![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
__________________
http://shop.ebay.com/ramsfan29/m.htm...&_trksid=p4340 Last edited by KNH; 01-07-2011 at 01:33 PM. Reason: forgot to add link |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Also, I would recommend using SGC if getting any T206's graded. I would not use BGS.
__________________
http://shop.ebay.com/ramsfan29/m.htm...&_trksid=p4340 |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
http://shop.ebay.com/ramsfan29/m.htm...&_trksid=p4340 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. Last edited by novakjr; 01-07-2011 at 01:35 PM. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question on authenticity of T206 Mathewson which leads to a rookie grading dilemma... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 06-10-2007 07:37 AM |
T206 "350-460" Question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 03-26-2007 04:45 PM |
T206 Howie Camnitz PSA 10 question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 05-11-2005 07:39 PM |
T206 Beckley sale question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 10-04-2004 04:42 PM |
T206 Ty Cobb Question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 06-09-2002 12:21 PM |