t206 size/trim question...

[KNH]

Can I really trust SGC to not slab a card a 3 if it was trimmed?

I believe you can trust them. If I remember correctly, they will grade a T206 that is undersized by 1/32" as long as they don't believe it was trimmed.

[GoldenAge50s]

I sent in 17 T206's a yr ago to SGC, 2 of which I knew were about 1/16" short---They caught them both and gave an A designation on my slab.

That might make you feel a bit better about your card being w/in tolerance.

[shaunsteig]

The printing process of the T206s one-hundred years ago was imprecise enough to allow for variations in card size, particularly in height. The quality-control mechanisms in place then weren't as sophisticated as cards made nowadays. So there do exist variations in card size. And similarly, there's variation in the centering of the card. Your Young is centered lower than the Cobb, and the Cobb is taller. Neither of which indicates that it's been trimmed.

One point is that you can't rely on the card measuring as "regulation" size as proof that it wasn't trimmed -- you might be looking at a card that was originally slightly oversized and is now trimmed to enhance its corners and now is merely "normal" size.

I've never heard that the variability in card size, as cut at the factory, was related to the back, or the scarcity of the back. The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering.

The principal tasks of the third-party graders are to verify the authenticity of a card (ie it's not a fake or reprint), confirm that it hasn't been altered (most commonly is the question of trimming), and then if the first two criteria are passed to then grade the card numerically according to their standards. I consider both SGC and PSA as highly reliable, and so would consider any numerically graded card from them as untrimmed, which is why I generally stay away from raw cards of any significant value. That's not to say that either couldn't make a mistake. But on the surface, the fact that both cards received a numeric grade should provide reassurance that they weren't trimmed.

Hope that helps,
--S

[cfc1909]

"The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering."

Can you prove this? How do you know this?

[shaunsteig]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

"The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering."

Can you prove this? How do you know this?

Not sure if you're referring to my first sentence there or the second.

As to the first -- the AB backs -- that's something that I've known for a little while, although can't quite recall where I gained that knowledge from. So I did a little search, and came across this passage from Scot Reader's "Inside T206":

• Manufacturing tolerances make exacting specification of a “standard” size for a T206 card difficult. A typical size is roughly 1 7/16” x 2 5/8”. T206 specimens exhibiting the American Beauty reverse are an exception. They were cut thinner to enable them to fit within narrower American Beauty cigarette packs.

My search, though, also discovered a prior thread on this board disputing that reason for the thinner ABs: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=122216&page=2. Regardless, the original point remains -- the ABs were deliberately of a different size, from the factory and not from trimming, than the other backs.

As to the second, since a given factory printed several different backs, it stands to reason that their technical variances were no different among the backs. The above quote could also apply. My experience is similar, at least among the "less-common" backs, although I have little knowledge of the truly rare ones. So I don't have "proof" for that statement, perhaps another board member can enlighten.

Thanks,
--S

[cfc1909]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

[fkw]

Not all AB cards are narrower, but most are. Ive had a few that were full width.

That Young sure looks short, but I guess its the original cut, SGC is good at IDing trimmed cards.

[shaunsteig]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

Nothing to it -- thanks for asking / challenging me. In the process I came to realize that something which I had considered fact (namely, the reason that ABs are thinner is due to a thinner pack size) may not be universally accepted. I'm still fairly new at collecting T206s, so I'm hardly an expert. Just trying to learn something new every day.

--S

[kllrbee]

Originally Posted by shaunsteig

The printing process of the T206s one-hundred years ago was imprecise enough to allow for variations in card size, particularly in height. The quality-control mechanisms in place then weren't as sophisticated as cards made nowadays. So there do exist variations in card size. And similarly, there's variation in the centering of the card. Your Young is centered lower than the Cobb, and the Cobb is taller. Neither of which indicates that it's been trimmed.

One point is that you can't rely on the card measuring as "regulation" size as proof that it wasn't trimmed -- you might be looking at a card that was originally slightly oversized and is now trimmed to enhance its corners and now is merely "normal" size.

I've never heard that the variability in card size, as cut at the factory, was related to the back, or the scarcity of the back. The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering.

The principal tasks of the third-party graders are to verify the authenticity of a card (ie it's not a fake or reprint), confirm that it hasn't been altered (most commonly is the question of trimming), and then if the first two criteria are passed to then grade the card numerically according to their standards. I consider both SGC and PSA as highly reliable, and so would consider any numerically graded card from them as untrimmed, which is why I generally stay away from raw cards of any significant value. That's not to say that either couldn't make a mistake. But on the surface, the fact that both cards received a numeric grade should provide reassurance that they weren't trimmed.

Hope that helps,
--S

Thanks shaun,
I think a response like that is what I needed to hear in order to set my mind at ease. Pretty much spelled out like you would explain it to a 6 year old. LOL.
I appreciate the help guys, I will keep the card.