Personally speaking I just do not see a factory rough cut as a flaw...to me it is closer to a variation but some might not agree. Print lines, poor registration, washed out color, print spots, centering or surface wear (snow) are things which detract from a card's appearance. I just do not view the rough cut as a distraction and unless the rough cut impacts the sharpness of the corners I do not feel it should adversely impact the grade.

To me it's simpler. Is the card SUPPOSED to be fuzzy cut? Of course not. Just like it's not supposed to be off center or have fish eyes or paper flaws etc. Anything that is not an intentional part of the production process should get equal treatment.

+1 👍🏻💯

I agree, but I don't.

I'm from the hometown of OPC. Growing up, we kids all abhorred the rough cuts. We thought they were kinda unprofessional as compared to the slick cards coming from south of the border. Nobody wanted OPC.

On the other hand, all those way-too-sharp OPC Gretzkys were mostly cut from uncut sheets years after the fact. You simply did not pull cards that nice from packs of OPC. For many years, you'd see people placing local classifieds to buy uncut OPC sheets. Guess what they were doing with them?

Fast forward to today, and I don't mind a rough cut. Nothing super-jagged, mind you, but that's personal preference. As some have speculated with wide bordered T206s, I have a feeling that a future premium will be placed on certain rough cuts.

Thus far, I'm not aware of anybody trying to create a rough cut artifically. Just wait and see. We'll get there someday.

I'm sure this is common knowledge to most of you, but thought I'd tell the old story about the reason for the rough cut OPC cards in case somebody was unaware. They cut the cards with a hot, electric wire device. In OPCs haste, many sheets were cut while still too damp; this is the cause of the OPC rough cuts.

Getting back to why I am on the fence about agreeing to Scott's opinion: if OPC, for instance, had intended every card to come off the production line perfectly, then yes, I would agree. But they clearly didn't care, ergo the rough cuts. Therefore, to me, a rough cut might not have been their ideal vision, but they let this slide for decades, so rough cuts were, indirectly, intentional. They released them that way; didn't bother scrapping that stupid hot wire until 1990 or thereabouts.

The hot wire story has been debunked several times.

https://forums.collectors.com/discus...-cut-is-solved

Thanks for the link. I'll be interested in reading. Local OPC employees have mentioned the wire as part of the process, so I have never had reason to question it.

Has it been definitively debunked? If so, I struggle with what I have heard locally over the years. Certainly wish I knew these former employees I talked to, but it was just conversations in passing, being local to the area. They would have had no vested interest in lying about it.

My only possible questions would then be, was the wire used initially, then this other system brought in? Or, possibly, both methods utilized at the same time? This latter speculation could certainly account for the varying quality as well, and how there were definitely more nicer cuts as the years progressed.

My problem is I can find no evidence that ANY paper has EVER been cut with a hot wire. I worked for a printing company for 4 years, nobody there had ever heard of it, not even the old-timers.

If a wire is hot enough to cut paper how is it not setting stuff on fire, or at the very least scorching the edges? I think it's an urban legend that grew very long legs.

Because the sheets were cut while damp. The rough cuts stemmed from when they were too damp, so the story goes.

But yes, it makes me wonder where all the singed-edged printer's scrap went off to!

If you've ever taken a sheet right off an offset press they are basically dry. If they weren't you'd have ink everywhere. This idea that the paper is wet enough to not burn when sliced by a hot wire just flies in the face of everything I know about printing.

These comments are hilarious

I hate to break it to you, but that ship sailed long ago.

Most Canadians actually believe that workers in the OPC London plant were slicing up all the sheets using wires! :D I never worked in the printing industry, but man, this story made zero sense to me (cutting sheets using wires ?? WTF ??) I did manage to talk to Ken McAvoy, who was the supervisor at the OPC plant from 1980 to 1998, and he told me there was no such thing.

I don't agree that those are the same card though. But I do agree that card doctors have been faking fuzzy cuts for a while.

They are the same card...https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...postcount=7827. Apparently this Moser guy has been doing rough cuts for decades.

I love the BODA, but I don't think they're infallible. I see pretty definitive differences on these cards that shouldn't be doctorable (to a standard that would get past PSA or SGC.

If the sheets were cut by blades at OPC, as is now apparently the accepted version of events according to what has been presented, this certainly still leaves me with some questions.

Why would they only cut one sheet at a time? That just seems ridiculously slow and inefficient.

If you are cutting very thin cardboard one sheet at a time, how poor quality are those blades that they would wear out so frequently as to cause such a high percentage of rough cuts? Why would they have not made a switch to a higher quality blade to ultimately save them money?

With all the OPC rough cuts, does it not illustrate that these blades either wore out almost instantly and they just kept using them, or that they wore out almost instantly and had to be replaced constantly? It has to be one or the other, does it not? No company is going to keep making this mistake for 30+ years when there has to be a more cost efficient solution which would ultimately yield a higher quality product.

That fellow who was answering the questions didn't even work at OPC if I managed to read it correctly. He worked at another local company (which is still in business--I used to know one of the daughters).

What would those be? And unless you are a doctor I would not put it past those who are to be able to do some pretty amazing things.

The back clearly has unique identifying "spots" that make it impossible to argue they are not the same card.

Your assumption is that when PSA graded this they were actually trying to catch alterations in PWCC's submissions. That does not seem to be the case with any of the thousands of cards BODA outed that had been submitted by PWCC.

It's definitely the same card. Look at the back. There are numerous identifiable fingerprint markings.

Also, what's interesting most to me is that Moser (or whoever it was) made rough cuts on the shorter edges too, not just the longer edges. Which should have been a dead giveaway to anyone looking at it during grading. The rough cuts were only on the long edges for 56 Topps, as those were the edges that ran through the dull rotary blades. The short edges were cut by the guillotine-style ream cutters and did not produce rough cuts. It's strange to me because I would assume someone as detail oriented as Moser would have known this. Was he just trolling perhaps? Or was he actually unaware of that fact? I don't know.

There is no evidence whatsoever that PSA was knowingly grading altered cards by PWCC. They are simply incompetent/incapable of detecting this stuff. No conspiracy theories needed here. Also, their records and communications with PWCC were subpoenaed by the FBI. If something more nefarious were happening between them, I think we would have heard about it.

Neither of us works for the FBI so I don't think it is so safe to assume there is no evidence whatsoever, to assume we know the scope of the investigation or that we would necessarily have heard anything about the investigation, at this point, because it is still an open matter even if it is not being worked on.

So I will rephrase my statement since it was interpreted as being stated as fact. It is my opinion, not a conspiracy theory, based solely on many of the examples that BODA provided that, if it was not that they were knowingly grading bad cards that they were not trying their best to detect issues with the bad cards submitted by certain submitters. It would require someone submitting altered cards to know for sure that they are incompetent or incapable of detecting altered cards.

I can't believe PSA is THAT bad. I have to believe there was, and maybe still is, some element of looking the other way for certain submitters.

Goldin just brokered a private sale of the card for $1.7 million.

Thanks for the update Snowman .
Some good early guesses on sale price

1.7 million, not bad.

Would it have done better at auction?

Would it have done better in PSA 10 slab??
Will it be in a PSA 10 slab soon?

I would think yes as to #2, if I am correct who bought it. Anyone would if they could. And it is certainly worth much more as a PSA than an SGC.

How soon will be a PSA 10 now be for sale? By the end of the year?

Depends on who owns it.

I think spring auction, but likely.

Older grades, the complete absence of any easily located photos and two coming from Mastronet, I have a suspicion they will not be this nice and possibly have questionable border width . :cool:

I think the question is will THIS card be sold in a PSA 10?

Wilt
 

Thank you for the update, Travis. I’m glad I’m close to right on this one:) As for those of you who keep trying to put the card in a PSA holder, it’s a side issue at best. There’s no way to know if the grader would give it a 10, because they are so poor at grading. In addition, the SGC 10 is unique while there are already 3 PSA 10s. These are a couple of reality based reasons to keep it SGC. The rest is guesswork and hoping. Trent King

A card like this would not be submitted through the normal anonymous random process, I am sure. At least from the scans it certainly looks like it could merit a 10. Even if I'm wrong about the new owner, it's highly likely the person who bought it is known to PSA and would get personal attention for a crossover attempt.

Yep , The card is notable enough That PSA would award it a 10 to get it into a PSA holder .

And why not.

Was not hard to guess it would sell for over a million. :rolleyes: I think I am shocked by how much more than a million it sold for...70% more.

I suppose it being in the SGC holder might have prevented it from getting the most it could but given that Collectors now owns SGC, the market is looking at SGC differently from what I have noticed. Prices are up on a lot of SGC material from where they had been.

GL to the new owner if they flip it soon in a PSA 10. I am not remotely in that card market but I would think there is more of a chance it sells for less or does not sell due to a reserve (hidden or not) than it selling for more. This coming from a guy who is terrified to spend 5 figures on a card so there's that.

IMo What a fraud. "Private sale" the whole think just reeks.

IMO Goldin is (still) a con man

My grandmother is silently in her grave waiting for her Don West/Scoreboard inc refunds from HSN

Edited here (under penalty of lawsuit from Ken sheer moments after I was told my "info needed to be updated" and "I wasnt the only one who had been asked")

Guessing the moderator is free to disseminate our (personal) information as they see fit.

While you are busy scrubbing the internet Ken, see if you can find this quote...probably scared them off as well

""No other individual has done so much to screw over so many in this hobby. Ken Goldin was the man in charge at the now defunct Score Board, Inc. Many believe Ken Goldin pushed out countless product with autograph redemptions that he knew he wouldn't have to honor once Score Board, Inc. filed for bankruptcy. He left collector's holding now worthless redemption vouchers for the very same product he now often sells on Shop At Home for severely inflated amounts. "

So SGC already had the buyer lined up per the article. I thought Ken was no longer affiliated with PSA/SGC? Who brokered this deal?

PSA is tied in tight with eBay and Ken is part of eBay so that is a tough one to grasp since many were saying how Ken and Nat were no longer getting along. Be that as it may, I was told the buyer of the SGC 10 is from FL. SGC is in FL so maybe they contacted the person who bought it? Bigger question is why bring Ken in unless Ken is now tighter with SGC than PSA.

This is likely going to be another one of those situations where the details, which are none of our business, never come out and all of us will start presenting our theories...as I just did. :o

It makes no sense to me. If SGC put the parties together, and there was already the card shop guy involved too, why do you need someone else taking a fee? Assuming the buyer is who I think, he's very sophisticated and could certainly buy a card on his own.

Maybe Ken paid 100K to the seller to have his name associated with the transaction so the buyer from FL only had to put up 1.6?

The card shop dude has gotten his 15 mins of fame and then some. Was his role anything more than submitting the card to SGC? Sorry if it was mentioned but in the article he was the leading role and I was not understanding why he got top billing, other than the owner not wanting his name out there.

I dunno. I guess at these elite levels stuff goes on that the common man has no access to. Anyhow, a great deal I think for the original owner.

If anyone is interested found this on another site. Looks like the new one blows this one away.

What's with that top edge.

This copy would be rejected today as min size at PSA without question. And even if they were to grade it (they won't), it's a 7, maaaaybe 8 if you're lucky. Zero chance at a 9 though today. But again, this card is not passing grading today at PSA. I guarantee it. I would put my knowledge of 61 Fleer up against anyone in the hobby. I know this set, and how they are graded, like I know my own child.

While it looks trimmed, it's most likely a factory cut. This is just how Fleer cut these. Vast majority of 61 Fleer have similar slanted cuts believe it or not. And most do not measure 2.5 x 3.5. Particularly cards 1 through 6,which align on the right edge of the sheet and are ALWAYS (yes every single copy in existence) narrow.

It's not size that bothers me. It's the "bat ear" in the upper right. While not every trimmed card exhibits the dreaded curved corner I've yet to see a factory cut card with one.

That's what jumped out at me immediately.

Bottom right seems to have a similar dynamic, although a little less pronounced.

You are not supposed to look below the label!

I am not liking the cut at all either and not sure I recall seeing a legit cut on any card that looks like that. It might not be trimmed but if not it certainly appears that would be a factory miscut.

Yes, I know what you mean. But with this set in particular (and this is the only set I'm aware of where this is true), the bat-eared cuts like this are actually quite common. I've studied this set intensely. It took me years to build out the full set with all centered copies. I stared at pretty much every 1961 Fleer card that hit eBay or auction houses for many years. They're always the first thing I search, as it's my absolute favorite set in the hobby. And I've had multiple sets go through my hands. There are just way too many cards cut like this for it not to have been a factory issue. It's the most poorly cut set in the entire hobby, that I'm aware of. I think it would be nearly impossible to tell the difference between a factory-cut card and even one that was poorly trimmed, let alone "properly" trimmed (assuming the edge in question was on the top or the bottom) if looking at scans online.

Start looking closely at the cuts on some random commons and make mental notes. You'll see what I mean if you look into it.

An intact BVG 6.5 on ebay $7850
Even if I had all the money in the world to throw away I would get this before I would get the psa 10 pictured above ,
That thing looks terrible

double post

6.5? Am I not seeing paper loss on that bottom right corner? Either that or a folded-up corner. I'm seeing scratches which appear to be on the card and not the slab, and is that a partial fingerprint over the W in Wilt? This card and EX/MT should be miles apart from each other in a conversation.

I like the card--just find the grade strange.

Agree 100% - I like the full borders , the centering and clean print .
Would be very attractive as a PSA 4 or 4.5

Hmmm. I get how sloppy quality control would result in size issues or angled cuts. Not sure I can visualize how factory sloppiness would produce a bat ear, the way trimming can of course. Surely you can post some examples of this common phenomenon?

Except my centered Jerry West :P

Probably not as many as you but I've certainly handled a lot of them including a lot of high grade raw examples that I submitted for consignors (especially the one collection that had basically three of everything) and I don't recall seeing bat-eared corners. Lots of size variations, crappy cuts etc. but not curved corners.

I have had my fair share of 61 Fleers too. I have seen legit factory cuts that leave the card too small to holder and seen many that are cut on an angle or printed on an angle. Never seen a 61 Fleer or any other card with a legit factory cut (with the card sizing or not) with a bat ear appearance on any corner. I would love to see examples and since they are common, it should be no problem. Thanks in advance!

I thought we agreed that the appropriate terminology was “telltale tit”? Why are people suddenly using “bat ear”??!!

I own this card (as well as an SGC 6). You are correct, it is not an EXMT+ copy. At least not by today's grading standards at PSA. The bottom right corner is soft, but not folded-up. The scratches are on the soft inner sleeve that Beckett puts inside their slabs. They're not on the surface of the card itself. This card would grade as a 5.5 at SGC today, and anywhere between a 2 and a 5.5 at PSA depending on which grader you get on which day. But it's definitely not a 6 at PSA if cracked out and submitted today.

I don't have scans of the bad ones, but even in my heavily cherry-picked set I have a few commons with bat ear cuts or upward sloping cuts. Here are a handful of them. And again, these are the best of the best copies I've found over the years. You could browse ebay right now and easily find numerous copies with slanted bat-ear cuts.

I actually did see it. Was a beauty. But I have 3 centered Wests now.

Here are a few more from just the first page of ebay results

Note that a lot of these if you look closely aren't just slanted or diagonal cuts. They're sloped upward or downward toward the corner.

I see the same kind of bat ear on the upper right corners of the Baylor and the Shue as is present on the PSA 10 Wilt. Appreciate your posting them, Travis. I stand corrected.

If one wanted to perform a thorough search of scans on cards from the 61 Fleer BB set they would find the cut that Travis describes on many examples. He is correct!

So there IS a psa 10?

Makes the sale even more baffling

Thanks for those Travis, interesting.

Damn, I was close. Missed it by $100K

To clarify, I'm not saying that the Wilt was definitely *not* trimmed, rather I'm just saying that with this set in particular there are a lot of factory cuts just like that, so it's not possible to distinguish a trimmed copy from a factory cut the same way we would with other sets.

There are 3. And they are almost certainly all laughably over-graded

I get it. I am not saying it is not trimmed either but your post made me at least consider that it might not be. Appreciate the education.

Sooo ... did they have an Oscar or Elgin rookie in that box or what??

Look what just crossed to PSA
 

LOL. Rigged game for certain folks.

Don't necessarily disagree but I will say that surface is freakin' amazing.

Yes, it's a gorgeous card, and probably deserving, but still, it's a rigged game and it matters who you are.

So much for all the noise about how great it looked in the SGC holder and blah blah. It seems pretty clear this was purchased because the buyer knew it would cross and he could sell it for a significant profit.

Now that’s a damn shame.

The card is incredible and deserved to be crossed. Not sure why anyone would call it a rigged game when that’s clearly the case in this instance. To me because the buyer saw the value and opportunity to cross it makes him a smart business person and nothing more sinister than that.