SGC/PSA grading of undersized cards

[bunst]

I'm long time collector of raw cards and am sending some T206's to SGC for grading. A couple of cards that I want to send are slightly undersized (1/16") and I'm quite confident they are not trimmed. Will SGC or PSA automatically reject them for a numerical grade because they are too small even though untrimmed? I'm a newbie in regards to third party grading. Thanks

[53Browns]

I dont know about that but I can tell you SGC will at least put them in a holder that secures them. I have had both over and undersized cards submitted to PSA and when they came back they actually float around in there. If anyone tells you that cant hurt a card they are full of crap. It tore a small piece of a corner off of a 32 Sanella Ruth I had. I'd go with SGC if it doesnt fit the cookie pattern of the average card.

[bbcard1]

I think you are a lot more likely to get rejected it you are a small or first time submitter than someone who has a track record of submitting with the company.

[steve B]

If it's under the minimum size SGC will either slab it as an "A" or return it with a slip indicating that it was under minimum size. I have mine returned unslabbed since the "A" grade includes a lot of stuff - Undersize, trimmed, altered, miscut.....I've only sent in as specials, I'm not sure if they'd grade an undersize but not trimmed card as a card requiring a custom insert.
For over size examples they'll adjust the insert to fit, at least that's how they said they'd handle it a couple years ago when I dropped mt first few off at the shriners show.

I've never done PSA, so I don't know how they do it. Way back, I asked about cards that weren't consistent like 81 Donruss (Which should give you an idea how long ago that was) And they said they wouldn't grade undersize, and couldn't grade oversize since they wouldn't fit the holder. I think on oversize they use a plastic sleeve inside a larger holder now. Back then, it was just 2 size holders.

Steve B

[tbob]

I think the chances are almost 100% that SGC will grade a card Authentic if it is shorter than the standard listed size. I don't think the fact that a card is factory miscut will keep it from winding up slabbed Authentic. That's just been my experience.

[bunst]

Here is one of the cards. Actually it measures less than 1/16" short; closer to 1/32" Would be too bad if all I can get is "Authentic"
[IMG][/IMG]

[npa589]

Looking at it, I think it has been trimmed. The only reason I say that is because it looks as though on the bottom and the right side, there is a very very slight slant to the card. On the top and left sides, there is no slant. Therefore, the slant isn't because of centering issues.

Then again, I'm no expert.

[npa589]

I have a Joe Tinker hands on knees that I bought that is graded "A". It is not undersized at all, and is actually more full than other cards. The centering is phenomenal as well. PSA claims that it has been altered. If it wasn't actually altered, than it's an at least a 7, and maybe an 8. When I get home, I'll post a scan since, like bunst, I need some advice as well. I have stared at the card repeatedly, compared it, and don't see where it has been altered. The only thing I can think of is that it was whitened, but even that would be subject to interpretation. If it is a 7 or an 8, it hasn't been touched or held much over 100 years, so the color would be brighter.

Has anyone had success breaking a "A" open, resubmitting, and getting a grade back?

[E93]

I think that Joss card is trimmed along the bottom edge. Both it has a wave to it (left side bigger than right) and from the scan it looks sharper (no natural roll that the other three sides have). Just my opinion. It is hard to tell for sure from scans. Good luck.
JimB

[npa589]

Deemed A, most likely it is, just wanted to get some opinions from you guys on here.

[GoldenAge50s]

Beautiful card---only thing I can think of was it was oversized w/ definite evidence showing of having been cut down.

[npa589]

I've compared its size with over 100 T206 cards that I have and have noticed a couple things. The Tinker is taller than some, and if it is taller, it is thinner by like 1/32nd of an inch. Many cards it is the same exact size from left to right, AND is taller. There are several the Tinker is equal to regarding top to bottom size and there are only a few where the Tinker is actually shorter from top to bottom.

I agree that if you look at it, it looks a little undersized from left to right, but when you compare it with other cards, you'd be very surprised to see how many cards that have been graded are the same size from left to right.

It's hard for me to see that it was trimmed or cut down by anyone other than the original factory.

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

Beautiful card---only thing I can think of was it was oversized w/ definite evidence showing of having been cut down.

[GoldenAge50s]

If it were mine I'd crack it out & send to SGC--nothing to lose!

[steve B]

Tough to tell from the size scans that fit here.

The upper left corner looks slightly different. Could be the scan, could be just how it looks on my monitor, but it does look different than others.

if you scan the card at high resolution - 800 or 1200 DPI - you'll be able to see the fine details of the edges. Factory cut edges have a slight ridge on the back from where the cutting blade pushed through the stack of cardboard. That ridge also usually has very slight chipping. A perfectly smooth edge is usually from a different sort of cutter- Xacto knife, utility knife, something like that.
If the knife on the cutter was freshly sharp it can be tough to tell. And if the knife was dull, or if the sacrificial strip the blade cut into was worn the edge can be very ridged and chipped. One of mine is like that, obviously factory cut, but the ridge and chipping must have been too heavy for SGC to be comfortable giving it a number. Rejected as "miscut top and bottom edge".

Steve B

[bobbyw8469]

If it were mine I'd crack it out & send to SGC--nothing to lose!

SGC won't grade it! They will reject it with a note saying "SHORT". I know first hand! I just wasted $25 trying to get a 1934 Gehrig that I won from Lew Lipsets last auction into a holder. No dice!

[cfc1909]

if the card is not trimmed or altered SGC will give it a numbered grade. If the card is trimmed or altered they will give it the A grade.

As you can see this Demmitt is well short but not altered in any way

Demmitt.jpgDemmittb.jpg

[Leon]

To me, and from the scan above, that Joss card is obviously trimmed. Unless it's an optical illusion (and it could be) it's not even close. You could ride a surfboard on the bottom of it, it's so wavy.

[bunst]

For some reason, my scanner didn't capture all of the card (seems to have missed the bottom edge), so it wasn't a true representation. I've scanned it again with a background and now it shows all of the card. Do you guys still think it has been trimmed? Using a magnifying glass, it just doesn't look like it.
[IMG][/IMG]

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bunst

For some reason, my scanner didn't capture all of the card (seems to have missed the bottom edge), so it wasn't a true representation. I've scanned it again with a background and now it shows all of the card. Do you guys still think it has been trimmed? Using a magnifying glass, it just doesn't look like it.
[IMG][/IMG]

Yes, to me it still looks trimmed. The top border protrudes in the middle of it and the bottom one does opposite. They are not just diamond cut, as the last sentence could suggest, but wavy to this semi-trained eye.

[bobbyw8469]

As you can see this Demmitt is well short but not altered in any way

I am just speaking from my most recent experience. I will post scans when the card returns. Trust me, SGC is not as infallable as everyone here would like to believe....

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

I am just speaking from my most recent experience. I will post scans when the card returns. Trust me, SGC is not as infallable as everyone here would like to believe....

Please show me one post on this board where anyone says, or even infers, SGC is infallible?

[barrysloate]

Since you are asking, yes, the Joss looks trimmed to me too.

[bobbyw8469]

Please show me one post on this board where anyone says, or even infers, SGC is infallible?

It wasn't on this thread Leon. It is a train of thought that I have taken myself from reading various threads on this board. The most recent one that comes to mind was "Don't worry! We'll convert you to SGC in no time!". I can find others if I have the inclination and time to play scavenger hunt. I don't mean any offense to the die hard SGCers. Trust me, PSA has their fair share of problems. But don't kid yourself into thinking that SGC has none. That is all.

[steve B]

I think the Joss has a chance of being ok. A very slightly curved cut can happen, it's unusual but possible. The bottom edge looks ok, no odd transitions from worn to not worn, and the overall quality of the edge looks the same all the way across. The top edge doesn't look as good, a bit more sharp, and there are a couple quirky things to the curve.

It will be interesting to see how it gets graded.

Steve B

[bunst]

Thought I'd follow-up to this thread I started a few months ago as I finally sent the Joss in for grading. Though I was confident that it was not trimmed, the consensus from most all was that it definately was trimmed.. most notably Leon. I'm pleased that SGC found it to be unaltered and gave it a 70. Thanks to Steve B. (aka The Trim Detector) for giving me a ray of hope that the card was good.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

Yes, to me it still looks trimmed. The top border protrudes in the middle of it and the bottom one does opposite. They are not just diamond cut, as the last sentence could suggest, but wavy to this semi-trained eye.

Hey Leon - I think the scan of the raw card is bad. It does have the protrusion you mention, but if you look at the actual color border below it, it follows the 'wave' on both the top and the bottom.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Hey Leon - I think the scan of the raw card is bad. It does have the protrusion you mention, but if you look at the actual color border below it, it follows the 'wave' on both the top and the bottom.

The original scan borders and the card in the holder borders look different to me. If I had only seen the one in the holder I would have said it looked good. It doesn't look wavy in the holder while it did raw..

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

The original scan borders and the card in the holder borders look different to me. If I had only seen the one in the holder I would have said it looked good. It doesn't look wavy in the holder while it did raw..

Hold a ruler to both, and you'll see what I mean (I just tried it).

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

if the card is not trimmed or altered SGC will give it a numbered grade. If the card is trimmed or altered they will give it the A grade.

Hi Jim,

This is not what happened with my submissions this year. I sent in a bunch of commons I had from long ago. One of the Goudeys came back as "Evidence of Trimming". The money to grade that one (either $5 or $6 on a special was gone). In the same batch was a '39 Play Ball that had no evidence of trimming but came back "Does not Meet Minimum Size Requirements". They sent me a voucher for the price of that grading, since the card was not altered but could not be graded.

Cheers,
Blair