Trimming vs "beat-up"

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Would you rather have this Cracker Jack Cobb, or one in "Fair" condition that's beat to hell but un-altered? My guess is that they both would cost you about the same.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=5148527938&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick Martinez

Scott,
I will always take creases over trimming or paper loss.

When a card is missing part of its original being it takes away a great deal for me. I feel like, I can not say "I own a CJ Cobb", I can only say "I own part of a CJ Cobb."


Nick

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Pugeda

Scott,

I agree with Nick. I would rather have a beater CJ Cobb than the trimmed one in the link. As long as there is no paper loss on front and very little to no paper loss on back.

BTW, are you surprised at the final price? I was.

Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

Like most collectors, I would like a CJ Cobb, but I was glad the price got above $1K because I didn't want to be tempted too much on this one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

It used to be that I would never buy a trimmed card. But now, when dealing with truly low grade cards, I'm much more concerned with display value. I would prefer to have a card with very slight trimming over a card with massive creases that cut through the player's face and cause a loss of color. I recently picked up a gorgeous CJ Wagner with slight trimming for $240. I'm very happy with it. The trimming just doesn't interfere with the overall appearance of the card.

On the other hand, I certainly would prefer a card with a few minor creases and stains over a trimmed card, no matter who subtle the trimming. I agree that a trimmed card is less than a whole card and therefore much less desireable. But for me, there comes a point when the card is so damaged that it loses all of its appeal, and I'd rather own a trimmed card. For me, that point was reached with a $240 CJ Wagner. I can't imagine how horrible a CJ Wagner at that price would look if it wasn't trimmed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Only a collector might prefer an authentic card which is beat up over an alternate authentic card which looks real nice, but has been modified.

Who can understand this preference? Perhaps a purist who values originality above appearance. To me, it is a question of how much comprimize is acceptable. In many cases, reproductions look best. But they are not period. For many that is important.

Then there are cards which have been restored by adding something. They often look second best. They are genuine period collectibles, but they are not totally original. To many these are acceptable, to others, less so.

Then there are cards which have been restored by removing something: writing, poor edges, corners, stains, residue, etc. These appear third best, and contain no artificial materials.

But even that modification is not acceptable to some. But not me. I accept restoration by removal. I prefer not to include these, but cost and the relative importance of each card, to the overall collection is a factor.


Actually, upon thinking about it some more. I also accept restoration by addition; particularly the rebacking of skinned cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Give me a presentable beater any day. Cards that are NM or appear near look great, but they have no character. No one really loved that card, showed it off, etc when they were a kid, it jsut got tossed in a box or whatever, or worse is trimmed. Give me round corners and some honest wear and tear any day.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.