PSA and the Minimum Size Requirement

[rogermaris]

For those of you not familiar with the "minimum size requirement" designation, it means the card was cut small by the factory. It does not apply to cards that are trimmed and/or altered. If you request it, PSA will slab cards that don't meet the min size requirement as "authentic" with no number grade.

I've been submitting cards to PSA for about 10 years now, mostly a mixture of vintage and modern. In the past when I've submitted vintage, I always get a few cards back that get rejected because of the minimum size requirement.
That being said, I never really had any modern cards rejected due to the min-size requirement until recently. I think I've had 3-4 cards fail crossover from BGS for this reason in the last 6 months. These were cards that were graded BGS 8-9.

I've also noticed a lot more modern cards being sold in PSA Authentic holders despite not having any damage or alterations. Usually when I ask why, the answer is pretty much always "min size requirement."

Anyway, was wondering if anyone else noticed this phenomenon? Has PSA gotten stricter on the min size requirement for modern cards or is it all in my head?

[2010GBPackers]

I had a huge card I sent in for cross-over service come back "min size req." I resubmitted it a few months later and it crossed. The only thing I can think of is their measurements are off because of the BGS case. If it's a raw card, there's no excuse.

[slum22]

I sub probably around 500+ cards a year to PSA, most of them from the 1990's to present. I have not been hit with a Min Size Requirement yet on a modern card. When I was subbing 1961 Fleer BK cards for my set I would receive them pretty frequently. At least, they don't charge you for looking at the Min Size cards vs. the EOT cards. I would try a couple times with my 61's if I got the Min Size to see if a different grader would disagree. Although I have heard others claim they had been successful, I never had a Min Size card grade when I tried subbing again. They always came back Min Size again. I don't collect baseball but the main modern card that I have heard of that gets Min Size'd frequently is the 93 SP Jeter.

[ehp6737]

I sub probably around 500+ cards a year to PSA, most of the from the 1990's to present. I have not been hit with a Min Size Requirement yet on a modern card. When I was subbing 1961 Fleer BK cards for my set I would receive them pretty frequently. At least, they don't charge you for looking at the Min Size cards vs. the EOT cards. I would try a couple times with my 61's if I got the Min Size to see if a different grader would disagree. Although I have heard others claim they had been successful, I never had a Min Size card grade when I tried subbing again. They always came back Min Size again. I don't collect baseball but the main modern card that I have heard of that gets Min Size'd frequently is the 93 SP Jeter.

Yup, the SP Jeter is well know for this. Also the 82 Topps Ripken also has issues with this.

[DevinKurant]

I had it happen to KD Topps Chrome rookie white refractor. I tried crossing over both in the BGS case and raw. Both times it got rejected due to min. size requirements. That's the only card out of the 100+ modern cards I've submitted.

[dictoresno]

I had a huge card I sent in for cross-over service come back "min size req." I resubmitted it a few months later and it crossed. The only thing I can think of is their measurements are off because of the BGS case. If it's a raw card, there's no excuse.

im having this same issue, subbed a quad 9.5 3 times back to back and even had Jackie at PSA step in with the "head grader" and send me scans of their measurements saying its indeed like under a millimeter narrow. I mean come on. they think it could be due to the bow of the card and suggested cracking to be sure but I passed. all three times it came back N6.

[LC2nine10]

Maybe it's trimmed?

[rasclat]

Not psa but with bgs, i bought a 1981 topps pack from bbce about 2 years ago, got a bird 2nd year absolutely perfect, centering,edges,corner,surface. Moron grader says evidence of trimming/shaving on right edge. Still pissed off 2 years later and will never use bgs again.

[3124508 on COMC]

Not to put words in his mouth, but I think rogermaris would agree that this thread hasn’t really aged all that well. PSA really can’t tell if something is trimmed, so min size effectively means that PSA happened to measure it and it’s either undersized or trimmed, not that it was strictly undersized from the factory.

[mc1]

Ive had a couple labeled as trimmed by COMC. I got them from the original owner who claimed they were pack-pulled. I just dont get it sometimes.

Ive heard of PSA rejecting some cards and then being slabbed by BGS.

Amazing how they seem to catch all these N6 but clearly trimmed ones get slabbed by PSA.

[RogerGodahell]

The 2000 Contenders Brady Rookie Ticket's are notorious for this. That product was bad QC. I opened about 5 boxes up several years ago and if you stand a handful of cards up on a table you can see how unevenly cut they were. There was a thread a few years ago where people thought many of these were trimmed but i don't think so. I think it's just like you said. '86 Topps football was bad too. I have a Reggie White RC i pulled out of a pack that wont fit in a mag as well because it's slightly too tall.

[coltsfan23]

Yeah, I've had this happen with some early 2000s cards. I just submit to BGS instead after an N6.

[rogermaris]

Not to put words in his mouth, but I think rogermaris would agree that this thread hasn’t really aged all that well. PSA really can’t tell if something is trimmed, so min size effectively means that PSA happened to measure it and it’s either undersized or trimmed, not that it was strictly undersized from the factory.

Even back when I made this thread I would have agreed with you. I was only speaking on the intended use of the "min size req" designation according to PSA's grading guidelines.

In practice, the min-size req just means the card measures short and PSA can't find evidence of alteration. But that doesn't mean much since PSA can't reliably detect alterations anyway.