Trimmed?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I'm going to go with trimmed, not because I can determine size from an internet image but because the top and bottom display the same diamond cut, yet the sides are perfectly parallel.

Unless it is hand cut or trimmed the sides(L&R)/top and bottom should all be parallel to each other. The problem I see with this card is the top and bottom have different angles on the diamond cut.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Kinda used the wrong term. Of course the sides should be parallel to each other, but the side borders are not perpendicular to the top and bottom borders. Normally with a diamond cut all four borders are askew. It's VERY weird to have two askew and two straight. Basically the sides borders should NOT be parallel with the actual edges of the card, just as the top and bottom borders are not.

[perezfan]

Agree with the above, and I'm going with trimmed as well.

If you also look at the top border on the reverse side image, you can see an irregular cut. Plus there is some minor chipping visible on that top-reverse border that was likely minimized by the trim job.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Kinda used the wrong term. Of course the sides should be parallel to each other, but the side borders are not perpendicular to the top and bottom borders. Normally with a diamond cut all four borders are askew. It's VERY weird to have two askew and two straight. Basically the sides borders should NOT be parallel with the actual edges of the card, just as the top and bottom borders are not.

Maybe we are both using the wrong terms, it's very common among collectors. This is what i call diamond cut, the card does not have 90 degree corners, so it is not square. Even with the diamond cut the sides should be parallel to each other and the top and bottom should be parallel to each other. Now the black borders(frame) being parallel to the sides I refer to as tilt. Like I said I could be wrong with my terms.

To the bold section. If the first cut(card sides) is straight the cards side border will be straight with the black frame. It is the second cut(top/bottom) that the cards(cut strips) did not get loaded exactly square that causes the angles on the top and bottom of the card. I know this is true of more modern cards but could be wrong about the cutting process used in 1938.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To the bold section. If the first cut(card sides) is straight the cards side border will be straight with the black frame. It is the second cut(top/bottom) that the cards(cut strips) did not get loaded exactly square that causes the angles on the top and bottom of the card. I know this is true of more modern cards but could be wrong about the cutting process used in 1938.

Modern cards are cut using more automation, and with cutters that are in many ways better.

Older cutters were largely set manually for size, and were loaded manually. If there was a bit of debris in the cutter, an angled cut could happen.

The paper stack is held in place by a pressure plate, and just like cutting a big stack of paper with scissors, if the paper isn't gripped hard enough for the stack that was inserted, the stack will skew and give you an angled cut. A dull blade can make it worse.

Both are basically rushed/sloppy operation.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Unless it is hand cut or trimmed the sides(L&R)/top and bottom should all be parallel to each other. The problem I see with this card is the top and bottom have different angles on the diamond cut.

That's what I'm seeing too.

The top cut and bottom cut aren't parallel to each other, which is a big red flag, especially considering the source.

The card is also much more narrow than I'd like.


While there are narrow cards, and occasionally there are cards with different angles on angled cuts, both of those things are unusual.

Narrow, cut oddly, and sold by someone with lots of trimmed cards in the past.... Strikes 1, 2 and 3....