t206 size/trim question...

[kllrbee]

Hey all,
Just recently started getting into the t206's. I actually never knew anything about them until I joined this site. Now I love them and I think they are spectacular.
I have only 2 cards at this point, but plan to get at least 8 more Hof's in the near future.
I have a Cobb bat on (PSA 3) and a Young bare hand (SGC 40-3).

Im pretty sure I could search for this on the site, but I dont really know what to type in.
I have read that many t206 cards can be as much as a 1/16th of an inch difference in size, so that brings me to my question.
My Cobb is bigger than the Young (lengthwise) and the name on the Young card is much lower to the bottom edge of the card. When putting the cards one on top of the other, they line up good until the bottom where the Cobb is longer. It almost looks like the bottom of the Young is trimmed, but I have no experience detecting trimming on anything but newer cards and it usually comes down to size difference.
I read the article on here about trimming and how to detect it, but the card is in the case so its hard to actually see anything on the bottom edge.
Plus, and I hope I dont open up a can of worms here, but wouldnt SGC mark it as trimmed if it was?
Im just curious if you guys could help me out with this, as I got the card on Ebay and if its trimmed, I will return it and get a refund.
I dont want to start out my t206 collection with the 2nd card I get to be a trim job.

If you need, I can take a pic of the card with my camera phone (sorry its all I have) so you can help me better determine.

Thanks alot guys for helping out a noob.

[kllrbee]

I added some somewhat crappy pics, but its the best I could do for now.
But you can see how the Young name is so much closer to the bottom edge and the difference in size.
Maybe you guys can tell other things from the pics that I obviously wouldnt be able to see.

[novakjr]

If SGC didn't slab it as authentic/trimmed, I'd assume it isn't. They will NOT give a numerical grade to anything trimmed, only authenticate it. I've got some that vary in sizes, mostly with different backs. For instance American Beautys we supposedly cut thinner due to the packs being more narrow.

Now that you've got the pics up. Something does look odd about the Young. I can't say for certain though. Again, I'd probably trust SGC unless someone on here has reason to believe otherwise.

[KNH]

Here is the link to the net54 page.

http://www.network54.com/Index/86209

[KNH]

Also, I would recommend using SGC if getting any T206's graded. I would not use BGS.

[kllrbee]

Thanks for your input and sorry about the size of those pics. LOL. I didnt know they would come up so big.
I read that article and as I said earlier, it is hard to see the bottom edge cuz its in the case. But the edge doesnt look wavy. Of course its packed into the case, so I guess it really wouldnt. The corners look evenly worn. Im not really following the equal and opposite rule. And I cant really see the grain on the edges.
FWIW, I have just looked at some other cards and it seems like the some of the ones with a tougher back have just what I was mentioning. the name is closer to the bottom edge. The Young is a Sovereign back. Could that have something to do with it as Novak stated?
Im sorry if this seems like beating a dead horse or nitpicky, but I just would rather not start off my collection on a bad note. Plus, the card was not cheap.
Can I really trust SGC to not slab a card a 3 if it was trimmed? Have you guys ever experienced something like that?
BTW, the only graded cards I have ever owned are PSA. Ive only recently picked up some SGC cards. I would not go with any of the other companies.
Thanks again for all your input as I have only 1 day left to return the card if I have to.

[KNH]

Can I really trust SGC to not slab a card a 3 if it was trimmed?

I believe you can trust them. If I remember correctly, they will grade a T206 that is undersized by 1/32" as long as they don't believe it was trimmed.

[GoldenAge50s]

I sent in 17 T206's a yr ago to SGC, 2 of which I knew were about 1/16" short---They caught them both and gave an A designation on my slab.

That might make you feel a bit better about your card being w/in tolerance.

[shaunsteig]

The printing process of the T206s one-hundred years ago was imprecise enough to allow for variations in card size, particularly in height. The quality-control mechanisms in place then weren't as sophisticated as cards made nowadays. So there do exist variations in card size. And similarly, there's variation in the centering of the card. Your Young is centered lower than the Cobb, and the Cobb is taller. Neither of which indicates that it's been trimmed.

One point is that you can't rely on the card measuring as "regulation" size as proof that it wasn't trimmed -- you might be looking at a card that was originally slightly oversized and is now trimmed to enhance its corners and now is merely "normal" size.

I've never heard that the variability in card size, as cut at the factory, was related to the back, or the scarcity of the back. The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering.

The principal tasks of the third-party graders are to verify the authenticity of a card (ie it's not a fake or reprint), confirm that it hasn't been altered (most commonly is the question of trimming), and then if the first two criteria are passed to then grade the card numerically according to their standards. I consider both SGC and PSA as highly reliable, and so would consider any numerically graded card from them as untrimmed, which is why I generally stay away from raw cards of any significant value. That's not to say that either couldn't make a mistake. But on the surface, the fact that both cards received a numeric grade should provide reassurance that they weren't trimmed.

Hope that helps,
--S

[cfc1909]

"The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering."

Can you prove this? How do you know this?

[kllrbee]

Originally Posted by shaunsteig

The printing process of the T206s one-hundred years ago was imprecise enough to allow for variations in card size, particularly in height. The quality-control mechanisms in place then weren't as sophisticated as cards made nowadays. So there do exist variations in card size. And similarly, there's variation in the centering of the card. Your Young is centered lower than the Cobb, and the Cobb is taller. Neither of which indicates that it's been trimmed.

One point is that you can't rely on the card measuring as "regulation" size as proof that it wasn't trimmed -- you might be looking at a card that was originally slightly oversized and is now trimmed to enhance its corners and now is merely "normal" size.

I've never heard that the variability in card size, as cut at the factory, was related to the back, or the scarcity of the back. The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering.

The principal tasks of the third-party graders are to verify the authenticity of a card (ie it's not a fake or reprint), confirm that it hasn't been altered (most commonly is the question of trimming), and then if the first two criteria are passed to then grade the card numerically according to their standards. I consider both SGC and PSA as highly reliable, and so would consider any numerically graded card from them as untrimmed, which is why I generally stay away from raw cards of any significant value. That's not to say that either couldn't make a mistake. But on the surface, the fact that both cards received a numeric grade should provide reassurance that they weren't trimmed.

Hope that helps,
--S

Thanks shaun,
I think a response like that is what I needed to hear in order to set my mind at ease. Pretty much spelled out like you would explain it to a 6 year old. LOL.
I appreciate the help guys, I will keep the card.

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by KNH

Also, I would not use BGS.

why is that?

[shaunsteig]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

"The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering."

Can you prove this? How do you know this?

Not sure if you're referring to my first sentence there or the second.

As to the first -- the AB backs -- that's something that I've known for a little while, although can't quite recall where I gained that knowledge from. So I did a little search, and came across this passage from Scot Reader's "Inside T206":

• Manufacturing tolerances make exacting specification of a “standard” size for a T206 card difficult. A typical size is roughly 1 7/16” x 2 5/8”. T206 specimens exhibiting the American Beauty reverse are an exception. They were cut thinner to enable them to fit within narrower American Beauty cigarette packs.

My search, though, also discovered a prior thread on this board disputing that reason for the thinner ABs: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=122216&page=2. Regardless, the original point remains -- the ABs were deliberately of a different size, from the factory and not from trimming, than the other backs.

As to the second, since a given factory printed several different backs, it stands to reason that their technical variances were no different among the backs. The above quote could also apply. My experience is similar, at least among the "less-common" backs, although I have little knowledge of the truly rare ones. So I don't have "proof" for that statement, perhaps another board member can enlighten.

Thanks,
--S

[cfc1909]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

[fkw]

Not all AB cards are narrower, but most are. Ive had a few that were full width.

That Young sure looks short, but I guess its the original cut, SGC is good at IDing trimmed cards.

[KNH]

Bilko,
I sent about 5 or 6 cards into BGS about 3 years ago that were never trimmed but had some variation in size which is common with T206's. BGS sent a couple back ungraded saying there was evidence of trimming. There was no way these cards were ever trimmed as they had 1 owner for decades up until a friend of mine who is not a collector inherited them. He did not trim them either. I called SGC and they explained to me that those cards varied in size from the factory and that they would grade them even if they were 1/32" short as long as there wasn't evidence of trimming. We cut those 2 cards out of the BGS slabs, sent them in and they received a grade of I think 3 or 4 as SGC could see what we already knew. They were never trimmed. BGS also tried to say the one card was pressed to smoothen a crease which was not true. It just seemed like they weren't as knowledgable on grading the T206's as what SGC or PSA would have been. That was just my experience though.

[Section103]

While not expansive, I've collected 15-20 HOF T206s and sent them all to BVG without a hitch in grading. My Bender was notably longer than any other T206 Ive ever had. You could tell it was longer just by looking at it. That said, it's a lot less "risky" to grade a longer card than a shorter card and I would rather any grading service error on the side of caution than slam a slab on anything. I think BVG does fine (my experience only), but I also have little doubt that SGC is the consensus favorite for Pre-War cards.

[kllrbee]

Very good guys, that makes me feel much better about the card.

It is also good to know that when I expand my collection (Hof's to start), that when I get a PSA or SGC graded card that I shouldnt have to worry about alterations unless they slab it that way.

Thanks alot for helping out a rook at what might seem to many of you as very basic questions.

[shaunsteig]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

Nothing to it -- thanks for asking / challenging me. In the process I came to realize that something which I had considered fact (namely, the reason that ABs are thinner is due to a thinner pack size) may not be universally accepted. I'm still fairly new at collecting T206s, so I'm hardly an expert. Just trying to learn something new every day.

--S

[cfc1909]

you need to check out this site-I am not saying Scot is wrong but I don't think AB packs are thinner. I am pretty sure they are the same size as other 206 packs.The AB cards are thinner or at least 98% of them are or at least the 80 or so ABs I own are that way.
I don't think we have found the exact reason the AB cards are cut different than other 206 cards.

I am always looking for answers and trying to learn

http://www.baseballandtobacco.com/

[steve B]

Any chance you have a scan of one of the normal sized ones? I've been considering posting about a non AB card I have that's nearly AB narrow. I have a theory about the why, and regualr width ABs would go a long way toward making it plausible.

Steve B

Originally Posted by fkw

Not all AB cards are narrower, but most are. Ive had a few that were full width.

That Young sure looks short, but I guess its the original cut, SGC is good at IDing trimmed cards.

[cfc1909]

McQuillian is pretty close to full size if not full size-from what I have seen the majority of the full size cards are 350 no frames.

McQuillan.jpg

McQuillanb.jpg

McGraw.jpg

Mcgrawb.jpg

[cfc1909]

Dessau2.jpg

Dessau2b.jpg

Leifield.jpg

Liefieldb.jpg

[cfc1909]

Doyle.jpg

Doyleb.jpg

[srs1a]

Jim, My (limited) experience is similar to yours. My "large" ABs are all 350/no frame, the skinny ones are 350/frame. I've often scratched my head about this. I don't have any 460s.

Baker -- no frame (I also have a McQuillian that is large, but don't have a scan handy)


Huggins -- 350 w/frame


Speaker -- 350 w/frame