1951 Bowman Mantle PSA 7(OC) on PWCC tonight

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by steve B

Not one comment on how loose it is in the holder?

I know the card size isn't always about trimming, but it's small both ways.

Plus 1, this too as well....If I, as a grader, was completely confident of this card NOT being trimmed, I would have given a grade of PSA 5 or 6 (ST) or (MK)

[JollyElm]

In general, it is absolutely amazing how many cards are so obviously small one or both ways in the holder. It's almost come to the point where every single card I look at (lower to moderately expensive) could've been trimmed. It is truly mind numbing. And I'm not talking about accepted minimal standard deviations in size, I mean very noticeable thinning side to side or top to bottom (like the card at the heart of this thread). I wonder if I investigated real cheap, common cards, would I find the same size differences everywhere (meaning it was just a universal result of the printing/cutting process from the last 50 or 60 years)?? Highly, highly doubtful. Something is clearly up.

If you do nothing else, protect yourself and see how well the card you're interested in fits inside the holder.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

If you do nothing else, protect yourself and see how well the card you're interested in fits inside the holder.

Ive heard and read over the years this is not always an accurate assessment. Holders have evolved over the years. However, if a standard card does not fit into a 2 1/2 X 3 1/2 holder, I do question that. They should be able to get that right.

What are others thoughts on this statement? I’d love it if it were that straightforward.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Ive heard and read over the years this is not always an accurate assessment. Holders have evolved over the years. However, if a standard card does not fit into a 2 1/2 X 3 1/2 holder, I do question that. They should be able to get that right.

What are others thoughts on this statement? I’d love it if it were that straightforward.

All I know for sure is cards vary in size from the factory.I still have insane amounts of cards I pulled from packs myself. Over the last few years I have been slowly organizing them. When I put them into 800(example size) count boxes you can clearly see slight size differences in them. I have noticed the width is almost always exactly the same but there is a difference in the height of many of them.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by bnorth

All I know for sure is cards vary in size from the factory.I still have insane amounts of cards I pulled from packs myself. Over the last few years I have been slowly organizing them. When I put them into 800(example size) count boxes you can clearly see slight size differences in them. I have noticed the width is almost always exactly the same but there is a difference in the height of many of them.

Exactly Ben. I also have cards that I pulled from packs, and easily recall the same card from one particular set was cut to three different sizes.

Hence my question. Is this really a defined and accepted test?
"How well does the card fit in the holder?"

[Goudey77]

This is all crazy talk and half of you all sound like paranoid geeks
Cardboard could've shrunk through moisture and aging throughout the years.
All the more reason to stop caring about the grade and go for what appeals to your eye.

This hobby should be fun. Not analyzing every fiber and print dot.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

This is all crazy talk and half of you all sound like paranoid geeks
Cardboard could've shrunk through moisture and aging throughout the years.
All the more reason to stop caring about the grade and go for what appeals to your eye.

This hobby should be fun. Not analyzing every fiber and print dot.

Thaaaaaaaat's right...... Shrunk due to moisture You win for knee slapper of the day. THEY ARE ALL TRIMMED. maybe you didn't get the memo it's a billion dollar fraud.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

This is all crazy talk and half of you all sound like paranoid geeks
Cardboard could've shrunk through moisture and aging throughout the years.
All the more reason to stop caring about the grade and go for what appeals to your eye.

This hobby should be fun. Not analyzing every fiber and print dot.

Steve and Joe could not have said it better….

Sounds like a promising contender for PSA's new Ad Campaign.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Ive heard and read over the years this is not always an accurate assessment. Holders have evolved over the years. However, if a standard card does not fit into a 2 1/2 X 3 1/2 holder, I do question that. They should be able to get that right.

What are others thoughts on this statement? I’d love it if it were that straightforward.

It's important to read my quote precisely:
"If you do nothing else, protect yourself and see how well the card you're interested in fits inside the holder."

My point wasn't "If it fits inside snugly, it's good," or "If it doesn't fit snugly, it's bad." (Besides other methods card doctors use) The point is to pay a helluva lot of attention to how well it fits and make your determination from there. For instance, two sets I am always looking at are 1972 Topps and 1962 Topps green tints. With the former, it would seem well over 98% of the cards (this is an invented statistic and not based on actual research) would/should basically touch all 4 sides of the holder, whereas a huuuuge percentage of '62 GT's are naturally short one way or both ways. So, in general, if I see a high grade 1972 card that's a bit short, I would most likely move on from it. The card 'should' fit nicely, so there might be some deception involved (people's opinions may vary). If a 1962 greenie is a little short, I would be much more open to buying it. Still hesitant, of course, but it's pretty obvious that there were all sorts of problems with the cutting of those cards way back when. But...if I follow my own logic, it could still be very problematic. Say a GT was originally 'normal' sized. A serious card doctor would know that the vast majority of them were cut short, so he could do a trim job and get away with it, because it would then look identical to many of the ones already out there. Ca-ching!!! And on and on it goes...

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's important to read my quote precisely:
"If you do nothing else, protect yourself and see how well the card you're interested in fits inside the holder."

My point wasn't "If it fits inside snugly, it's good," or "If it doesn't fit snugly, it's bad." (Besides other methods card doctors use) The point is to pay a helluva lot of attention to how well it fits and make your determination from there. For instance, two sets I am always looking at are 1972 Topps and 1962 Topps green tints. With the former, it would seem well over 98% of the cards (this is an invented statistic and not based on actual research) would/should basically touch all 4 sides of the holder, whereas a huuuuge percentage of '62 GT's are naturally short one way or both ways. So, in general, if I see a high grade 1972 card that's a bit short, I would most likely move on from it. The card 'should' fit nicely, so there might be some deception involved (people's opinions may vary). If a 1962 greenie is a little short, I would be much more open to buying it. Still hesitant, of course, but it's pretty obvious that there were all sorts of problems with the cutting of those cards way back when. But...if I follow my own logic, it could still be very problematic. Say a GT was originally 'normal' sized. A serious card doctor would know that the vast majority of them were cut short, so he could do a trim job and get away with it, because it would then look identical to many of the ones already out there. Ca-ching!!! And on and on it goes...

Ahhh, got it. I was trying to better understand your comment. Thanks for clarifying.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

If you do nothing else, protect yourself and see how well the card you're interested in fits inside the holder.

you build a smaller mousetrap, they build a smaller mouse

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

you build a smaller mousetrap, they build a smaller mouse

This pretty much sums it up. Brilliant!

[1880nonsports]

simple and to the point.

"you build a smaller mousetrap, they build a smaller mouse"