Trimmed Cards and Vending Box
 

Just curious as to how you all would handle this situation...

I recently purchased an vending box of 1983 Topps on eBay. Box was, of course, listed as unopened and unsearched. Seller had all positive feedback (over 1000)

When I received the box, everything looked okay. The box was in very good shape, and the cards were consistent with how I remembered vending boxes looking. I pulled two Boggs RC and 1 Sandberg RC from the box, put them in cases, and brought them to the White Plains, NY show for PSA to grade.

Both of the Boggs cards in my order are now listed as being "9"s, but the Sandberg has been listed as N1: Evidence of Trimming.

This is my first experience with getting cards graded, so I am not sure if the trimming issue is common.

Should I re-submit to PSA for another $15? send it to SGC instead? or should I contact the seller to see what he is willing to do with respect to the situation.

Thank you in advance for your input.

If you think it has a chance at a 10, I'd resubmit. If not, I'd judt hang onto it. I know it's a bummer, but sometimes this can happen, ev en with "new" cards. I doubt it had anything to do with the seller, as I doubt he'd trim then reinsert a card into a box. Bummer either way though.

I've gotten EOT on cards I know were not trimmed. I have no idea how they determined they were.

As previous seller said, I doubt they'd trim one and put it back in the box, especially since the Bogg's made it past the graders.

Was the Sandberg short or narrow compared to the others?

Funny
 

Funny you should mention '83 Topps. I bought some cards from a collector on Craiglist including an '83 set. This guy bought cards from packs and built sets from the late 70s through the 80s. Absolutely no chance he trimmed cards or subbed in a trimmed card. One of the '83 Gwynn's has a flared corner that would probably come back "trimmed." I seem to remember as a kid growing up in the mid-80s that occasionally you would get a wierd cut on a card. Here it is. My thought is that maybe your one card was just sort of a bad factory cut.

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/q...m/Gwynnetc.jpg

I can see what your saying about the Gwynn. I didn't notice anything different with the Sandberg in comparison to the Boggs, but I would be willing to guess it had to do with the factory cut. I'm contemplating cracking the case when I get it, and then sending it in to SGC. However, I am not sure it is even worth the money. I was just hoping to have at least "9"s for each of the 3 major HOF RCs from 1983 Topps.

I had the same issue with '78s. I bought a collection from someone that was all 78-81s and they were basically packs that had been opened and thrown in a shoebox. This person wasn't a collector or interested in cards at all. I know they didn't trim them. But as I sorted them there were some that I pulled aside with odd cuts and angles that, under any other circumstance, I would have said were trimmed.

When I built my '78 Topps set, I remebmer a lot of them having a very wavy border. My first thought was that they were triimed, but as I encountered more and more, I realized they were just bad cuts. Most were actually oversized (too wide) and that's how I knew they weren't trimmed.

I seem to remember a few '78's that were slightly oversized that I pulled from packs many years ago.
Drew

I had the same experience with the 83 set..I no longer own it..but over a period of time I did some upgrading piece by piece of some of the cards after buying a complete set from a card shop who I know collated the sets from vending boxes... and lots of wavy off cut cards were in the set...and I looked at them it bothered me so I upgraded them..I remember the Gwynn card looking very much like yours!

Ricky Y

Just an update...

I received the cards in the mail today. This was my first submission to PSA, so I wasn't aware that they didn't slab Trimmed cards, but rather kept them in their case with a sticker applied.

I compared the Sandberg to other cards from my set. It appears that the Sandberg is short by fractions of a millimeter - I definitely wouldn't have seen it without knowing it came back as evidence of trimming.

Ah well! I just hope my next batch doesn't face a similar result (1960 Yastrzemski RC, 1960 McCovey RC, 1941 Double Play Boudreau RC, and a 1947 Bond Bread Jackie Robinson).