CLOSED AUCTION, NEED SOME SHARP EYES!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: marty quinn

HELLO TO ALL, I HAVE LOOKED AT THIS CARD MANY TIMES AND I CANT FIGURE OUT IF I AM MISSING SOMETHING OR PSA DID A BAD THING!! PLEASE LOOK AND GIVE YOUR OPINION, THE SELLER IS VERY REPUATABLE IT SEEMS, BUT THE CARD LOOKS HORRIBLY TRIMMED ON THE LEFT SIDE??, NOT A DIAMOND CUT, (WICH TO THE EYE SOMETIMES MAY LOOK LIKE A TRIM)THE LEFT SIDE IS/LOOKS TO BE THE SAME DISTANCE BETWEEN THE CARD AND THE HOLDER, THE RIGT SIDE FROM MIDWAY UP SEEMS TO BE HACKED BY SOMEONE BLIND FOLDED !!!! WHAT AM I MISSING?? NO I DIDNT E MAIL THE SELLER YET BECAUSE I STUMBLED UPON THE AUCTION LATE AND THEN IT ENDED......PLEASE NOTE::: THIS IS NOT A KNOCK ON THE SELLER!!! HE MAY BE A MEMBER ON THIS BOARD FOR ALL I KNOW, AND COULD BE A TOP NOTCH GUY, BUT THE CARD DOES RESIDE IN A PSA HOLDER, AND I AM CURIOS WHAT OTHERS SEE.....THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND OPINION......

ITEM #...
190166416162

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

The left side or the right side? Wow, that right edge near the top looks whacked.

[Archive]

Posted By: marty quinn

hi rob, thats what i am saying!!! could this be one of the worst trimmed jobs betting by a grader??

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

that looks pretty pathetic...definitely look trimmed to me! what a ripoff!

pete ullman

[Archive]

Posted By: Tony Andrea

Here's the link.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190166416162

[Archive]

Posted By: Iggy

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say it is a bad scan. I'm supporting that statement with my experience scanning cards (and stuff). If you look at the PSA label at the top (the red border which is around the white border label (next to the NM 7 designation)) - it's also wavy. More profound on the right side as opposed to the left side. With a good scanner that would show-up as a straight line. Since that part is wavy, you can make the educated guess that it is the scan and not the card.

Sometimes with cheap scanners or low resolutions, you get results like that. Man, I can't believe you guys are making me defend the card grading companies!

-Lovely Day, Iggy...

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Take a look at the certificate numbers preceding cert# 90630968

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

Can't believe the cheapest scanner with an inexperienced user could produce that...a wave is one thing, a whack is another. I think this is definitely a whack..

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

It seems nobody bid on this, right?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Doubtful this is a factory cut or a scanner misread. PSA should buy this mullet back in a hurry.

[Archive]

Posted By: Erick Lewin

That's probably the worst trim job i've ever seen on a card graded by a major company!

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

Many 1941 Playball cards are handcut from sheets, both normal stock and paper stock cards. Perhaps PSA recognized this as a handcut card and graded it accordingly as to wear?

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

scott - PSA rejected 6 other 1941 PB cards submitted at the same time for trimming.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

When I return back home latter, I'll post some factory cut Play Ball cards with similar cuts.

I have completed all three Play Ball sets; and, one of my favorites is the 1941 set. I have completed 4 sets of this issue.
And, I can tell you that these Play Ball cards are some of the worst factory-cut cards in the BB card hobby.

Having said this.....the cut on this Joe DiMaggio card is not that of a "TRIMMED" card. Using one example to try to make
this point is ridiculous.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Marty,

Send an e-mail to Kevin Saucier with a scan and he could give you a correct answer.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I have more, but the Connie Mack best illustrates what I've said in the prior post on this thread, regarding factory miscut cards.




TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

IMHO - the DiMaggio is much worse then both of those, and coupled with the knowledge that the seller had several other '41 Play Balls rejected for trimming is pretty damming.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

A factory can mis-cut just one side (easily) -
so you would have three good looking sides and then one that looks funky.....

but the right side on this card looks wavy. Wavy wouldn't happen at the factory.

jmho.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

In a word.... "unbelieveable"

How does that get missed. Even if PSA saw the odd cut it should have been given an MC qualifier if they felt it was miscut.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am certainly in your corner on this one. I too believe these were probably all factory miscuts. I will take your experience over anyone elses on certain issues.... and this is one of them....PSA should have given an MC qualifier.....just my opinion....

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Leon, Ted - so you guys are suggesting that PSA got it wrong when they rejected 5 other 1941 Play Ball cards that were also submitted on the same invoice for trimming?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

What I am saying is I believe 50 yrs experience (or there abouts) with this issue over PSA...you can make out of it what you want to....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I'm repeat-posting my scan (for those who just skip to the "bottom of page").....the Hayes card is narrower than most PlayBall's.

This 1940 Connie Mack card is grossly mis-cut....and, yet you stated in your prior post here...."the DiMaggio is much worse".

Your opinion has to be be "shaded" by your subjective feelings; because, I don't think anyone here, objectively looking at these
two cards would agree with you regarding the Mack vs the DiMaggio card. The DiMaggio card has a factory-flawed cut 2/3rds up
the right side of it. If this was a "trim job" it would have been a clean straight cut on the right side of that card.

You apparently do not want to believe what I'm saying with respect to many Play Ball cards being poorly factory cut, based on my
collecting 1000's of these cards; then, trying to convince you is futile.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

leon - I'm not challenging your experience - I'm just trying to understand your opinion here - I don't understand how they say this one is fine and that others from the same batch are trimmed; it seems inconsistent to me. Either there's an allowance for miscuts which we see with the DiMaggio or there is no allowance and this shouldn't have been slabbed; I don't understand what they did here.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Nothing personal here at all and I am not going to bash PSA....with that being said, as I read what you wrote, I sort of shake my head.....You are inferring that PSA "could" be inconsistent, I believe. I would agree with you on that.....BTW, I don't have 50 yrs experience as that would be 4 yrs before I was born . My guess is that Ted has that much or close to it....I like to try to take my little bit of knowledge from folks that are more experienced than I am (which there are tons of). So yes, I think PSA could have gotten these wrong and there is far less chance (again, imo) that Ted got these wrong........best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: David Halpen

I remember seeing this Dimaggio in a Mastro auction (or other auction house) within the past 12 months. It was part of mixed graded/raw 1941 Play Ball set. I collect the 1941 set and thought about purchasing this set. However, the Dimaggio turned me off. I contacted the auction house to ask about the origins of the set. They said that the set originated from a collector who compiled the set during the time of issue. In addition, they said that PSA rejected some of the cards as being trimmed (auction stated this). However, the owner was adament that they were not trimmed but factory miscuts which were common with the issue. I do not know whether the collector or the auction house submitted the Dimaggio and other cards from the 1941 set to PSA. My personal experience with this set is that the card was miscut at the factory. It is so poorly cut that I cannot believe that a collector would butcher the card that bad. It is an example of buying the card and not the holder.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Matt,

I think you may be failing to take a couple of factors into account. The standards for both printing and cutting allowed for a lot more variance in the 1940's than they do today.

I own a set of 1948 Bowman Basketball cards that have 8-10 cards that are miscut. All of these 8-10 cards are cut identically. This leads me to believe that there was a problem with the factory cut. On several others, the cut edge is rough and/or ragged, indicating a dull cutting blade. These have been in our family for 50+ years and I've had them for 20+ years, so they are not "trimmed". Yet if I sent them to be graded, I expect they'd be bounced.

I trust Ted's judgement on this issue. I don't know of anyone with more knowledge on 1940-1950 cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Since it seems I'm being misunderstood, I will clarify. I'm not challenging that the card is or is not miscut/trimmed. I was just trying to understand, those who say it is a factory miscut and is not trimmed, how they understand the PSA results of trimming. If I'm reading correctly, the answer is that PSA got those wrong and none of them were trimmed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

So, seeing that a Dimaggio could be slabbed with an edge like and get such a good grade, what would stop someone from trimming their Dimaggio (that may have a rough edge) at a similar angle and claim its factory-cut?

I guess I don't know how to tell the difference between whether the factory cut it 65 years ago or a person cut it twenty years ago with the same (or similar) instrument that the factory used.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

The Mack is diamond-cut -- it is equally off on both sides (runs in at the top left, and at the bottom right). A diamond cut is a common miscut, but comparing a diamong cut card to a non-diamond cut card tells us nothing, and only highlights the unusualness of the non-diamond cut card.

One might feel better about the DiMaggio if it were diamond cut. But it isn't.

Yet the DiMaggio could be miscut, or it could be a poor trim. No way to tell from a scan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

I get you.

I think, clearly, PSA got something wrong. They accepted some. They rejected some. That alone sends up a flag to me. My sense is that they were either all factory miscut or they were all trimmed. If they had bounced them all, it would be difficult to argue with them.

However, when Ted shows factory miscuts were common, and I add what I know about my own cards, I realize there is a good possibility that PSA got this card right and was wrong on the others.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

well, maybe I spoke too soon....

Here is one of my cards.

Maybe PSA knows of factory tolerances for different issues.

(Yes the left side is that rough in person, but I don't think it is due to alteration or wear - and I guess PSA didn't think so either.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

I've seen a number of rough cut cards given high grades by both PSA and SGC though I have none to show you. The grading companies seem to recognize that that is a factory "defect" and not something that was done to the card after it hit circulation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

You stated...."The Mack is diamond-cut -- it is equally off on both sides (runs in at the top left, and at the bottom right)."


Normal dimensions on Play Ball cards are 2 1/2 x 3 1/8 inches.

I just measured it....my 1940 Play Ball Connie Mack card measures......

Top border = 2 1/2

Bottom border = 2 9/16

Right border = 3 1/8

Left border = 3 1/8

THIS CARD IS NOT A "DIAMOND CUT"......it has a "SLANT" cut on it's left border, period.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

wow...this is getting heated!!! Based on all evidence presented...I'm certainly willing to admit I was wrong...card may not be trimmed...but nonetheless the card should have a mc qualifier...no excuse for that as I've seen lesser centering issues with one!

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: anthony

i would hate to accuse a seller of wrong doing, but he does consign. maybe it wasnt his to send in. psa holders are the only ones i know that you can open, replace the card, and re-seal. thats why i dont buy them anymore unless i know the dealer.

looks too funny to be the scanner. i call "shananagans" on this card

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Just took a ruler to the enlarged scans above.

Mack measures exactly the same across both the top and bottom, and, moreover, both the left and right borders disappear, at opposite ends (although the disappearing left border is actually from the adjacent card). That is a diamond cut card. You only get a shorter measurement across the top if you meaure from the rounded top left corner. Measure across the black borders, slightly off the edges, and the top and bottom are the same.

The DiMaggio is not a diamond cut card, therefore, no inferences can be drawn from the Mack.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Steinberg

Here's something that bothers me about PSA... They will downgrade a card for poor centering... often times severely. The "off-centering" is original to the card, and is just as manufactured. A card can be mint otherwise, but the "off-centering" will significantly knock down the PSA grade.

But PSA seems to accept rough cuts and miscuts (of the non-trimmed variety) without severe penalty to the grade. Why is that? I have also seen blurry, unfocused images on cards that grade higher than cards with sharper images and perfect registration.

I am not as much a card expert as most of you are (I migrated over from the memorabilia side), but aren't there some real contradictions/discrepancies with PSA's grading methods? I've chosen to continue living in the "dark ages" (with about 90% of my collection remaining ungraded) largely for this reason...

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

It doesn't matter if it is SGC, PSA or GAI, buy the card not the holder.
I think the bottom line here is that if I bought a card this expensive I would be sick to see that border. I am a collector first but like Frazee said of the Babe, "anything (well almost) is available for the right price" and selling this card for anything close to what you might have paid for it is going to be an arduous task.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

......you are trying to measure a scan as it appears on your computer screen ? ? ? ?

Hey guy, I had the card in my hand with a precise steel ruler and I posted the actual measurements. If you can't dig them and admit that you
are wrong.....then, I frankly don't give a damn. I'm not going to argue with you. This is degenerating into utter foolishness.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Ted - when I said the DiMaggio card appears worse, I didn't mean in terms of the centering - clearly the Mack is worse there. What I meant was in terms of suspicion of trimming - the cut on the Mack, while on an angle, appears to go straight all the way up the side. On the DiMaggio, about half way up, the edge takes a severe turn in, which could easily happen by someone trimming the corner but how would it happen when the card was produced? Was the card cut twice - once to make the parallel edge and then a second time to make the angled edge?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I fully understand what you are saying and I guess what I am trying to convey here is that I've seen, not only Play Ball's, but also Goudey's
with this "warped" type of cut" And, I'm talking about seeing these cards (exactly mis-cut like the DiMag) 25-30 years ago.....when no one
wasted their time "trimming" cards (and especially commons), because these cards were selling for just a few $$.

I'll look this weekend to see if I still have some of these Goudey's or Play Ball's. But, I doubt it as I usually put them in my "junk box" for sale
at Shows.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

With a whole lot of due respect you did need to clarify a little bit about trimming. I think you are absolutely correct that 25-30 yrs ago folks didn't trim to get a better grade but we KNOW they trimmed cards for personal reasons. I am sure I read where the late Don Macpherson (sp?) trimmed cards to fit into holders when they were too big....Also, just today I learned that many larger cards had their corners clipped (as we see many that are) to fit into holders. So, no, they didn't do it for fraudulent reasons, but they (old time collectors like you, but maybe not you specifically ), did do it....regards


edited typo

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Assuming it the scan doesn't cut-off any of the edges, why should measuring the scan be unreliable? Especially when the scan is 100% larger than the actual card, where a difference in width would be even more exaggerated given the enlarged scale.

In any event, all we can go by is your scan, and your width differences cannot be confirmed using the enlarged scan you provided. How you found a 1/16 inch discrepancy on the actual card is beyond me, but you are right about one thing -- this discussion is foolish.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

What you say is true.....but, I am simply referring to Goudey's and (more notoriously) Play Ball's that I acquired in the '70s
and early '80s from original collections. Not from dealers at shows or thru SCD mail orders.

I think you will agree with me, that some non-hobby type person who discovered (or inherited) a collection back then, did
not actually trim (or even consider doing this to) any of their cards. All they wanted to do was get a fair price for them.
Especially, before price guides were even invented (pre-1979).

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

I bought some trimmed cards as a kid thirty years ago at the first card show I ever went to. Trimming wasn't a waste of time because it hardly took any time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Ted - perhaps trimming 30-40 years ago was done for aesthetic reasons even if kept in one's own collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave S

"I think you will agree with me, that some non-hobby type person who discovered (or inherited) a collection back then, did not actually trim (or even consider doing this to) any of their cards. All they wanted to do was get a fair price for them. Especially, before price guides were even invented (pre-1979)."

TED, I certainly agree with that statement. But don't you likewise agree that their chance of getting a higher
"fair price" was by making the card more aesthetically
appealing? Easiest way...trimming..

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

In all seriousness.....there is a lot of "trimming paranoia" going on nowadays on this Forum.

It bothers me to say what I just said, but it's true. Look where this PSA graded card has got us to on this thread....
a professionally graded card, no less. Haven't there been numerous prior postings discussing the need for grading ?

Anyhow believe me, BB card collections that were passed down thru generations to "little old ladies", or grandchildren
that would bring them into card shows or respond to Buy Advs. were not tampered with. I could spend hours relating
to you of such collections that I acquired (or others acquired) that would blow your mind. And, there are many other
old time hobbyist on this Forum who can run circles around me with their stories.

We didn't agonize or suspect every time we checked-out a collection if it was "trimmed". Many such "walk-ins", we are
talking about 100's of cards (stars & commons). On this board, the majority of "collector thinking" is in terms of a just
a single card. And, I certainly do understand this, with the current high cost of BB cards
I wish there was a "Time Machine" where many of you could go back to the 1970's and '80s and experience what BB
card collecting was like then.

The real paradox is....that in this GRADING environment, I'm seeing more "trimming paranoia" than ever existed prior to
the Grading phenomena.....that is mind-boggling.

TED Z