Quote:
Originally Posted by T206Collector
We can't even all agree that erasing a stray pencil mark isn't taboo. Or that soaking T206 cards to remove glue is okay. There is no universal standard. About the only thing everyone seems to agree on is trimming. And yet it's okay to cut strip cards by hand. The standard is a mess.
...
|
You know, I was thinking, and I know this is probably going to be unpopular, but is the so called "undetectable trim" acceptable to collectors in the hobby? I will use the analogy with to the so called "undetectable pencil erasure." If both are undetectable, did they really occur? This is both facetious and serious in a way. Does this card deserve to be in a card with a number grade? For raw collectors, does this card deserve to have a note on it that it was trimmed?
For this argument, I will present this E120 Ruth that was sold in REA a couple of years ago:
Link. I don't mean to pick on Rob, because Rob is one of the best, but in a way, that's precisely why because if even the best in the hobby use these words: "The trimming is very subtle and is impossible to detect without a trained eye." In fairness to Rob, he also states that the card was rejected by PSA for trimming, and PSA will never give the card a number grade. In addition, you can infer from the description, that the consignor for this card purchased it raw before the advent of TPG's, and he was never told that this card was trimmed. Therefore, if TPG's never existed, this card would be continued to be sold raw without anyone saying that it had been trimmed in the past. So the question is that if no one can detect the trim, there is no evidence of sheet cut (like the T206 Wagner, OPC Gretzky's, etc.), similar to the undetectable pencil erasure, is it a trim? Another example I will give is this CJ Joe Jackson where no trim was detected, but it was determined that it did not meet the minimum size requirements:
Link. If this card were raw and TPG's never existed, would it still be sold as not meeting Minimum Size Requirements. In the age of TPG, does it deserve to be in a numbered holder?
Back to the E120 Ruth, and you knew this was coming, but PSA did end up grading it PSA 5.5:
Link. Probstein again. It was recently for sale on ebay again here:
Link. You know it's the same card because of the chipping in the top right corner. I don't know if the CJ Jackson has made it to a numbered holder yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did, and I think it's just a matter of time. The submitter will say to the grader, I don't see a trim, do you? Nope. Don't you think it deserves to be in a numbered holder? Some grader is going to say yes. The question is what the hobby thinks.