2 1964 Topps Pete Rose. Which would you prefer?

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I like the centering and overall appearance of the 7.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Tyruscobb]

The 7 looks trimmed to me.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

I like the centering and overall appearance of the 7.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The centering through my eyes is off on both. The Richness of the "REDS" on the 6 has me picking that one all day long.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by hcv123

The centering through my eyes is off on both. The Richness of the "REDS" on the 6 has me picking that one all day long.

To each his own. Two nice cards...

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Phil68]

Originally Posted by hcv123

The centering through my eyes is off on both. The Richness of the "REDS" on the 6 has me picking that one all day long.

It's funny...the "Richness" is actually because the card is terribly out of register and, frankly, quite flawed technically.
It's poor printing--that PSA seems to not understand, as well--that creates that effect. The NM 7 is properly focused and the plates are tight. It's interesting that collectors like poorly registered cards; but some do! I can't stand blurry or off-centered cards. To each, his own. The hobby is great like that.

The card certainly does not appear "problematic" or trimmed and I happen to agree that folks are WAAAAAY to quick to start the "Altered" commentary. It's your right to do so, but it's silly. PSA, and others, certainly miss some. There are obviously altered cards floating around, but it's not the epidemic proportion the doomsayer would suggest.

Try this...trim up a few of your cards. Film it. Document it. Submit the cards and see what happens. That's a post I would enjoy.

[Phil68]

Lucio,
How important is a '64 Rose to you? If it's a mid-level want card, go with the least expensive (both cards are beautiful). If it's a high-level "wantlist" card, then...buy 'em both and sit on them awhile and see which you like more. It's tough to pull the trigger when you're torn. I understand that one. I'm sitting on 3 '56 NM/MT Elston Howard cards that each have different qualities. One of them I'm keeping because his lips are the "most red"...Talk about a nutjob! Lol

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Phil68

It's funny...the "Richness" is actually because the card is terribly out of register and, frankly, quite flawed technically.
It's poor printing--that PSA seems to not understand, as well--that creates that effect. The NM 7 is properly focused and the plates are tight. It's interesting that collectors like poorly registered cards; but some do! I can't stand blurry or off-centered cards. To each, his own. The hobby is great like that.

The card certainly does not appear "problematic" or trimmed and I happen to agree that folks are WAAAAAY to quick to start the "Altered" commentary. It's your right to do so, but it's silly. PSA, and others, certainly miss some. There are obviously altered cards floating around, but it's not the epidemic proportion the doomsayer would suggest.

Try this...trim up a few of your cards. Film it. Document it. Submit the cards and see what happens. That's a post I would enjoy.

I agree with you. All of the quick conclusions here of "oh everyone knows it's trimmed" (when something doesn't appear practically perfect in the holder, or an edge could be a little off) has stood out to me too since I joined.

Obviously altering has been outed as more of a problem than most would have expected, but these exaggerations like "oh I know this is obviously short" and "half of the cards in existence are trimmed" seem more like anger and frustration spilling out than anything else. I'd imagine there are plenty of slight diamond cut issues and factory differences that often account for an initial appearance of minuscule edge or size variations

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

I like the centering and overall appearance of the 7.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Perfect 45/45 centering.

[luciobar1980]

You guys are crazy. The cards are the same exact height in person.

[luciobar1980]

How is it you post about one thing and immediately people want to jump down your throat about your card being trimmed? And from a photograph.

[luciobar1980]

I'm checking this card on ebay and plenty seem to have as much spaceas my 7, and some a little less perhaps. Is it possible that these card varied by less than a millimeter in their production? You guys are making me paranoid.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

I'm checking this card on ebay and plenty seem to have as much spaceas my 7, and some a little less perhaps. Is it possible that these card varied by less than a millimeter in their production? You guys are making me paranoid.

It very well could be short from the factory. There was variance in size right from the factory. Cards from vending were also sometimes cut slightly small. The probem is that unethical dealers have used this information to trim lots of cards and grading companies have slabbed them. I would rather have a card one grade lower that was proper size unless I knew the provenance of the other card.

[RCMcKenzie]

I voted for the 6. I was expecting to see the backs with yellow circles around fibers that show it to be the same card. Rob

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

How is it you post about one thing and immediately people want to jump down your throat about your card being trimmed? And from a photograph.

Why the hell are you getting so pissy???? You're asking for opinions and someone points out how much the card is swimming in the holder and you are all annoyed???? Huh???? If he didn't say it, I would have. A hundred people would have. That card is very problematic.

[luciobar1980]

You seem to be getting pretty pissy yourself. I asked for opinions about eye appeal, not about my card being trimmed from a photograph where the cards aren't even lined up precisely. I just don't think it's very appropriate or wise to be alarmist in that way and get someone all worked up. So, are these also problematic, and also "swimming in their holders"?

[luciobar1980]

This one could do a breaststroke in its holder!

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

You seem to be getting pretty pissy yourself. I asked for opinions about eye appeal, not about my card being trimmed from a photograph where the cards aren't even lined up precisely. I just don't think it's very appropriate or wise to be alarmist in that way and get someone all worked up. So, are these also problematic, and also "swimming in their holders"?

Please review your topic subject and first post. You generally asked for opinions concerning which card members preferred. I did what you requested. I provided my opinion that the 7 looked trimmed. Hence, I prefer the 6.

You did not limit the discussion to eye appeal. Alternatively, I would assert that potential trimming affects eye appeal. They are related. I may be wrong. That card may not have seen a blade since ‘64, when it came off the sheet. But, I am entitled to my opinion.

[luciobar1980]

I consider myself a pretty reasonable person, and if my posts came off as pissy it's because i was annoyed, and rightly so IMO. I've come to realize that in threads like this people want to just come in and be alarmist and rain on your parade. I also collect video games. I once posted a sealed Legend of Zelda on NintendoAge which had provenance and I was absolutely 100% sure was not resealed. Well, I asked for opinions on what the game might grade.. and what do you know.. here come people out of the woodwork to tell me its a reseal. Sent it to VGA, and of course it came back as genuine. I just think people should hesitate before telling someone they just blew their hard earned money on something. Especially when that specific aspect is not asked for, and based on one photograph. It's pretty immature, and I stand by that.