REA's 1910 Cobb Sliding Photo LET THE BUYER BEWARE

[drcy]

Duly note the vintage photos are regularly trimmed/cut down these days. Expect many 8x10 photos to be trimmed/cut down. If there is borderless "a bit" under 8x10 photo, assume it's been cut down. Other size photos are being cut down too.

It's something I've brought up regularly on this board over the last several years, apparently to deaf ears. But I know as fact that I'm not the only who knows this is going on. It's pointless too, as PSA doesn't assign a condition grade.

There's no reason a hundred-year-old photo should have razor-sharp edges and corners. Also, many of the cuts are obviously not machine cut as the lines are uneven. Much photo paper came in factory-made standard sizes, makes trimming easier to identify. 8.8 x 9.84 inches was not a standard size, yet, strangely and considering the sharp edges and razor-sharp corners, that's slightly under 8x10 inches which was a standard size.

I don't have to give more details, as Net54ers and other collectors can do their own observations and see this for themselves. To me, and those who are observant, it's usually pretty obvious which photos have been trimmed.

This is not a comment on the REA Conlon, as I don't see anything wrong with its cut, and, according to the listing, it measures 8x10".

[Snapolit1]

I've always wanted a 1923 Yankees team picture with Gehrig. Lelands had one last night and and it was trimmed down tremendously. Took a pass after looking at it many times. Trimmed to 9x4.5. They disclosed it was trimmed, which was patently obvious.

Originally Posted by drcy

Duly note the vintage photos are regularly trimmed/cut down these days. Expect many 8x10 photos to be trimmed/cut down. If there is borderless "a bit" under 8x10 photo, assume it's been cut down. Other size photos are being cut down too.

It's something I've brought up regularly on this board over the last several years, apparently to deaf ears. But I know as fact that I'm not the only who knows this is going on. It's pointless too, as PSA doesn't assign a condition grade.

There's no reason a hundred-year-old photo should have razor-sharp edges and corners. Also, many of the cuts are obviously not machine cut as the lines are uneven. Much photo paper came in factory-made standard sizes, makes trimming easier to identify. 8.8 x 9.84 inches was not a standard size, yet, strangely and considering the sharp edges and razor-sharp corners, that's slightly under 8x10 inches which was a standard size.

I don't have to give more details, as Net54ers and other collectors can do their own observations and see this for themselves. To me, and those who are observant, it's usually pretty obvious which photos have been trimmed.

This is not a comment on the REA Conlon, as I don't see anything wrong with its cut, and, according to the listing, it measures 8x10".