Posted By:
Eric BrehmIt is clear that cards from many issues tend to vary somewhat in size; this is true of T206, 1933 Goudey, 1950's Bowmans, even 1970's Topps. And it is also clear that size measurements alone aren't sufficient to determine whether a card has been trimmed or not.
So I am not concerned that my 1933 Goudeys vary in size per se, in fact I was a bit surprised at the relatively tight range of tolerance I found -- for example all of the cards fell into a width range of 2.375 plus or minus 0.05 inches, which is only a 2% maximum deviation on either side of normal.
The concern here, looking at my measurement data, is that so many cards are smaller than normal, as opposed to larger than normal. As Peter S. pointed out, you would expect roughly equal numbers of short and long cards, based only on size variations that occur as a by-product of the original sheet cutting process.
In my sample of 240 cards, 46% of the cards measured the normal 2 3/8 inches in width (to the nearest 80th of an inch), while 52% measured smaller than normal, and only 2% measured larger than normal. In terms of height, 47% measured the normal 2 7/8 inches, with 45% smaller and 8% larger. So small cards outnumbered large cards by a factor of 26 to 1 in width, and by a factor of about 6 to 1 in height. This is not pure random variation, so, assuming that 2 3/8 by 2 7/8 is in fact the 'normal' size that the manufacturer intended, what explains the fact that there are so many smaller cards? What besides alteration after original production could explain this?
Looking at King's criteria of 59.5mm by 72mm as the smallest a card should be without raising immediate suspicion, I found 3 cards skinnier than 59.5mm in width and 10 cards shorter than 72mm in height. If I add the cards that measured right around King's cut-off numbers, these totals increase to 7 skinny in width and 18 short in height. Interestingly, these latter 25 cards are all different cards, i.e. no card out of 240 was simultaneously as skinny as 59.5mm and as short as 72mm. I would think that if a card were trimmed (for example to make rounded corners look sharper), that it would typically have to be trimmed in both width and height, yet I didn't find any cards that were as small as 59.5mm by 72mm in both dimensions. So that gives me some consolation as to whether some of the smaller cards I have were in fact altered.
I guess my question would be: if I see a 1933 Goudey Ruth card for sale that is worth tens of thousands of dollars, but notice that it is, say 1/32 inch skinny, i.e. that it measures only about 59mm in width, should I reject the card out of hand as possibly trimmed? Or should I at least have that card examined more closely for other evidence of trimming, before considering buying it?