1933 Delong Mini??

[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.

[TanksAndSpartans]

I respectfully disagree with anyone who has an issue with minimum size returns from TPGs. Without that, I think we'd have even more trimmed cards in holders and likely with high grades as these cards can often be very nice in terms of centering and corners (can't imagine why cards from 80+ years ago with sharp corners would be small).

I do like the qualifier idea - I'd have no problem with that, but not all TPGs use qualifiers.

[steve B]

So here's my card that was rejected as miscut. Decent but not perfect corners, within spec for size.

But the top and bottom cut look like this from the back. The result of a dull blade or worn backing strip in the papercutter.



Bounced only because I checked off the don't slab as A option. And a great example of why I don't like the straight up "A". The card is factory, and not altered. As it is, someone could make their own decision about the rough cut and if they'd be ok having it in their collection. With a straight "A" it would be assumed to be altered and probably trimmed. And there's currently a large price difference between the two.

So why just "A" if it gets slabbed, but a flip with a nice explanation if it's not? That doesn't make much sense to me.

This one is pretty near AB narrow, and is only a 40 because of a paper inclusion that allowed a tiny wear spot in the ink on the front.


Technically it makes sense, except for the size thing.
I don't have a scan of the one rejected for min size, and actually misplaced it a couple years ago and haven't found it yet


Steve B

[steve B]

I can give you the reason why an 80year old undersize card might have nice corners.

If there's a stack of say 50 cards in a box, and they're loose whenever the box is moved they move and the corners and edges take a bit of wear. Worse on the corners because the force of the bumping isn't spread out.

If they're really loose it might all work out evenly. But lets say the stack is tied with a little string. That holds them from sliding a bit like a rubber band would.
Only now the undersize cards corners might not stick out. And as it moves they don't get hit and don't wear. 80 years later the stack gets found and most of the cards are vg, maybe vg-ex. The small ones will be a bit nicer, maybe a lot nicer.

Of course they could also be trimmed.

That's why the way the edges are is more important than size. T206 were done on a guillotine cutter that leaves the front edge rounded slightly towards the back, and a very slight ridge on the back side. Had they been cut with the back facing up it would be the opposite. (Never seen one, but I have to think it's possible. ) Other cards have been done other ways and each way of cutting looks different in an extreme closeup. But none of them look like an exacto knife cut or a scissors cut.

Steve B

Originally Posted by DezHood

I respectfully disagree with anyone who has an issue with minimum size returns from TPGs. Without that, I think we'd have even more trimmed cards in holders and likely with high grades as these cards can often be very nice in terms of centering and corners (can't imagine why cards from 80+ years ago with sharp corners would be small).

I do like the qualifier idea - I'd have no problem with that, but not all TPGs use qualifiers.