1933 Delong Mini??

[4815162342]

Never mind.

[Jobu]

Not the most experienced person here with TPGs, but I think they are scared to give a number to any card which is even a little bit short in either direction. If a card is small and has clearly been trimmed they slab it as A and sometimes list trimming. If it doesn't appear to be trimmed then I think you might get this situation, which is pretty much them saying "we are terrified to slab this with a number and trust our judgement that the factory cut this card a little too small but that it has not been altered." This latter situation is total bunk coming from a paid "expert" but might be what this is here.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I'm going to take a different view here and say I wish PSA (I don't have much experience with other TPG) would be more consistent on "minimum size requirement". For mainstream sets, PSA has holders customized to fit cards in that set. When a card is small, usually there is extra room in the holder. Sometimes they use a mylar to hold the card in place. Even if most experts say the card is fine, there is often at least one collector willing to call "trimmed" when they see a card "swimming" in the holder. Makes me a little less enthusiastic about having those cards in my collection - I'd rather see them slabbed as Authentic-minsizereq which apparently they don't do.


Seeing "Mini" in the listing is interesting.

[steve B]

There's a certain bit of allowance they make for sizes outside the "standard size" In the beginning it was a pretty large allowance 1/32 of an inch? I don't recall exactly. But I think that how common very slight trims became has made them all tighten it up.

SGC also rejects for minimum size, but not entirely consistently. For example T206s can be narrow but not short. That's probably to allow for the ABs but gets applied to other backs too. I had one rejected for min size that was as short as another that graded 40 was narrow.

They also reject for odd factory cuts, another I had was unslabbed with the note "miscut top and bottom" Factory but very rough cuts.

And I believe the reason is exactly as DezHood said. Even if the card is fine but factory undersize, many if not most collectors will call it out as trimmed if it's unusually undersize. And while they should be entirely about the technical stuff the company reputation is all about the perception of them by potential customers.

Steve B

[darwinbulldog]

I once pulled a perfect-looking Nolan Ryan card from an old cello pack and sent it to PSA thinking they'd give it a 10. They rejected it for the same "MINSIZERQ" reason.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I have a factory undersized graded example link to a recent eBay auction on the football board that a collector who really knows the set (35 Chicle, same time period as the Delongs, interestingly) thought was fine and I trust his opinion, but I'd be lying if I said the room in the holder doesn't bother me..... Link: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=206979

[Exhibitman]

The minimum size returns are ridiculous. PSA will also return cards with odd cuts. SGC will "A" them. Neither is a good solution, IMO. If a card is not altered it deserves a number grade, albeit downgraded for flaws like diamond cuts.

[Jobu]

+1

Perhaps the solution is something like what PSA does with cards with writing on them (MK) and the other qualifiers and then let the market determine how much less than the numerical grade cards with this designation are worth.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The minimum size returns are ridiculous. PSA will also return cards with odd cuts. SGC will "A" them. Neither is a good solution, IMO. If a card is not altered it deserves a number grade, albeit downgraded for flaws like diamond cuts.