Trimming experts: your time to shine. Opinion?

[cardsagain74]

Thanks guys.

Bob, I've seen that happen too, especially with '67 high numbers.

John, I thought it looked fine as well. But when half a dozen commons all measure longer than your two HOFers, that always causes a double-take!

The Jackie R. is going off to PSA soon, so that one will be answered for certain soon enough. Well, unless they are still giving too many number grades to short cards there

[Leon]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Thanks guys.

Bob, I've seen that happen too, especially with '67 high numbers.

John, I thought it looked fine as well. But when half a dozen commons all measure longer than your two HOFers, that always causes a double-take!

The Jackie R. is going off to PSA soon, so that one will be answered for certain soon enough. Well, unless they are still giving too many number grades to short cards there

It is their opinion, not certain.

[Jayhawke]

I can’t answer specifically about this card, but I have many ‘75’s that are short.

[JollyElm]

It may be a sort of 'only time will tell' scenario. If you continue to find other cards (hopefully non-stars) that match the short size, it may simply be a production anomaly. Unfortunately, having just two is too small a sample size. Maybe post the exact size your cards are and see if anyone here has matching shorties that also don't appear to have been trimmed??

[Bocabirdman]

I believe the '55 Bowman TV Sets are the worst for inconsistent sizing...

[jchcollins]

Factory normal differences of 1/32 to 1/16 are more common that many collectors think for vintage cards. I understand we are all paranoid / hyper-sensitive to trimming scandals lately, but it is true that cards coming out of the packs slightly different sizes back then was a thing. I have some '58 Topps cards that are too big, and will not fit in One Touch holders. Also recall that cards from vending (maybe not as far back as the 50's...but certainly in the 60's and later) notoriously can be found slightly short a large percentage of the time as well.

That card might get a straight grade from PSA, or it might get a Min Size. To me the latter is preposterous; PSA is saying they believe the card is factory cut and not trimmed, but is short. If there is no evidence of trimming and they cannot say it's not factory, why not just grade it? That seems to be an approach that SGC is much more lenient with. To me that just makes more sense.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

That card might get a straight grade from PSA, or it might get a Min Size. To me the latter is preposterous; PSA is saying they believe the card is factory cut and not trimmed, but is short. If there is no evidence of trimming and they cannot say it's not factory, why not just grade it? That seems to be an approach that SGC is much more lenient with. To me that just makes more sense.

They won't because of the trimming paranoia you mention in the first part of the post.

Most people here get that quality control was variable on older cards, and that it's how the edge compares to other factory cut edges.

But most collectors would see it short in the holder and assume that different size=trimmed=graders have no clue.
(Many of them don't, but the short card or the one with weird cuts isn't always trimmed. )

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I believe the '55 Bowman TV Sets are the worst for inconsistent sizing...

True. Both PSA and SGC will give them number grades in a variety of sizes. They were a weird size fully cut to begin with from Bowman anyway - stand them up like a portrait oriented card next to a '55 or '56 Topps - and the Bowman card will generally be as tall, but not quite as wide. Weird.

[cardsagain74]

Since I've never sent anything in, I wasn't even aware that PSA will reject "min size' vintage that they don't think is trimmed.

Will be curious to see if that happens to my '56 Jackie R.