Factory cuts vs trimming

[Johnny630]

A lot of vending cards have been notorious for being factory short. Also many dead on solid 9’s and 10’s have been pulled from vendors over the years.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

A lot of vending cards have notorious for being factory short.

Did not know that about vending boxes. It explains plenty of what remained unanswered to me.

Thanks Johnny

[jchcollins]

My experience at least as of late would tend to agree with the OP's notion that normal factory size variance (more common than many would imagine with vintage, especially when we are talking less than 1/32 of an inch...) is more apt to be viewed as possible trimming - to the point sometimes of paranoia. Cards coming out of packs with slightly different dimensions is not something that ended with tobacco cards. I've had several different '58 Topps cards just in the past year that are too big and will not fit into One Touch holders. I'm not sure PSA's "Min Size" can be much of a useful yardstick at all; the hobby is rife with stories of how one card was originally graded and then got returned a Min Size with an effort to get a bump, or vice versa. PSA misses both trimming AND factory discrepancies quite frequently, IMO. I'm not sure I have a solution to the problem, other than buy the card and not the slab, and make sure you are happy with the card in the slab regardless of things like the grade on the flip or movement / lack of movement in the slab. Just as an aside, simply because a card moves a bit in the holder is not necessarily indicative of trimming or a factory size problem. For some, the late 60's through the early 70's in particular - the card stock was simply thinner, and cards even with perfectly normal dimensions will move somewhat. I'm not sure I've ever seen a 1970 Topps card that remained perfectly still in a PSA holder.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

Did not know that about vending boxes. It explains plenty of what remained unanswered to me.

Thanks Johnny

Your Welcome Buddy

[steve B]

Size consistency would depend on the set.

Score was die cut, and should pretty much always be the right size.

Topps switched at some point. I think probably with the switch to different cardstock in 92, although a lot of their newer stuff is both knife and die cut.

Any cards cut by hand will have some differences, depending on how careful the cutter operator was. 41 Goudey being probably the worst.
Even high production cards cut with a slitter can be undersize/oversize if the cutting wheels aren't spaced correctly.

[Bigdaddy]

One would think that with a high enough magnification, identifying trimmed cards could be detected, at least to a high degree. Looking at any given edge, I envision differences in color (due to accumulated dirt, oil, etc.) from handling the cards for many years, indentations, fiber orientation, etc of a card that was cut 50 or more years ago to one that was cut in the recent past, by most probably a different method.

What am I missing here? A grader would not have to look at all cards, but a higher cost to evaluate a more expensive card at a higher grade would seem to require more diligent methods of examination, including high resolution images of the edges and surface.

[steve B]

That's pretty much all it takes.

Plus knowing what a factory edge should look like.

And in the case of some TPGs, actually looking.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

One would think that with a high enough magnification, identifying trimmed cards could be detected, at least to a high degree. Looking at any given edge, I envision differences in color (due to accumulated dirt, oil, etc.) from handling the cards for many years, indentations, fiber orientation, etc of a card that was cut 50 or more years ago to one that was cut in the recent past, by most probably a different method.

All valid points. But when they spend less than 60 seconds on each card, that kind of scrutiny ain't happening. Right now the model we have, and all anyone cares about is the turn around time on grading. If I send in a minty Mickey Mantle card, my chief concern is going to be that I get it back in a week or so if I pay for that service, NOT that the grader spends extra TLC time in looking under loupes and evaluating edge precision, getting a second or maybe even a third opinion, etc. etc. But perhaps that the type of terms we need to start thinking in for super high-end or rare cards?

As others have pointed out though - for pure matters of dimension and size concern - I would think they could implement a way to measure cards digitally down to a hundreth of an inch or something. If you can do this and make that kind of measurement routine - then there wouldn't be a reason they couldn't quickly measure all cards that way. If it becomes commonplace, then whatever the current "Min Size" requirements are, you would think they could be drastically tightened up based on what the new micro-discrepancies turn out to be. I would be willing to bet that even the graders would be surprised with something like that - at exactly what was more or less normal for a card to be "off" by out of the pack.

[Tere1071]

Until recently I was purchasing 53 Bowman color cards from an eBay seller. I noticed that two of the key cards, #93 Martin/Rizzuto and #99 Spahn were 1/16 on an inch shorter than the other cards I had purchased from him. I returned the two cards to the seller.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

All valid points. But when they spend less than 60 seconds on each card, that kind of scrutiny ain't happening. Right now the model we have, and all anyone cares about is the turn around time on grading. If I send in a minty Mickey Mantle card, my chief concern is going to be that I get it back in a week or so if I pay for that service, NOT that the grader spends extra TLC time in looking under loupes and evaluating edge precision, getting a second or maybe even a third opinion, etc. etc. But perhaps that the type of terms we need to start thinking in for super high-end or rare cards?

As others have pointed out though - for pure matters of dimension and size concern - I would think they could implement a way to measure cards digitally down to a hundreth of an inch or something. If you can do this and make that kind of measurement routine - then there wouldn't be a reason they couldn't quickly measure all cards that way. If it becomes commonplace, then whatever the current "Min Size" requirements are, you would think they could be drastically tightened up based on what the new micro-discrepancies turn out to be. I would be willing to bet that even the graders would be surprised with something like that - at exactly what was more or less normal for a card to be "off" by out of the pack.

With a 1200dpi scan it's possible to measure to just less that 1/1000th of an inch. Add a grid, and you can get even more info, like exactly how much tilt in a diamond cut. I'd have to have a few friends I know do the program, but they assure me it's very easy, if not already a feature on some photo software.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

A lot of vending cards have been notorious for being factory short. Also many dead on solid 9’s and 10’s have been pulled from vendors over the years.

Opened a vending box of 71 Topps Hockey and PSA said a few were short and wouldnt grade them. Ridiculous! They were all the same and no one trimmed and replaced a whole vending box.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Opened a vending box of 71 Topps Hockey and PSA said a few were short and wouldnt grade them. Ridiculous! They were all the same and no one trimmed and replaced a whole vending box.

They prob were short...naturally from vending. Not trimmed but Mini Sized