Any 33 Goudey experts out there?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick McQuillan

Pardon me if this has been discussed before, but I have some questions and observations about the measurments of 33 Goudeys. I started checking on the measurments after a bought a #149 Ruth. The height was right on, but it measured just a bit narrow. (This card wasn't trimmed, it would probably grade a 2). Anyway, I was concerned about the width, so I started measuring some of my other Goudeys-about 75 of them. (I know what you are thinking-Get a life!)

The height of the cards were right on, except for two that were slightly short and two that were slightly tall. However, about 1/3rd of the cards were narrow by 1/32 or 1/16. We aren't talking about PSA8's here, but cards that would grade 2,3, or 4, with rounded corners. Many of the narrow ones were cards that were poorly centered, like the Ruth, and it seems like most of the red cards, like Ruth #149, had centering and width problems. I also measured an SGC 40 Waner, which was red with fair centering, and it was narrow, a PSA 1 Bengough, also red, but well centered, measured correctly.

I know that 75 cards is a small sample, but is there a reason why I am finding red cards with centering and width problems? Is it because I am too cheap to buy well centered higher grade cards? Has anyone else had any experience with inconsistancies in measurements with the Goudeys? Mine were all raw except for the two that I mentioned, but perhaps someone has some graded cards that are slightly narrow.

Just curious,

Rick

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Cline - RC

I'm definitely not an expert, but I just checked about 100 cards and they seem pretty much on the 2 3/8" width. Some may be 1/32 or less off but I have them in sheets and didn't take them out to measure.

I'm sure there are others here who have studied the '33 Goudey set more thoroughly than myself and we'll see what they have to say.

Edited to say: I have checked another 45 or so and it appears maybe 5 could be 1/16 more narrow. Of course my eyes are starting to go buggy at this point, so we must take that into consideration.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

I have a complete set of 1933 Goudeys, all graded PSA 7 or 8, and I have taken the trouble to measure all 240 of them. I estimated the width and height of each of the cards to the nearest 1/80th of an inch, using a ruler graduated in 1/40th of an inch increments. Here is what I found:

* On average, the cards measured 2.365 by 2.866 inches; this is an average deviation from the presumed nominal size of 2 3/8 (2.375) by 2 7/8 (2.875) inches of about 1/100th (0.01) inch short in each dimension.

* Card width ranged from a minimum of 2.325 inches to a maximum of 2.413 inches, a span of at most 1/20th (0.05) inch on either side of nominal size.

* Card height ranged from a minimum of 2.825 inches to a maximum of 2.925 inches, again at most 1/20th (0.05) inch on either size of nominal size.

Conclusion from this sample of 240 cards: 1933 Goudey cards do vary measurably in size in each dimension, but by less than 1/16th of an inch smaller or larger than 'normal'.

One thing I noticed is that cards that were more off-size in either width or height (say by more than 1/32 inch from nominal) were generally normally sized in the other dimension; i.e. I didn't find any among the 240 cards that were that much off-size in both dimensions simultaneously.

I did not try to correlate size variations with card series (i.e. production sheet) or any other attribute. I doubt whether red cards will tend to have more size variation than those of any other color, but you never know.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Eric, that's great info and a lot of work! I'm sure that took a lot of time to carefully measure every card that closely. I measure my cards in cm, so now I've gotta go convert your numbers to cm I've always thought that the cards should measure at least 5.95cm (2.343 inches) L/R and 7.2cm (2.835 inches) T/B. Anything shorter/skinnier than that I'm suspicious of, although it doesn't mean a card that measures larger isn't messed around with.

A couple of cards stick in my mind as usually being skinny - 88 Russell Rollings and 71 Robert Burke. Anyone care to share the width of their 88 and 71 cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Cline - RC

I'm also impressed with Eric's meticulous and patient measuring...I used a ruler!

My #88 Rollings looks to be a hair short of 2 3/8", the #71 Burke looks right on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

My #71 Burke and #88 Rollings both measure 2.3625 inches in width, i.e. 1/80th (0.0125) inch shorter than the nominal 2 3/8 (2.375) inches. So in my sample (based on rounding off to the nearest 1/80th inch), where I found that cards are 0.01 inch shorter than expected on average, that deviation for those two particular cards is in fact about average. But I don't have other Burke and Rollings cards to compare them to.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick McQuillan

Thank you all for taking the time to measure your cards and share your information. I don't have #71 or #88, so I can't help with those.

I will have to do some research about printing methods and where particular cards were placed on the uncut sheets and maybe I will get some clues.

Rick

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

There was a discussion here a while back about how the placement of cards on a production sheet, and/or the precision of the cutting process used to produce the individual cards, might result in certain cards tending to be off-center, as well as cards at the edges of the sheets being either smaller or larger than normal. That certainly could be the case with 1933 Goudeys.

Going back to the measurements I did of my Goudey cards, another way to look at the data would be in terms of the actual distribution of the card sizes, as opposed to the average, minimum, and maximum sizes I listed previously. Though I estimated each card's dimensions to the nearest 1/80th (0.0125) inch, for the purposes of tallying the distribution given below, I grouped the card size estimates into the more traditional powers of 2 units (1/64th, 1/32nd, 1/16th inches). Again, no card in the 240-card sample measured as much as 1/16th inch smaller or larger than the nominal size in either dimension.

In terms of card width (nominal size 2 3/8 inches), out of 240 cards:

7 were between 1/32nd and 1/16th inch short (2.9%)
60 were between 1/64th and 1/32nd inch short (25.0%)
58 were between nominal size and 1/64th inch short (24.2%)
110 were nominal size (to the nearest 1/80th inch)(45.8%)
4 were between nominal size and 1/64th inch long (1.7%)
0 were between 1/64th and 1/32nd inch long (0.0%)
1 was between 1/32nd and 1/16th inch long (0.4%)

In terms of card height (nominal size 2 7/8 inches), out of 240 cards:

18 were between 1/32nd and 1/16th inch short (7.5%)
45 were between 1/64th and 1/32nd inch short (18.75%)
46 were between nominal size and 1/64th inch short (19.2%)
112 were nominal size (to the nearest 1/80th inch)(46.7%)
15 were between nominal size and 1/64th inch long (6.25%)
3 were between 1/64th and 1/32nd inch long (1.25%)
1 was between 1/32nd and 1/16th inch long (0.4%)

<edited to add additional data>

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Eric what is your technique? I find it impossible to measure a card accurately in a holder, even to 1/16, because of the distance between the ruler and the card created by the slab. Are you for example taking an image of the card in the slab and then measuring the image?

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

Peter, I just laid the ruler directly over the slab, and lined up the tick marks on the ruler with the edges of the card visible inside. As long as I looked directly down onto the card from above (not from an angle), it seemed accurate enough for my purposes. I also have a pretty good scientific ruler marked in very small increments so that may have helped. I chose to use 1/40th inch increments for the Goudeys because that gave me an integral number of tick marks for the nominal card size (2 3/8 by 2 7/8 inches = 95 by 115 40ths of an inch). I interpolated the 1/80th inch estimates by eyeballing the half way points between the tick marks. Could be some spurious accuracy there, but it seemed like the process I followed was consistent enough to get a reasonable set of numbers.

One thing my numbers show is that there are many more cards smaller than the nominal size, than there are ones that are larger. This might mean that the actual size that Goudey was aiming for is in fact a bit smaller than 2 3/8 by 2 7/8 (but not by much).

<edited for spelling>

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Eric I suppose one could also conclude that what your data shows is that some Goudeys have been microtrimmed. IF the standard size is right, and I assume it is based on the size of uncut sheets, there should be equal numbers of short and long cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

Peter you may well be right that many Goudeys are micro-trimmed, especially given that the ones I measured were in the higher grades. And of course cards that appear to be normal size could be ones that were initially cut large and then later trimmed. Makes me nervous. Still hard to be believe though that such a high percentage of the cards I have were in fact trimmed (about 25% of them measured 1/64th inch or more short in at least one dimension). Certainly possible though.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Well Eric I have no knowledge, but certainly there are people who are rumored to be experts in microtrimming high grade Goudeys and getting them slabbed. Makes me nervous too but this is the lot of the high grade collector, I guess.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Cline - RC

I'm not sure if this would be helpful, but the 144 '33 Goudeys in my photobucket

http://s172.photobucket.com/albums/w30/rc4157/1933%20Goudey%20Sheets/

were in a cigar box for the last 45-50 years and I really don't believe they have been altered in size. I could measure more closely if you think that would be more conclusive.

I haven't uploaded any of my "newer" purchased '33's into the photobucket as yet.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Saucier

Slab measuring...my 2 cents:

I've measured several Goudey's and like King, I prefer the metric side. I use a soft plastic ruler or a sewing tape measure to work around the contours of the slab. With a loupe I align the point on the tape measure perfectly to the cards edge. Three readings are made (top, middle, bottom) side to side and top to bottom. This will let me know if there are any variances as frequently seen in a micro-trimmed card and usually not detectible by the naked eye. As an example; the top can measure 72mm, the middle 71.5mm and the bottom 71mm, this would indicate a potenital problem. Although not necessarily trimmed, IMHO anything less than 72mm x 59mm is suspect.






Kevin Saucier

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

Richard,

I would be interested to know whether the cards you have are around the normal size of 2 3/8 by 2 7/8 inches, or whether they seem to be a bit smaller than that on average, if you want to try measuring some of them.

Kevin,

I also saw Goudey cards that varied a bit in width from top to bottom, or in height from side to side. For the purposes of my measurements, I just sort of averaged across these variations. But I can see that such cases might indicate a potential trim job.

Your cut-off of 59mm (2.323 inches) by 72mm (2.835 inches) might be a good rule of thumb for raising a red flag about 1933 Goudey card alteration. In my sample of 240 cards, I found only 3 cards that were in the vicinity of 59mm in width, but I found 18 that were in the vicinity of 72mm in height. All of the other cards I measured were at least a half millimeter larger than those numbers in each dimension (based on my rounding off to the nearest 1/80th inch, which is about 0.3 millimeters).

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Cline - RC

Eric - I'll try to measure some this evening, could be late.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick McQuillan

There is one thing that none of you have answered yet. What kind of centering do the "narrow" cards have? It seems that the many of the narrow cards have poor centering. Again, my cards are lower grade, so I don't suspect trimming, especially with the rounded corners that are on some of the cards.

Rick

[Archive]

Posted By: Louis Bollman

First I would like to say that I have been watching these boards for quite some time but this may be my first post.

Regarding the size of 1933 Goudey cards I can't say that there aren't board members out there that haven't handled more of them than me, however, in the last 10 or so years I have personally handled over 10,000 of these gems. Many (most) were handled when I worked at MastroNet and a pretty fair amount on my own. Whether the cards were in high-grade, low-grade or some condition in between the one consistancy, with regards to size, that all of collections had were their inconsistancies.

Often times when cards are already in sheets or holders most look close enough in size to not give size a second thought. When viewed in the raw state (not a molecule of plastic separating you from the cards) subtle size differences become apparent in all original collections. Some a little larger than what is considered the standard size (which most collectors don't seem to have a problem with) while others are smaller. The smaller ones are usually the source of suspicion, many times unwarranted.

Last fall I purchased a collection of 1933 Goudey Baseball cards along with Goudey Indian cards. None of the cards were in particularly high-grade but the collection did fill the better part of seven 660 count card boxes. When placed in the boxes (on their edges) their were variations in size throughout the boxes. All of the cards came from the daughter of the original owner and were 100% original. Many were oversized and some were so small I would never even consider grading or selling.

Card size, edge patterns, and surface texture are all aspects which anyone collecting Goudey cards (or any issue) should familiarize themselves with. Even if your goal is to build a graded set, you should still take the time and a little risk to buy, inspect, and hold a few raw examples. If you are familiar with the properties of the cards that you collect you will be able to purchase and own, with confidence, despite minor anomalies.

In closing, I would be far more suspect of a group of 100 Goudey cards that were exactly the same size than a group of a 100 that had a few size differences.

Louis Bollman

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick McQuillan

Louis, you first post was a gem! Thank you very much! Rick

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Louis,


Thank you for being the voice of reason. You should post here more often, much more often.

(OT alert - Now... about those Indian Gum cards... if you still have them, I'm looking for my last 4. Please email me because we're off topic for this board.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Cline - RC

Thanks Louis - Very helpful, I'm still trying to visualize holding 10,000 of these cards. I was pretty happy when I was able to acquire these.

As far as their sizes are concerned, I probably need something more concise than a ruler that measures to the nearest 16th of an inch. Eyeballing leaves a lot to be desired.

With that said and the info. each of you has provided, a number of the cards appear to be 1/32" thinner than the 2-3/8" and some are short by 1/32" to even 1/64" in height.

Eric, I would think that it is likely that your cards have not been trimmed.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

louis thanks for sharing that info about purchasing that original collection. i love to hear stories like that.

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

I still say it stands to reason that since all cards presumably were cut from sane-size sheets, if some are short, the shortness should be offset by others that are long. It is a zero sum game, no?

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Louis - Wow! Didn't Goudeys come 1 card per pack? You said 1 original owner collected over 4,000? I have 4,000 87 topps cards from my youth, but that was when collecting cards was in vogue and the cards came 17 to a pack; I can't even think of how someone would have access to 4,000 packs in 1933. I'd love to learn more about the story.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

It is clear that cards from many issues tend to vary somewhat in size; this is true of T206, 1933 Goudey, 1950's Bowmans, even 1970's Topps. And it is also clear that size measurements alone aren't sufficient to determine whether a card has been trimmed or not.

So I am not concerned that my 1933 Goudeys vary in size per se, in fact I was a bit surprised at the relatively tight range of tolerance I found -- for example all of the cards fell into a width range of 2.375 plus or minus 0.05 inches, which is only a 2% maximum deviation on either side of normal.

The concern here, looking at my measurement data, is that so many cards are smaller than normal, as opposed to larger than normal. As Peter S. pointed out, you would expect roughly equal numbers of short and long cards, based only on size variations that occur as a by-product of the original sheet cutting process.

In my sample of 240 cards, 46% of the cards measured the normal 2 3/8 inches in width (to the nearest 80th of an inch), while 52% measured smaller than normal, and only 2% measured larger than normal. In terms of height, 47% measured the normal 2 7/8 inches, with 45% smaller and 8% larger. So small cards outnumbered large cards by a factor of 26 to 1 in width, and by a factor of about 6 to 1 in height. This is not pure random variation, so, assuming that 2 3/8 by 2 7/8 is in fact the 'normal' size that the manufacturer intended, what explains the fact that there are so many smaller cards? What besides alteration after original production could explain this?

Looking at King's criteria of 59.5mm by 72mm as the smallest a card should be without raising immediate suspicion, I found 3 cards skinnier than 59.5mm in width and 10 cards shorter than 72mm in height. If I add the cards that measured right around King's cut-off numbers, these totals increase to 7 skinny in width and 18 short in height. Interestingly, these latter 25 cards are all different cards, i.e. no card out of 240 was simultaneously as skinny as 59.5mm and as short as 72mm. I would think that if a card were trimmed (for example to make rounded corners look sharper), that it would typically have to be trimmed in both width and height, yet I didn't find any cards that were as small as 59.5mm by 72mm in both dimensions. So that gives me some consolation as to whether some of the smaller cards I have were in fact altered.

I guess my question would be: if I see a 1933 Goudey Ruth card for sale that is worth tens of thousands of dollars, but notice that it is, say 1/32 inch skinny, i.e. that it measures only about 59mm in width, should I reject the card out of hand as possibly trimmed? Or should I at least have that card examined more closely for other evidence of trimming, before considering buying it?

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

Eric as there are no shortages of Ruth cards in high grade, I would just pass on the skinny ones and wait for full-size ones. I think this will give you more peace of mind. On low pops that are skinny I think you either have to take a leap of faith and decide to trust in the competence of whichever grading service you prefer, or you have to get a second opinion, otherwise you will always wonder.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Hey Guys,
I am going to get with Brian and make this one of our first archived threads.....I think the information is wonderful, spot on, and worthy of being referenced. Thanks to everyone (especially Louis and Eric) for sharing....It's the sharing that makes this place great...and will continue to make it great. best regards (I might get him to take out this response though ).....

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

As far as Eric having more cards that are slightly shorter or slightly skinner than the average Goudey, that is not suprising at all, even if you assume none of his cards are trimmed.

My reasoning is that the smaller cards are more likely to be shielded from corner wear and other damage by the bigger cards. Imagine a full set in a shoebox. The bigger cards are going to be the ones that get touched by human hands more often. A person reaches in the box and grabs a stack of cards with his fingers and palm. His hand touches the edges and corners of the cards. But the bigger ones are going to be touched all the time, while the smaller ones hide between the bigger cards. Another example is that most people keep their cards in numerical order. So the #1 and #240 card get damaged more often due to the same phenomenon.

Thus, it is my opinion that if we assume no alterations are going on, that the higher graded cards will see a higher percentage of smaller sized cards than larger or regularly sized cards because the smaller sized cards are protected within a stack of cards moreso than other cards.

The tough question is: how much of an effect is this phenomenon, and how much of it is due to trimmed cards? Sorry, I don't have that answer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

King -- very interesting observation; I'll bet you are on to something there. I've noticed that many of the Mint graded cards from the 1960's and 1970's that I've bought recently seem to be a tad short (i.e. don't quite fill the holder); that could be explained by the same phenomenon.

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

Or it could be trimming.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Brehm

Peter -- yes it could be trimming, but as you said yourself, at some point you have to take the leap of faith and trust the grading service of your choice, or have a 4th party expert like Kevin Saucier take a look. What the heck else can you do.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Cline - RC

Looking closely at the edges may provide better evidence to trimming or not.

The following is from the "Detecting Card Alterations & Reprints" section.

I believe this should be credited to DavidCycleback:

For the most part, Goudey cards (including the 1933 Sport Kings) were all cut the same way between 1933 and 1938, and therefore trimming detection is fairly straightforward. Originally they were likely cut with a machine that worked with a guillotine-type of effect that produces a distinctive edge. The typical Goudey has a flat edge - upon close examination, “striations” can be seen in the grain of the card (see image). A striation is a faint, diagonal “hash” mark.

For reference purposes, other cards of the era were cut a similar way, with similar effect - notably the 1932 U.S. Caramel cards and the 1934-36 Diamond Stars. Playballs, however, were cut differently, so it is important not to use these methods when examining 1939-41 Playballs.

Similar to T206s, the front of Goudey cards generally have, under magnification, a pronounced bevel. The bevel is virtually always found along the top edge, and usually along the left edge (although sometimes it can be found along the right edge). Depending on where the uncut sheet of cards was placed in the stack when cut, the bevel could be very heavy and pronounced, or less so (see image). It is essential, however, that you see some type of bevel - the absence of one is a bad sign, and, generally speaking, if there is no bevel along the top of the card, it has most likely been trimmed.


There are pictures provided in the link as well as additional examples of detecting trimming.

[Archive]

Posted By: lance

Paid $2000 for this. Measures correct, PSA seems to think it's trimmed...I will take offers...

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

Eric I agree, at some point it isn't worth worrying about or you will drive yourself crazy, but the fact of the matter is there are plenty of very skilled card doctors out there who have made sheetloads of money by getting stuff, including trimmed stuff, graded. I am sure you know as well as I do many of their names. Now we all can think, well maybe the other guy's cards are bad but not MINE, but it's probably wishful thinking.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Lance,

Sorry to be the bearer of more bad news but PSA got it right. There is no question that the 1933 Goudey Foxx pictured above is trimmed.

[Archive]

Posted By: lance

MW, How can you tell?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rick McQuillan

Peter, at first glance I would agree with you. It stands to reason that if 1 row of cards is cut short, then the row next to it should be cut long.


The problem is that we are assuming that the uncut sheets are the same size. Were some of the sheets narrower than others, which might make the cards on the outside rows narrower than the rows on the inside of the sheet?

Were the sheets completely flat as they went through the cutter? A slight bowing of a sheet as it is being cut could result in a narrow row and a wider row next to it.

Could the temperature of the cutting machine have an effect? When the machine is first turned on and cool, are the cutters 1/16 of an inch closer together than they are after the machine is warmed up and running smoothly?

I would love to look at some uncut sheets and take some measurments. Did any survive?

Rick

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Lance,

The contour and "texture" of the edges, in particular the bottom one. Also, the card might have been bleached or chemically altered so as to remove some staining and/or paper remnants but I'm not positive about this latter defect without seeing the card in person.

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

RIck I don't know the answers to your questions. But I would bet a lot of money there are a lot of trimmed Goudeys in high grade holders.