Cards cut from uncut sheets

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin 

I have a question for the board for which I have never been able to get a good answer.

Why is there a bias towards cards that have been cut from uncut sheets? What difference does it make if a card was cut from a sheet 50 years ago as opposed to 15 minutes ago? As long as the card is authentic and the correct size, who cares?

Usually the answer that I recieve is somewhere along the lines of "its not fair." But since we are not taking a school test or playing a board game, that does not seem like a very valid response.

Any thoughts?

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

that is messes with the original intent of the issue.

For example -- if O-Pee-Chee cards in the 1970s were cut with a needle and thread mechanized process, the end result is that you often end up with cards that have rough and sometimes fuzzy edges. This is how OPC wanted to produce the cards -- and thus it represents their original spirit and intent.

If you take a sheet of 1970s OPC cards, and cut them with sophisticated laser (which I don't think really happens much) or other advanced technology -- you end up with cards that end up looking nothing like how the manufacturer initially made them.


Also -- at what point does one differentiate sheet-cut from trimming? If you take your argument -- a logical extension would be this: "Well, this card was originally factory oversized. Since the so-called standard size for this issue is such-and-such, I will professionally trim it down to the dimensions that it should be". That doesn't make sense to me, either.

Cards were meant to be distributed in one way -- it seems to me that anything else is cheating.

Exception: Some cards, like Post, Bazooka or Hostess or some others, were produced in such a way that the consumer was intended to cut them themselves. These cards, it seems, make sense to be cut, since that was how they were intended to be used. Of course -- I do not much see the need to today take uncut boxes and strip them away to their component parts for grading's sake....

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin

I agree with you 100% on OPC cards, the only way to get the rough edges of the originals would be to tear the sheet with your hands.

I also agree that if cards were only issued as uncut sheets, and no other way, they should not be cut down. However since all pre-1980 sheets were originally made to be cut up, the cards are not being altered any different now by cutting them, as opposed to cutting them 50 years ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

There are a variety of answers to Kevin's question.

First, realize that collecting is in part emotional and subjective-- and there's nothing wrong with that. Collecting isn't doing your taxes and or a physics problem, it is (often) paying good money for something that touches the collectors heart. To expect a hobby's rules to be entirely objective, is a mistake.

To collectors of baseball cards, the word 'vintage' is very important. If someone is collecting something from the 1950s, they don't want a 1980s reprint no matter how good it looks. A 1950s card that is cut in 1999 is not entirely 'vintage' (perhaps 95 percent vintqage, which is a lot but still less than 100 percent vintage) and, thus, it should be expected to leave a bad taste in the collector's mouth.

The card is not entirely original. While the sheet itself is original (made in, say 1954,) the final required act of production, and one that is neccesary in making the single card, was not done until 1999. ... For this same reason, Roy Huffs items are falsely call 'original', because they (the single card-like pictures) were not actually created until recently. The Reach Guide Huff owned is original, but the little 'cards' he creates from the pages are not.

These modern cut cards are rarely advertised a 'a 1954 Bowman that I cut from a sheet last Tuesday.' They are advertized as '1954 Bowmans.' If there's one thing that turns off most collectors, it's liars and people who are insincere in their advertising.

Lastly, if 'cut from sheets' gain wide acceptance, you can bet that every other trimmed card on eBay will be advertized as 'cut from sheet.'

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I will ad one more point, the point of 'authorized' or 'made by Topps.'

For a card to 1957 Topps finished card to be a 1957 Topps card, it has to be made or otherwise authorized by Topps. Put it another way, if a card wasn't made or authorized by Topps, it's not a Topps .... Topps can't do half the work, then 50 years later, and behind their proverbial back, Joe Blow finish the work and then claim it to be an 'as-issued 1957 Topps card.' .... It is difficult to impossible to determine what Topps intent in 1957 was for that sheet. Perhaps the sheet was defective and not intended to be cut up and distributed. Perhaps it was given in a frame to a retiring Topps worker or as a prize to a kid .... As such, it should not be expected that the hobby (which is largely savvy) to accept this 1999 cards as entirely valid single card. Don't get me wrong-- the card may have value and intrinsic worth and I may even place a bid on it, but this 'partial modern creation' will never claim the same value as a true 1957 entirely made and authorized Topps card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

For thinking, way back in 1989 in its Vault Auction, that it was great to stamp the back of all of its uncut sheets as being from the vault auction -- thus diminishing/eliminating much incentive to slice and dice the sheet and sell the resulting cards as original Topps product.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

A simpler way to prove the point is an example.

Say someone came up to you, Keven, with two 1952 Bob Fellers in the exace same condition and appearance(say Near Mint), Bob Feller A and Bob Feller B. The price for each is $200 and you only have $200 in your pocket to spend.

The seller says, "Bob Feller A was entirely made in 1952. Bob Feller B was almost entirely made in 1952, but a small part of it was created late Wednessday at the printer's shop down the street. I won't tell you what modern 5 percent of the card was done last Wednessday, but it's really just a minor tiny thing and I promise you it isn't a big deal."

Would you spend your $200 on Bob Feller A or Bob Feller B?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

What if both cost the same ($200) and the one with "modern finishing" looked a little better, and the seller DID NOT tell you that there was any difference between the two, and you could not tell, even with a really cool and super-powerful microscope?

That IS where we are heading, folks - technology will prevail.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin

In response to Hankron, I would not want a card in which anything was fixed or replaced, however if there was no way of telling if the card was cut 50 years ago or 15 minutes ago, i would go with whatever one was in better condition.

What I am getting at is if all you saw was the finshed product, two mint cards, both the correct size and all original, and there was no way to tell them apart, why is it important when they were cut from the original sheet?

I understand your point about wanting the vintage item over the original, and that makes sense to me. 99.9% of reproductions are easily identified. With vintage cards cut from sheets, it is nearly impossible to tell what is a modern cut compared to a vintage cut.

In response to runscott, technology is why you are seeing so many altered cards passing as original, and you are correct, it will only get worse.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

OK, someone walks up to you and offers two original historically significant albumen images of Abraham Lincoln. One image has a perfect image (contrast, sharpness, tonal quality, etc.) of Lincoln but the corners of the mat are rounded, possibly trimmed, and the back has a stain and someone has written "Abe Lincoln - 1865". He has another of the same image which has perfect corners, no stains and a clean back, however, the photo is faded, not very sharp and you're not sure if it's Lincoln or your mama. The man says your choice - $500. Which do you choose? Then he says, oops, I meant to say that the image with rounded corners is $250 and the faded image with the sharp corners is $750. Now I'm sure you grade-hounds are having a dilemma right now. My point - an original image with great image quality and content is what matters. Why is everyone so concerned with edges and corners?? In the future those kind of cards will go the way of the pogs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Ramram, for me the answer is simple. If the price was right, I would buy both.

The main difference between many early photos and trading cards is that a particular photo is rare to unique while the trading card is one of thousands on the market. With the photo it's take it or leave it. With the trading card you can wait for a better one to come along or find a better one right now.

Also, while the image is key, the overall appearance of the photo (including it's mount or borders or whatever) are important and do effect desirability.

For the record, I don't have an interest in paying for Mint tradings and, as far as photos go, grade Ex is as good as grade Near Mint to me. If a quality photo has an extra nick to the edge or a wrinkle to the far left border, it usually won't make me pay any less. And if someone says, "I have a Gem Mint 1925 Ty Cobb International News photo," I will say, "That's interesting, what kind of papercuter did you use?"

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

To illustrate my point, about a month ago I bought online two large and expensive paper photos and am happy with my purchase. They are currently sitting on a shelf in a darkened room and I have yet to scower them with a maginfying glass or close eye searching for hidden scrapes or wrinkles, and likely never will (A Gasp arrised from the CU board).

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

I bought 2 ungraded M116 blue cards on ebay and submitted them to GAI. One was a Bresnahan and I forget off-hand the other, but both were gorgeous. Both were the correct size (unsual for this set) and I expected to see both coming back with somewhere around NRMT, they are that nice. Well, both came back all right, with a tag which said the bottom had a "sheet cut." I had to call and ask what the heck that meant because all cards are cut from a sheet at one time, but the answer was that they could tell (don't ask me how) that these two cards had had a modern cutting from the sheet as opposed to a 93 year old cutting of the sheet. After I picked my jaw up from the ground, I muttered "all right" and hung up. Of course the first question all of us would ask is why in the world anyone in their right mind would destroy a sheet of NRMT M116s by cutting off the individual cards. That seems bizarre, but perhaps there was a blue Cobb on there that someone wanted and maybe it found its way in to a PSA 9 holder. Who knows?
I still think GAI is fair but this was one decision I still shake my head at.