T206s it seemed like one I might try to complete without worrying to much about swindles.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Elliot</b><p>My Diamond Stars are very consistent in size. Having said that, i bought a Diamond Star that was short from somebody on the board. I returned it and he refunded my money, even though he didn't think it was trimmed (and I respect his opinion). He relisted the item, stating that it was short and it sold for more than what I had paid.<br /><br />Also, the cardboard that Diamond Stars were printed on seems a bit stronger than other issues so it is tougher to bang up the corners and edges than with some other cards. Also, the card is not printed right to the edge, so there is no chipping.<br /><br />Also, do u have a scan?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>prewarsports</b><p>I have owned several hundred of these and used to collect the set, the only one I have had which is short was trimmed and they are very consistant in size. Elliott is right about the thickness of the cards. They seem to be thicker than Goudeys.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I have a scan but haven't figured out how to upload it - obvious computer illiteracy...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brian p</b><p>Just to throw in a differing viewpoint, I have noticed a size variation in untrimmed Diamond Stars. Usually not that great of a difference--usually by 1/32". I actually own one card that is 3-1/16" tall.<br /><br />Which brings up another point. Both Beckett and SCD list this set as being 2-7/8" from top to bottom. Most of my cards fall in the 3" range, with the closest to 2-7/8" being 2-31/32". Is this another example of erroneous info being passed on year after year in the guidebooks, or is my collection just full of tall boys?<br /><br />Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I have about 20 and all measure 2 7/8 except for one that is 1/16 long and 2 that are 1/16 short.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>The Other One (Julie)</b><p>..........

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>brian p</b><p>I guess I better check my ruler.<br /><br />Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>For some reason I have not been able to load in a scan but you can see the card in question on the PSA Set Registry (Marks R327 Diamond Stars)- its Jo Jo White and the right side is 'short.' <br /><br />After reading the responses I have some hope that the card is actually not trimmed as several of you have noted off size cards of your own. Thanks for your responses.<br /><br />I've collected cards since 1960 as a kid and just got into graded cards this year as I bought a couple T206s on eBay that I'm certain are either faked or trimmed. I assumed that PSA or SCG or GAI would insure that the card was real and not altered but after reading these posts it looks like a few get buy the 'pro' graders too. Upon reflection PSA has probably graded millions of cards, a few mistakes have to have passed through....