Question about grading hand cut cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's kind of ridiculous IMO that so much value can be created by how skilled someone is cutting the card from the panel, as opposed to how well the card survived, as well as by the arbitrariness of a 10 over a 9.

https://sports.ha.com/itm/boxing/196...ription-071515

[Anish]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's kind of ridiculous IMO that so much value can be created by how skilled someone is cutting the card from the panel, as opposed to how well the card survived, as well as by the arbitrariness of a 10 over a 9.

https://sports.ha.com/itm/boxing/196...ription-071515

To be fair, how well the sheet survived is still critical. You see Ali sheets with creases and paper loss frequently, but not mint ones.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Anish

To be fair, how well the sheet survived is still critical. You see Ali sheets with creases and paper loss frequently, but not mint ones.

Agreed. But still.

[Rookiemonster]

Thanks Swarmee that’s much more clear and direct. I still don’t like it but hey someone will surely pay up for it.

[T205 GB]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

it's kind of ridiculous imo that so much value can be created by how skilled someone is cutting the card from the panel, as opposed to how well the card survived, as well as by the arbitrariness of a 10 over a 9.

https://sports.ha.com/itm/boxing/196...ription-071515

100% +1

[Leon]

Originally Posted by T205 GB

100% +1

I don't think it's as crazy to grade strip cards (with the hand cut caveat) as it is for collectors to pay high prices for them, when they are potentially cut the same day they are graded. Graders can't tell when they were cut. To each their own.
Here is a rant on some strips. When will the TPG's fall in line with reality on W575-1s, W503s and probably some others? They weren't Generally distributed as strips of cards, but are called hand cut when they aren't even close to hand cut. These all have "hand cut" on their SGC flips and not one of them was? In fairness to them they said they would possibly reconsider but why in the world put hand cut there in the first place? They even told me on the phone they knew they weren't hand cut.
What a peeve!!

W575-1s from a Chicago Newspaper and the pack they came in.

[Snapolit1]

Never really understood the argument . . . .

Cut by a machine as intended: good

Cut by a kid 100 years ago as intended: probably ok

Cut by a guy today with a pair scissors as intended: evil, terrible, awful

I know this is a classic debate, rehashed many, many, many times. Too many threads to mention. And I still don't get it. Cards doctored to death, but cutting a strip card along a dotted line is somehow disqualifying.
of a grade to many eyes.

[Leon]

We are talking strip cards not others.
I don't think I am seeing it quite like that. Sure, cards cut by a machine all good.

Cut by a kid 100 yrs ago is hand cut.
Cut by a kid a few hours ago is hand cut.
Who cares if they get graded with the caveat hand cut, I don't? Grading strip cards is fine with that transparency.

Defrauding someone by altering a card (trimming or otherwise) and not mentioning it, not good.

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Never really understood the argument . . . .

Cut by a machine as intended: good

Cut by a kid 100 years ago as intended: probably ok

Cut by a guy today with a pair scissors as intended: evil, terrible, awful

I know this is a classic debate, rehashed many, many, many times. Too many threads to mention. And I still don't get it. Cards doctored to death, but cutting a strip card along a dotted line is somehow disqualifying.
of a grade to many eyes.

[Rookiemonster]

The Cassius clay card is not even centered well. I get the the card in the top is of this card makes it difficult to cut the top correctly.

I’ve posted about 1977 Topps Walter Payton uncut sheets. This card has a bunch of uncut sheet. It is also a notoriously hard hard to find in top condition. So if someone bought this sheet had it cut perfectly and the other flaws were not present. So the card graded a psa 10 you would be fine with this? Or only if PSA put hand cut on the flip?

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

The Cassius clay card is not even centered well. I get the the card in the top is of this card makes it difficult to cut the top correctly.

I’ve posted about 1977 Topps Walter Payton uncut sheets. This card has a bunch of uncut sheet. It is also a notoriously hard hard to find in top condition. So if someone bought this sheet had it cut perfectly and the other flaws were not present. So the card graded a psa 10 you would be fine with this? Or only if PSA put hand cut on the flip?

I'd have no issue with it. None. Stupid grading system notwithstanding. Whatever a 9 is supposed to be that fairly meets the standard.

If someone meticulously rebuilds a 1965 Camaro, is it not a 1965 Camaro?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

So if someone bought this sheet had it cut perfectly and the other flaws were not present. So the card graded a psa 10 you would be fine with this? Or only if PSA put hand cut on the flip?

PSA has declared (and holds pretty true) that they won't grade it if it doesn't have a factory original cut. That's why you see so many 1979 Wayne Gretzky cards in BGS holders; they couldn't detect the cut difference between a current cut and a factory cut, so they didn't reject them.

It's also similar that you see so many 1993 SP Jeters in BGS slabs, because PSA rejects many for not being factory cut full size (2.5x3.5) and BGS does not care as much. Many of those cards were cut small by Topps, but shouldn't have been. PSA rejects them, BGS slabs them. PSA has stopped slabbing factory short 1975 Topps mini baseball for the same reason. Those factory sizes were all over the map, but PSA has a minimum size for the issue they'll accept, and all the other ones get returned ungraded.

It's their game, you play by their rules. Once you learn what their rules are, it's not too hard. But again, you don't have to play in their sandbox. There are three grading services, you can take your business to a different one, or you can ignore the grading services.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Never really understood the argument . . . .

Cut by a machine as intended: good

Cut by a kid 100 years ago as intended: probably ok

Cut by a guy today with a pair scissors as intended: evil, terrible, awful

I know this is a classic debate, rehashed many, many, many times. Too many threads to mention. And I still don't get it. Cards doctored to death, but cutting a strip card along a dotted line is somehow disqualifying.
of a grade to many eyes.

The cut is part of a card and its manufacture. If the card was cut recently it's not entirely vintage.

I made the same argument about modern card cut from sheets on the CU board (and most agreed with me). The cutting is an integral and necessary part of the single card's manufacture/production, so if the sheet is cut recently the cards are in part recent productions. If you want to label them "Vintage cards recently cut from sheets" that is an accurate description, and collectors can treat them as they wish. If a grader holders recently sheet cut (but not disclosed as recently sheet cut) vintage cards, that is problematic and deceptive. As one particular major grader did (still does?) this, this wasn't a theoretical question.

Also-- and whether for good or ill, I'm not here to debate--, condition is an integral part of a card's value, and it's very easy to get better condition if you're cutting the card recently. At the least, the modern cutting should be (and would be) considered when valuating the grade, because, obviously, it's harder to find mint edges and corners on a 1910 cut card rather than one cut last Tuesday. I won't debate or address here whether a recently cut strip card is good or bad, but that it was cut recently should be disclosed because it influences financial value.

My longtime argument is that if a seller is omitting information because he feels it will lower the sell price, that is information that should be disclosed.