Trimming experts: your time to shine. Opinion?

[JollyElm]

It may be a sort of 'only time will tell' scenario. If you continue to find other cards (hopefully non-stars) that match the short size, it may simply be a production anomaly. Unfortunately, having just two is too small a sample size. Maybe post the exact size your cards are and see if anyone here has matching shorties that also don't appear to have been trimmed??

[Bocabirdman]

I believe the '55 Bowman TV Sets are the worst for inconsistent sizing...

[jchcollins]

Factory normal differences of 1/32 to 1/16 are more common that many collectors think for vintage cards. I understand we are all paranoid / hyper-sensitive to trimming scandals lately, but it is true that cards coming out of the packs slightly different sizes back then was a thing. I have some '58 Topps cards that are too big, and will not fit in One Touch holders. Also recall that cards from vending (maybe not as far back as the 50's...but certainly in the 60's and later) notoriously can be found slightly short a large percentage of the time as well.

That card might get a straight grade from PSA, or it might get a Min Size. To me the latter is preposterous; PSA is saying they believe the card is factory cut and not trimmed, but is short. If there is no evidence of trimming and they cannot say it's not factory, why not just grade it? That seems to be an approach that SGC is much more lenient with. To me that just makes more sense.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

That card might get a straight grade from PSA, or it might get a Min Size. To me the latter is preposterous; PSA is saying they believe the card is factory cut and not trimmed, but is short. If there is no evidence of trimming and they cannot say it's not factory, why not just grade it? That seems to be an approach that SGC is much more lenient with. To me that just makes more sense.

They won't because of the trimming paranoia you mention in the first part of the post.

Most people here get that quality control was variable on older cards, and that it's how the edge compares to other factory cut edges.

But most collectors would see it short in the holder and assume that different size=trimmed=graders have no clue.
(Many of them don't, but the short card or the one with weird cuts isn't always trimmed. )

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

They won't because of the trimming paranoia you mention in the first part of the post.

Maybe more so in the last 2 years, but Min Size has been a PSA standard practice for far longer than that. To me, it's just another way to encourage "Please Submit Again" in an attempt to increase revenue. Everyone knows folks who can show you a card in a graded slab now or with a Min Size rejection that used to be the other way around and it's the same damn card. This to me is where TPG's cease to be useful and just add to the noise of paranoia and modern hobby BS.

[jchcollins]

Actually what I just said makes no sense - (Sorry, I don't submit myself to PSA, though I do own a lot of PSA graded cards...) - since I checked and if you get an N6 Min Size, they do NOT charge the grading fee. So I revise my above statement - it's not in an attempt to gain more revenue by encouraging multiple submittals there in that specific case. It's just dumb, and frustrates submitters. If a card is 1/8 or 1/16 of an inch short and is suspect of being trimmed, fine - don't grade it. If it has uniform edges, does not bear any overt evidence of trimming - and is 1/32 short - slab it with a number grade and move on with life.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Maybe more so in the last 2 years, but Min Size has been a PSA standard practice for far longer than that. To me, it's just another way to encourage "Please Submit Again" in an attempt to increase revenue. Everyone knows folks who can show you a card in a graded slab now or with a Min Size rejection that used to be the other way around and it's the same damn card. This to me is where TPG's cease to be useful and just add to the noise of paranoia and modern hobby BS.

I see you corrected yourself.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by glynparson

I see you corrected yourself.

Yes. As I see you edited your comment which appears in my email. I post with conviction, but am not above correcting myself. Sorry if I roused your ire.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Bocabirdman

I believe the '55 Bowman TV Sets are the worst for inconsistent sizing...

True. Both PSA and SGC will give them number grades in a variety of sizes. They were a weird size fully cut to begin with from Bowman anyway - stand them up like a portrait oriented card next to a '55 or '56 Topps - and the Bowman card will generally be as tall, but not quite as wide. Weird.

[cardsagain74]

Since I've never sent anything in, I wasn't even aware that PSA will reject "min size' vintage that they don't think is trimmed.

Will be curious to see if that happens to my '56 Jackie R.