1933 Delong Mini??
 

I recently won a Delong Lefty Grove that PSA classified as a minisize. I am working on the set and thought it was a neat changeup. I just got it and I can't tell any difference. Thoughts??

I believe that means it is trimmed not minisized.

MINSIZERQ=minimum size requirement

My guess is the OP is joking, but not sure.

I was hoping that too but you never know. Just hope they didn't pay a premium for a minisize one.

That very honest company PWCC had it listed as a mini card it the title. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-DeLong-...p2047675.l2557

My experience, albeit limited, is that the grading companies will reject for "minimum size requirement" a card that does not measure to spec, but that if they truly believe it has been trimmed it will either receive a reject as trimmed or "A" designation. The problem I have is that the rejected card looks every bit the size as the graded example posted, maybe even with a slightly larger top border, so I am puzzled it would receive this kind of rejection.

I had this card rejected as not meeting minimum size. I do not believe it is trimmed, nor was it rejected as trimmed.
[IMG]http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...1014graney.jpg[/IMG]

I really don't understand what the deal is with the card. I submit cards to SGC if I submit them. Holding the card over my graded one it does appear slightly larger. If that is PSA designation for a trim then PWCC absolutely misrepresented the card. I will be sending it back if that's the case (but it doesn't look trimmed).

If it is trimmed, PSA will label it as and N1 - Evidence of Trimming

1933 Delong Mini??
 

Never mind.

Not the most experienced person here with TPGs, but I think they are scared to give a number to any card which is even a little bit short in either direction. If a card is small and has clearly been trimmed they slab it as A and sometimes list trimming. If it doesn't appear to be trimmed then I think you might get this situation, which is pretty much them saying "we are terrified to slab this with a number and trust our judgement that the factory cut this card a little too small but that it has not been altered." This latter situation is total bunk coming from a paid "expert" but might be what this is here.

I'm going to take a different view here and say I wish PSA (I don't have much experience with other TPG) would be more consistent on "minimum size requirement". For mainstream sets, PSA has holders customized to fit cards in that set. When a card is small, usually there is extra room in the holder. Sometimes they use a mylar to hold the card in place. Even if most experts say the card is fine, there is often at least one collector willing to call "trimmed" when they see a card "swimming" in the holder. Makes me a little less enthusiastic about having those cards in my collection - I'd rather see them slabbed as Authentic-minsizereq which apparently they don't do.


Seeing "Mini" in the listing is interesting.

There's a certain bit of allowance they make for sizes outside the "standard size" In the beginning it was a pretty large allowance 1/32 of an inch? I don't recall exactly. But I think that how common very slight trims became has made them all tighten it up.

SGC also rejects for minimum size, but not entirely consistently. For example T206s can be narrow but not short. That's probably to allow for the ABs but gets applied to other backs too. I had one rejected for min size that was as short as another that graded 40 was narrow.

They also reject for odd factory cuts, another I had was unslabbed with the note "miscut top and bottom" Factory but very rough cuts.

And I believe the reason is exactly as DezHood said. Even if the card is fine but factory undersize, many if not most collectors will call it out as trimmed if it's unusually undersize. And while they should be entirely about the technical stuff the company reputation is all about the perception of them by potential customers.

Steve B

I once pulled a perfect-looking Nolan Ryan card from an old cello pack and sent it to PSA thinking they'd give it a 10. They rejected it for the same "MINSIZERQ" reason.

I have a factory undersized graded example link to a recent eBay auction on the football board that a collector who really knows the set (35 Chicle, same time period as the Delongs, interestingly) thought was fine and I trust his opinion, but I'd be lying if I said the room in the holder doesn't bother me..... Link: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=206979

The minimum size returns are ridiculous. PSA will also return cards with odd cuts. SGC will "A" them. Neither is a good solution, IMO. If a card is not altered it deserves a number grade, albeit downgraded for flaws like diamond cuts.

+1

Perhaps the solution is something like what PSA does with cards with writing on them (MK) and the other qualifiers and then let the market determine how much less than the numerical grade cards with this designation are worth.

I respectfully disagree with anyone who has an issue with minimum size returns from TPGs. Without that, I think we'd have even more trimmed cards in holders and likely with high grades as these cards can often be very nice in terms of centering and corners (can't imagine why cards from 80+ years ago with sharp corners would be small).

I do like the qualifier idea - I'd have no problem with that, but not all TPGs use qualifiers.

So here's my card that was rejected as miscut. Decent but not perfect corners, within spec for size.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=5054
But the top and bottom cut look like this from the back. The result of a dull blade or worn backing strip in the papercutter.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=5053

Bounced only because I checked off the don't slab as A option. And a great example of why I don't like the straight up "A". The card is factory, and not altered. As it is, someone could make their own decision about the rough cut and if they'd be ok having it in their collection. With a straight "A" it would be assumed to be altered and probably trimmed. And there's currently a large price difference between the two.

So why just "A" if it gets slabbed, but a flip with a nice explanation if it's not? That doesn't make much sense to me.

This one is pretty near AB narrow, and is only a 40 because of a paper inclusion that allowed a tiny wear spot in the ink on the front.
http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=3031

Technically it makes sense, except for the size thing.
I don't have a scan of the one rejected for min size, and actually misplaced it a couple years ago and haven't found it yet :(


Steve B

I can give you the reason why an 80year old undersize card might have nice corners.

If there's a stack of say 50 cards in a box, and they're loose whenever the box is moved they move and the corners and edges take a bit of wear. Worse on the corners because the force of the bumping isn't spread out.

If they're really loose it might all work out evenly. But lets say the stack is tied with a little string. That holds them from sliding a bit like a rubber band would.
Only now the undersize cards corners might not stick out. And as it moves they don't get hit and don't wear. 80 years later the stack gets found and most of the cards are vg, maybe vg-ex. The small ones will be a bit nicer, maybe a lot nicer.

Of course they could also be trimmed.

That's why the way the edges are is more important than size. T206 were done on a guillotine cutter that leaves the front edge rounded slightly towards the back, and a very slight ridge on the back side. Had they been cut with the back facing up it would be the opposite. (Never seen one, but I have to think it's possible. ) Other cards have been done other ways and each way of cutting looks different in an extreme closeup. But none of them look like an exacto knife cut or a scissors cut.

Steve B

Steve, you make a good argument and if I was confident that the grading companies were scrutinizing the cards for trimming properly - looking at the edges etc. or if I knew the provenance of the cards i.e. someone really kept them in the same nice box for 80 years (in actuality the closest to provenance I ever get is "these were my father's/grandfather's/Uncle's/etc." which while possible, I'm usually skeptical.....), I'd be fine with vintage undersized cards in holders even if they were graded in the 6-9 range. The correlation that concerns me is undersized cards being associated with relatively high grades too frequently. Of course, I can admit my sample size may be too small as it's one of those things that sticks out in your mind when you see it and thus my perception may be it happens more than it does.

Anytime the difference in money gets beyond a certain point you're right to look at any card very critically. If the difference between VG-EX and EX is just a couple dollars there probably won't be many trimmed cards. Some, but not really common. But for even a common prewar set like T206 there's a decent difference in price between say a 40 and a 60. Beyond a 60 it gets steeper.

About half the cards I've had graded were ones I'd had since the mid 80's Both the cards I showed are ones I've had since before 1987. I don't recall exactly when, but a lot of them I picked up before plastic holders were really common. And dealers would put the cards out on the table in stacks with no holders at all. While I had them they were loose, in pages, in holders of various kinds, and finally sent in. A lot of handling and they mostly held up well. (Except for an E90 I think I creased getting it out of a page but oddly it still got a decent grade)

I also hung out at a shop and got to see some of the collections come in. Pretty amazing at times. Nothing like seeing someone ask about the dealer buying cards then pulling a stack of Goudeys or T cards out of a jacket pocket!
Or a small box or tin for something entirely unrelated.

The other half were bought raw on Ebay fairly recently, and have mostly done well. Some I got good deals because the seller was either new or not a card seller and maybe some bidders thought the cards were just too nice.
Of course there's been a few that turned out to have problems. The only one that went back was from a dealer with a lot of years in the hobby who should have known better. The others were not really bad deals as they look really nice but are trimmed for sure. And they're within spec for size too.

I'm sure stuff gets past all three of the major companies. But in general they're pretty good. Now other companies.........I have a very nice looking Delong graded a 7 by one of them. Matches the specially sized holder very closely, but none of the four edges show any wear or chipping even under the 40X magnifier. My other one is so beat it's not a good comparison, but I have to think the nice one is trimmed.

Steve B

Steve