W575-1 Were Never Hand Cut

[Leon]

I have made this rant before. Sorry for the duplication.

I am currently having a friendly debate with someone on ebay. They said they have the highest graded w575-1 Speaker in a 4 holder. They don't.
SGC (and probably PSA) did, or do, put "hand cut" on their labels for them, which is 100% wrong unless they were trimmed. This guy is saying mine were hand cut. I have the pack they came in and they definitely aren't hand cut. SGC told me they weren't hand cut when they slabbed them and put it on their labels. They told me to have people call them and they would tell them they aren't hand cut I think it is/was their "policy." I was not happy and now people believe that misconception. ..
.

[brob28]

Will they re-holder them without the "hand-cut" designation? Might be the best course to maximize value when you sell.

[obcmac]

At least yours got the appropriate grade...baffling approach to grading these.

[Snapolit1]

Don't look like any hand cut card I've ever seen.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by brob28

Will they re-holder them without the "hand-cut" designation? Might be the best course to maximize value when you sell.

Re-holder? Not a chance with their company. I even sent the pack in with them and they still hosed the flips up!!

Mac, some of my grades, I felt, were disgraceful too.


.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Definitely a few W sets that aren't actually strips. Very frustrating!

[brianp-beme]

I believe that there are probably multiple different issues that are all lumped together under the W575-1 umbrella. I believe Leon is (partially) correct that (some/many) W575-1 cards were not hand cut. I also believe that some were. Here are 3 examples I have that seem to point to the cards also being issued in strip format.

Brian (the backs have been enlarged, like on cereal boxes, to show texture. Or perhaps my scanning abilities are sadly lacking. Today, and today only, it is your choice to believe either)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

I believe that there are probably multiple different issues that are all lumped together under the W575-1 umbrella. I believe Leon is (partially) correct that (some/many) W575-1 cards were not hand cut. I also believe that some were. Here are 3 examples I have that seem to point to also being issued in strip format.

Brian (the backs have been enlarged, like on cereal boxes, to show texture. Or perhaps my scanning abilities are sadly lacking. Today, and today only, it is your choice to believe either)

Those look like 2 trimmed cards and one W501? How many of these strips have we seen, if they are strip cards? That said, there is little doubt they were manufactured in sheets.
I could always be wrong, I am pretty good at it!
.

[frankbmd]

Leon,

Does the guy on eBay know what a prominent knowledgable hobby leader you are? Can he even hit a softball?

[Stonepony]

I’m def in the factory cut camp, however the top and bottom of this Johnson doesn’t look like a factory cut or a typical trim
D7558E4C-0EB2-4159-AF7E-0FAB64EBB3EB.jpeg

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by Leon

I have made this rant before. Sorry for the duplication.

I am currently having a friendly debate with someone on ebay. They said they have the highest graded w575-1 Speaker in a 4 holder. They don't.
SGC (and probably PSA) did, or do, put "hand cut" on their labels for them, which is 100% wrong unless they were trimmed. This guy is saying mine were hand cut. I have the pack they came in and they definitely aren't hand cut. SGC told me they weren't hand cut when they slabbed them and put it on their labels. They told me to have people call them and they would tell them they aren't hand cut I think it is/was their "policy." I was not happy and now people believe that misconception. ..
.

I am with yo on this one. They also do not understand the Koester Bread issues. I had one that was in a PSA slab labeled Koester bread and I unfortunately broke it out and SGC labeled it W575-1. Fortunately I saved the flip and resubmitted back to PSA and it is now labeled correctly. Ugh

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

I’m def in the factory cut camp, however the top and bottom of this Johnson doesn’t look like a factory cut or a typical trim
Attachment 532313

I believe that to be a variety of W501.
.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Leon,

Does the guy on eBay know what a prominent knowledgable hobby leader you are? Can he even hit a softball?

I am getting old. My team said I made a pretty good catch in deep right center last night, but I totally screwed up my right shoulder. It hurt then and still hurts.

The ebayer said they were on this forum., I asked for their id and they gave me a .com one. We don't allow those so we'll see. They have a variation of Speaker...and as I told them there are a ton of variations in this set.
.

[glchen]

There are some "Salesman Sample" uncut sheets out there. I remember Heritage had a pristine copy that didn't sell a few years ago. Here's my beater copy. Back is blank, of course. I won this one from an old Lipset auction. I think at the same time, there was also an uncut Koesters Bread sheet, which I'm kicking myself that I didn't bid higher on, which was in much better condition.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by glchen

There are some "Salesman Sample" uncut sheets out there. I remember Heritage had a pristine copy that didn't sell a few years ago. Here's my beater copy. Back is blank, of course. I won this one from an old Lipset auction. I think at the same time, there was also an uncut Koesters Bread sheet, which I'm kicking myself that I didn't bid higher on, which was in much better condition.

That's awesome, Gary. Thanks for sharing. What makes you think it's a salesman's sample? Just curious if it could just be an uncut sheet? Regardless, it's great.
.

[glchen]

Hi Leon, sorry, I should have used "store display" instead of "salesman sample." I couldn't quite remember what the terminology that Heritage used in their auction. Anyway, I found the Heritage listing here (Link) where they describe the sheet in detail. The scan from the auction is below. My guess is that it wouldn't be a true uncut sheet due to the top header/title line which shows it's meant for customer display or to be given to customers.

[tkd]

I think those are not hand cut in the original post. I also think some w573 varieties are factory cut not hand cut. W502 also appear to be factory cut.

[tkd]

Some cards labeled w575-1 may also be American Caramel blank backs.

[brianp-beme]

After checking my W575-1 cards, it does appear the vast majority are factory cut. The ones that are not are either obviously trimmed, like the Doak example I showed, or are the W501-esque cards that have handcut, like the Danforth I showed, or rough top or bottom borders, like my Gowdy and Dave's Walter Johnson.

I have noticed that the vast majority of the 'official' W501 cards appear to have consistent machine cut left and right borders, while the tops and bottoms quite often are rough/uneven, which would indicate issuance in vertical strips (although I have seen a few rough side borders too). Unfortunately because of the long-standing blanket designation as W575-1 cards that share similarities to the W501 cards, but do not have the numbering or designation on the top, I think the grading companies will likely lump all W575-1 cards as hand cut, because that is how it was handled in the past.

Brian

[ValKehl]

I agree with Leon that W575-1 cards are not hand cut, whereas I believe W501 cards ARE. I strongly suspect that a few of the cards already shown in this thread are actually W501-2 cards, especially Brian's Gowdy card and Dave's WaJo card. A W501-2 card is identical to a W501-1 card except that "G-4-22" and the card number do NOT appear in the top border of the card. Because the TPGs have yet to grasp that there is such a thing as a W501-2 card, the TPGs erroneously identify these as W575-1 cards. In his very informative OC article (Issue #26 - Fall 2022) about the E121 and related issues, Rhett Yeakley described the differences between a W575-1, a W501-1 card, and a W501-2 card, and below are the relevant pages from his article.

I have noticed another way, in addition to those mentioned by Rhett, to distinguish a W501-2 card from a W575-1 card. On a W501-2 card (as well as on a W501-1 card), the rectangular box in which the player is pictured is about 1/16" smaller in both height and width than the rectangular box of a W575-1 card. This size difference is true for the W501 (both versions) and W575-1 cards of the same player in my collection (WaJo & Sam Rice), hence I assume this size difference is true for all W501 and W575-1 cards.

[ullmandds]

My only w575-1. Been a psa 2 as long as I’ve owned it.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

My only w575-1. Been a psa 2 as long as I’ve owned it.

Nice card, Pete, but are you sure it is a W575-1, and not a W501-2? Just asking, as I suspect it's a W501-2.

[rhettyeakley]

That Cobb with the grainy image quality is what i referred to as W501-2 in my article, which i feel is a much better description than lumping them into the W575-1 category.

I can go off at length about these issues if anyone is really interested.

[ullmandds]

Thats why I posted as I was unsure. Now I see the border as a give away its w501-2.

[ValKehl]

When I got this W501-2 of WaJo on eBay in 2015, a previous owner had already written the card number "17" in pencil in the upper right corner, perhaps after reading Rhett's OC article.

[Luke]

Funny timing. I just got grades back from a PSA order and they labeled my Lou Gertenrich Max Carey as "e575-1 hand-cut".

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Luke

Funny timing. I just got grades back from a PSA order and they labeled my Lou Gertenrich Max Carey as "e575-1 hand-cut".

I sense the major TPGs are becoming more and more clueless when it comes to pre-War scarcities.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Luke

Funny timing. I just got grades back from a PSA order and they labeled my Lou Gertenrich Max Carey as "e575-1 hand-cut".

Jefferson Burdick would be proud. The biggest grading company now completely fabricating ACC numbers. That and, unless the Gertenrich is trimmed and it probably isn't, they got the hand cut wrong too! A potential 2fer....

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jefferson Burdick would be proud. The biggest grading company now completely fabricating ACC numbers. That and, unless the Gertenrich is trimmed and it probably isn't, they got the hand cut wrong too! A potential 2fer....

E575-1 is hilarious!

The reality is this… had Burdick seen a Lou Gertenrich card he would have given it an E-designation… just like Standard Biscuit was given a D-designation because he knew they existed. Burdick fully intended the ACC to be a living/growing catalog of cards as evidenced by him completely reorganizing the designations at one point and the fact that he left gaps in certain areas to accommodate new discoveries.

[Brian Van Horn]

I just have the Peckinpaugh properly spelled and cut, but identified as "Authentic" by SGC.

SGC,

You made an error here.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jefferson Burdick would be proud. The biggest grading company now completely fabricating ACC numbers. That and, unless the Gertenrich is trimmed and it probably isn't, they got the hand cut wrong too! A potential 2fer....

Whoops! I screwed that up. I meant to type w575 but typed e575. I guess because the E is right next to the W. So, it's not nearly as bad as I made it out to be. I just thought it weird that they have stopped labeling cards with Lou Gertenrich backs and they also called it hand-cut which we know they weren't.

I wonder if this means they will stop recognizing all the m101, e135, and e121 family of backs in the future?

[rhettyeakley]

Sounds like a data entry mistake. There is no reason to think they will stop cataloging them based in the set they are from.