Trimmed? Or something else?

[Archive]

Posted By: ephuspitch

So, the first batch of vintage cards I ever laid eyes on was one big, original hoard. A friend of the family found them, literally, under the floorboards in his attic ... they must've been put up there before 1935 or so, because everything in the box was pre-1913 (except for one mysterious Diamond Star Charlie Gehringer) ... about 50% T206, 25% T210, and mostly T204 and T205 from there ... with a few double folders and triple folders mixed in.

Some of these cards ended up in my possession, most have been sold. What a find, though, right? For me it was a big deal, but at the time my idea of a super-valuable, super-cool card was the 1985 McGwire card. My wildest dream might have been a Mantle or a Paige. So, I liked cards, but didn't really have much of a collection or much appreciation... just my favorites. Mark Fydrych -- that type of thing. To most of you on this board the find would have been quite a bit more remarkable, and as I learn more about the hobby, the find takes on more and more meaning.

Which brings me (finally!) to my point, and my question. I helped the friend sell some of the cards, (as he was older and couldn't really care less about the cards, but really needed the money.) While helping him, I sent a bunch of the cards to SGC. 100 cards, to be precise. And 97 of them came back graded. Three came back trimmed. Now, I know this hoard was never disturbed after the Thirties, but anything could have happened before then.

Here's the question -- and I don't have a scanner, which makes the whole discussion pretty academic -- but is it possible these cards WEREN'T trimmed? All three were HOFer T206s (Cobb, Crawford, McGraw) ... so I guess someone might have trimmed these way back in 1915, just because they were popular and maybe the cards were dinged or something, but I don't see why it would only be three cards out of the (literally) hundreds. And here's the real kicker. The Cobb (red port.) does seem a tiny bit short ... but it's also WIDE. Is that normal or common? It's a tiny fraction wide ... just about as far too wide as it is too short. We are talking about a fraction of millimeters, it seems to me. If backs matter, it's a Sweet Cap. Pretty much everything in the hoard was Sweet Cap, Ramly, or Mecca.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

[Archive]

Posted By: BRIAN

I have had the same problem. I purchased 40 t206's in 1986 from a little old lady who's husband collected them. i sent 36 cards to sgc in 1996, 32 were graded and 4 came back with evidence of trimming. I am certain none were trimmed, but i also own several psa 8's, that i beleive have been trimmed. Keep sending in the cards you feel are legit , eventually I bet you receive a grade. be well brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Ephuspitch

Well, from what I've learned on this board, I can just send them to a fly-by-night company, and they'll get graded for sure ... or I can even make up my own grading company within a day or two, and they'll get 10s.

I don't really care so much about the grade, and I'd only send them to SGC, anyway. But I'd sure like to know how they could be a little wide and a little short.

It is a little strange to be so confident that they weren't "trimmed", when the fact remains ... they are a little short.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

Just as medical schools would rather reject potentially good doctors rather than admitting a potentially bad doctor -- the grading companies would rather reject an authentic card than encapsulate a questionable card.

[Archive]

Posted By: BRIAN

I've seen t206's that are short that look much better than oversized cards that have been trimmed. Until a few years ago I never even considered that some t cards had been trimmed. I can't help but wonder, how do we really know what size they were intended to be?
we know that american beauty cards are slimmer due to a smaller package,but how do we know some factories didn't cut there cards shorter than others? I doubt quality control was a high priority.
As far as grading companies go, I believe they grade everything that measures to a certain standard, and everything else they considered trimmed. Only pro seems to slab a card they know to be trimmed. I remember buying alot of oversized cards in the past, but very few these days, in fact most of the cards I have purchased unslabbed appear smaller.
I will continue to collect what I like small, tall or in between, buy the card not the holder.
be well brian

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I have an e96 Baker that is wide and short, but it's so beat up that I know there was no incentive to trim it. Same with a few t206's - the "Bender throwing" cards seem to often be wide. Maybe they were positioned on the edge of the sheet. I have another t206 that is wide and short, but appears to have been hand-cut.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I have an article (I think) coming out in the next VCBC on this situation. Here is an excerpt:

I sometimes feel that the grading services must decide that some day, say a Monday, is trimmed card day and that every tenth card submitted that day will be kicked back as altered. I submitted a partial set of N28 cards to SGC for grading. They refused to grade or encapsulate one, the Jack Dempsey, claiming that it was trimmed on the upper edge. The card was returned to me ungraded as trimmed. I was rather surprised by their determination that the card was altered since I had purchased the card from Kit Young and had carefully inspected it when it arrived, and was therefore reasonably certain of its status. Also, we are not talking about a high-end card that someone would trim to get that extra push to the “investment grades”; it was a collector’s grade vg card because of minor back damage from album removal that I wanted graded only to have a fully graded set for display purposes. The trimmed determination just made no sense. Since I was convinced that SGC was wrong and did not want to spend a full grading fee plus shipping for a review that I doubted would be unbiased, I decided to submit the card with a new order. If they really have an expertise in grading vintage cards, surely the folks at SGC would see the same evidence of trimming the second time around. The card was returned to me the second time, only encapsulated and authenticated as an 1887 A & G card grading “40” (very good). I guess it arrived on “open your eyes a little wider” Tuesday.

Just after the N28 Dempsey incident, I submitted a beautiful T218 Mike (Twin) Sullivan that I purchased at the National in 2000. It too was returned ungraded, supposedly because of trimming. I decided to resubmit the card with a new order. I resubmitted the card in a batch of T218 cards and lo and behold, it is now graded a near mint 84 (see the slab), which means that SGC decided that month that the card is genuine and unaltered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Hodes

I have had the same sort of concerns about getting cards back that I knew were not trimmed.
What I have gleaned from this is that:
1. With high dollar vintage cards (especially the HOFers) the graders (here I am talking about PSA/SGC) are particularly weary of grading cards that seem a bit off.
2. Rejecting a card for "Evidence of Trimming" really means that the card doesn't measure up (even given a slight margin of error for Vintage cards). Perhaps the proper designation would really be "miscut"
and to subtract for the card being a bit off-sized. The graders however err on the side of caution and simply refuse to grade the card. Ultimately the reasoning is that it is better for everyone (but not the unlucky soul submitting the card) to be conservative and not grade such a card.....
Such a card could be authenticated (but I don't want to go back there)

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

Brian wrote:
"Rejecting a card for "Evidence of Trimming" really means that the card doesn't measure up (even given a slight margin of error for Vintage cards). Perhaps the proper designation would really be "miscut"
and to subtract for the card being a bit off-sized"

Actually, Brian, "Evidence of Trimming" means just that. PSA specifically has a designation called "Minimum Size Requirement" for cards that are factory cut short. They will not grade those cards, but they do specify that it is factory short and not trimmed.

Similary, SGC has a few rejection codes. S for "Too Small to Holder (Short)"

It is an unfortunate situation, but I think I would rather have a few honest cards not get graded than have any (more) trimmed cards actually make it to the holder.

[Archive]

Posted By: Sonny Tutor

While your analogy relating card encapsulation to medical school admission is good in that it explains your point, it is, unfortunately, inaccurate with regard to the medical admissions process. All too often highly qualified, more personable individuals are looked over in the process of selecting classes with more esthetically pleasing demographics.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

Though I take everything in stride, that I was just denied admission to my MBA school of choice (again) always makes that little itch in the back of my head act up when it comes to pleasing the demographics environment.

This while working for a Big 5 company where a significant number of the summer promotions in our group are based on the minority status of said promotees in favor of more-qualified individuals who happen to be white and male.

Shrug!

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

I've always been told that cards were trimmed early in order to get them to fit into something, a row in a box, or a holder of some sort.

But it does indeed sound like the grading companies were being a little too cautious, since most of your finds were graded, and only a few declared 'trimmed."

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

I guess we aren't talking about them, but I bought a PSA 6 N162 Brouthers from Shoebox (Wayne Varner), for $2200--is that something a grading company should be careful of? YES. When I took it out of the holder, I found three corners were indeed ex-mint, card was clean and well-centered--but one corner was, like--ex. It was mainly the lack of symmatry that bothered me. The other corners weren't razor-sharp, but just came to nice, quiet points, but the one--no point.

Why did I buy it? I wanted a Brouthers, had a new credit card, and it was the first card in W.V's catalogue. And, of course, in the holder, it looked fine. It still doesn't look bad, but, um, not quite right.

[Archive]

Posted By: vorthian

<< The card was returned to me ungraded as trimmed. I was rather surprised by their determination that the card was altered since I had purchased the card from Kit Young and had carefully inspected it when it arrived, and was therefore reasonably certain of its status. >>

Deja-vu. I purchased a Ruth from Kit Young and it came back as "evidence of trimming" by SGC at the recent Rosemont show. I knew the card had problems, but was bored and at the show - so what the heck.

Thanks to his awesome return policy, I'm still a customer.

[Archive]

Posted By: harry

The grading companies do not know when they are grading a totally "fresh" group of "t" cards from one that has been put together over time, piece by piece. I am sure that many times, they are on the fence about whether a card has been altered or not. While most altering is probably pretty clear cut, I bet that sometimes is is questionable and hard to figure out. One day it comes back trimmed, another day it gets graded. It is just the nature of the beast with any third-party service that is ultimately subjective as humans are involved.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I pointed out not to flag Kit Young as good or bad but to show that SGC couldn't get its story straight from month to month. Why was it bad one day but good a month later? I also think about the ramifications of these determinations. There were some real slap fights on the old Full Count board between buyers and sellers of raw cards over grading service opinions; it concerns the heck out of me that these opinions are being treated as gospel when they are anything but.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric

I find this to be an interesting topic. To even have a remote chance of accurately determining whether or not a card has been trimmed, one would have to obtain the machine(s) used to cut the card. After the machine was obtained, one would have to cut a card with the device and compare the cards' striation marks to the striation marks on the card in question. This comparison would have to be done under a microscope. At this point, you MIGHT be able to determine whether or not the striation marks on the card in question are the same as those on the card you've just cut. Does this sound ludicrous? You bet! Why?? Well, although this is a valid method of examining a card for evidence of trimming, it is doubtful that the original cutting machines are still in existence. In addition, as the cards age, the paper begins to deteriorate (particularly along the edges), making it even harder to examine the striation marks. You would also have to take into account how sharp (or dull) the cutting blade is. There are a lot of factors to consider when it comes to card trimming. I have seen dealers at card shows pull out a magnifier, observe paper fibers sticking up, and proclaim that the card has been trimmed. This is NOT an accurate way to determine if a card has been trimmed!!
You might be able to determine if a card was trimmed by a pair of scissors by looking for a crimp mark on the card. This should be done under a microscope. As the pair of scissors first comes down on the card, it has a tendency to pinch the cardboard and may leave a crimp mark.
I too have seen cards from age old collections where the cards are a variety of sizes and have been stored in a cigar box for years. It is doubtful that the cards were ever trimmed. The quality control back then was probably not as strict as it is today. I'm sure those manufacturers were more interested in selling a product and less interested in the long term value of the cards.
As for the grading companies, they probably use a sizing template and if the card falls short of the allowable tolerance, they assume (for business reasons) that it shows evidence of trimming. In reality, it is virtually impossible to determine whether or not a card has been trimmed. And so, the card companies are playing it safe. If you're not sure, then why not err on the conservative side? I admit, however, that it is inconsistent for a company to say at one time that the card looks trimmed and in a subsequent submission say that it's not. If I received a card from a company that had been marked "evidence of trimming," then I'd ask for specific proof. The fact that the card is shorter than the standard dimensions is only one aspect to consider when trying to determine whether or not a card was trimmed.
Bottom line is....buy what you like.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

would there still be incentive to trim cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

Runscott....my recollection is that the grading companies came about in the late 1980's/early 1990's specifically because many high $$$ collectors were purchasing Mantle/Ruth/Cobb, etc. cards that had been trimmed/altered, etc. and they wanted another professional opinion before spending serious $$$ on cards.

I do agree that it seems to be a vicious circle in some ways, though...

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Very good points. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. As a relative newcomer to collecting I have a harder time with trimming than I do with most other things. Case in point. I am buying a D359 Williams Baking card (from FKW- sorry Scott couldn't wait for ya) and it has a very close top border. I mean it is about 1/32 of an inch or less. As always Frank is the ultimate collectors friend and has said he will let me send it in and if it comes back trimmed he will give me a refund. He is actually sending me the card before I pay for it (but that's beside the point). He asked if I had another card to look at to compare. I had forgotten I had a D359 Rochester card but then checked it. One small thing is that when I won the card on ebay a few years ago it came with a note that said that this card was this persons grandfathers and he had gotten it as a kid (I presume from a loaf of bread) so please take care of it......This note was sent after the auction so I know it was not hype (why would it be?) I compared the scan Frank sent me to my card and looked for correct measurements in the SCD. Guess what? My card is cut very close at the top, has rounded corners AND is a tad smaller than the card Frank is sending AND smaller than the dimensions stated in the SCD. I will inspect the new card when I get it but if it is not wavy and doesn't have any of the indentions mentioned, I will probably hang onto it. I am getting to see Jays and some others points about some of this stuff. I think I am becoming a better judge (after seeing enough cards) than what a grading company is !! With all that said I still do not mind the verification although size of most old issues concerns me less than those darn wavy cuts....regards all...

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Indirectly, I would say Jim Copeland is responsible for most the trimming that went on in the late 80s. He was paying such insanely high prices for high grade cards that every dealer without a soul was trimming his HOFers and desirable cards to sell to Copeland. It's becuase of this that the grading companies finally had some momentum to get going and stay in business.

This is main reason we have all these 'short' cards now

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

even if (o if only!) all grading companies were disallowed. I've bought very few graded cards, but that didn't stop me from getting trimmed ones! Look a little nicer, bring in a little more dough.

And it's not just the near mint cards that get trimmed! A vg-ex HOF card is also worth trimming. If you can get away with it.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

You cannot definitively say whether a card that is within 1/32" of standard is trimmed, for the most part. Now, the Dempsey I got PRO graded 7.0, after I cracked it out, I could evaluate the edges under a magnifier and it was clear to me that the left edge was trimmed. The cardboard was not aged on that edge like it was on the other three edges.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken W.

I don't mean to bring the level of this discussion down to the era of "modern" cards-- the 1960s--but I need some help. I have written to PSA, Sy Berger, and talked to SGC about my Topps cards from the '60s, mostly all-star rookies, WS subsets, a '68 set, and '64 Giants, and no one will give me a number, such as 1/32nd or 1/64th, which I should accept as a variation from the supposed intended size of manufacture, without worrying about trimming. I have many commons worth less than one dollar that are short 1/64th or less, usually l to r. No one would go to the trouble to cut these cards, would they? I have several PSA graded '68 HOFers which are 1/64th short, but they are graded so I shouldn't worry about them being cut, right? I have collected these cards over 14 years and acquired them from many sources, and they display the same characteristics generally. Doesn't that support the conclusion that size variances resulting from the manufacturing process were common-- I mean not everyone is cutting cards are they? Does anyone know what tolerances Topps had, if any? Are there any articles on this subject written by an authority on the manufacturing process and tolerances? For cards I am buying now I have finally made the decision that if the card is short 1/64th or less, and doesn't show signs of trimming, i.e. clean edges when the others are dull, wavey edges, and such, I will accept the card as unaltered. By worrying about cards being short by 1/64th am I being paranoid? Any comments on this approach or information on this issue would be appreciated.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

I don't think many people are as concerned about 1/64 of an inch with 1960s Topps cards. A few thoughts of my own:

A) Yes -- there are variations in card size. However, the concern is that as time passes, there will be more of the "shorter, but normal" sized cards and less of the "larger, but normal" sized cards. This has pretty much evidenced itself in T-206 and other arenas. It is something to stay abreast of.

B) It seems like size variations with Topps was often associated with the distribution method. I have seen and handled quite a few examples of high-grade cards from the early 1960s that measured short -- but seemed to be consistent in size with other presentation sets. Thus, presentation sets are at least one source of cards that sometimes measure shorter than wax sources. I have heard similar things being said of some vending cards -- though that varies by year.

C)People will trim commons -- sad as it may be. Even mid-1960s commons in high-grade can command huge premiums on Ebay and other online auctions/sources. If someone can professionally trim a 1960s common card and get it past the graders -- there is a large profit potential there. So please just continue to be aware and to inspect all cards you purchase -- graded or otherwise.

D)I don't know many collectors who actively worry about cards that are 1/64 short -- if the card passes all of the other tests for alterations. Even 1/32 often is of little matter to many collectors. I think that once you get to 1/16 or more, though, esp. with 1960s Topps cards, it becomes an exponentially large concern.

Ken -- it seems like in general you are a pretty educated collector and could differentiate easily between many altered and original cards. Sometimes that paranoia is the best thing to have going into transactions. I assume that you also keep a small stash of altered cards in your collection to use as a benchmark from which to compare examples that you believe to be genuine.

Happy collecting.