REA Lot #201 - T206's - Trimmed?

[Wildfireschulte]

REA Lot #201 is a nice partial set of 325 different T206's that were collected in 1910 and "has remained untouched since assembled" - saved by the family. That's so cool - untouched for over 100 years. My issue is that the description of key cards identifies at least 8 cards as "trimmed".

Of course, we must trust everything REA writes and that the cards have been untouched - but I doubt some kid was trimming cards with his dad's straight razor. Isn't the more likely explanation that some cards were short as issued?

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by Wildfireschulte

REA Lot #201 is a nice partial set of 325 different T206's that were collected in 1910 and "has remained untouched since assembled" - saved by the family. That's so cool - untouched for over 100 years. My issue is that the description of key cards identifies at least 8 cards as "trimmed".

Of course, we must trust everything REA writes and that the cards have been untouched - but I doubt some kid was trimming cards with his dad's straight razor. Isn't the more likely explanation that some cards were short as issued?

"has remained untouched since assembled" To me, this means since it was put together...doesn't necessarily mean that every card was pulled from the pack and untouched by the original collector. Maybe he acquired them and they were already trimmed? Seems like a possibility by the wording in the auction write up.

[Wildfireschulte]

Mike - REA says "untouched since assembled in 1910" - but then says 20% trimmed. For the sake of discussion, let's believe that they are untouched which implies that the standard size (as originally distributed) can be shorter than current standard? bTW your Wong looked good today.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by Wildfireschulte

Mike - REA says "untouched since assembled in 1910" - but then says 20% trimmed. For the sake of discussion, let's believe that they are untouched which implies that the standard size (as originally distributed) can be shorter than current standard? bTW your Wong looked good today.

Thanks, K-dog! You know I only draft and pick up stud players...Wong fit the billing!

Back to REA. Maybe you are right...it doesn't seem to make sense. I guess I wanted to say what might be a possibility because of the wording. And in your defense, the write up does seem to be confusing. Probably best if REA visits this write up and revises it to make it a little more clear for the public, eh?

What makes me curious about the whole thing is how in the world do they really know that the partial set has been untouched since it was assembled in 1910? Unless the person that assembled the set is still with us, which is unlikely, they are going from word of mouth. Just seems weird to state one thing that seems to indicate no altered cards and then say there are trimmed cards in the next breath.

[T206Collector]

The Brown and Clarke portraits are two clear examples of someone playing with scissors. There is some chance they were cut in order to fit into slim binder pages, either by the "original owner" referenced here, or by a prior collector or a family heir. Who knows. I think it is probably safer to say that "The cards featured in this collection have not been circulated in the hobby in decades, if not at all over the past century."

[Stonepony]

Originally Posted by Wildfireschulte

bTW your Wong looked good today.

[btcarfagno]

My wong looks good every day.

Tom C

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

My wong looks good every day.

Tom C

That is just w(r)ong!

[1880nonsports]

going terribly Wong.....
The success of understanding most auction descriptions can be evaluated by dividing the AH's verbiage obfuscation principle (VOP) by one's probability of misinterpreting it - the more one relies on the former the greater the chance of the later. To get to what someone actually means I think rather than supposition and interpretation - looking at the cards in question or posing your concerns to REA would bear riper fruit. I've always received a prompt and meaningful reply.
I have seen a fair number of instances where cards are short and yet even with a high powered occular device I can find no signs of trimming - noting even wear/signs of use. I chalk that up to production inconsistancies - what other choice do I have? That said I would tend to shy away from a card that was short unless there were few examples to be had.
Early collectors trimmed trade cards and inserts to display in scrap books or ledgers. Later collectors often trimmed cards to fit in binders. More recently with the price escallations people are unfortunately trimming to enhance their bottom line. As said earlier in the thread it's unlikely that the cards were only from the original collector pulling them from packs in 1910's. Given that - any large accumulation of the cards would likely have a percentage of altered cards - the more recent the collection - the greater the likelyhood.