Minimum Size Issue for Sports Illustrated for Kids Question

[Zankyman17]

Longtime lurker, new volume grader here!

I'm a big-time contrarian and I look at sports/non-sports sets that I believe are undervalued or lack visibility to the general collecting community.

No surprise then that I am focusing on grading and collecting the entire 3,000+ card Sports Illustrated for Kids run, which has more rookie cards, HOFs, and sports than any set ever created (shameless plug).

My issue here is that I've sent off 700+ SIFK cards for the 1989 and 1990 sets, but 80%+ of the cards I send off come back non-graded for minimum size requirements. It's driving me nuts! I've gone through hundreds, if not thousands of magazines, to submit the best copies and to get non-graded for minimum size requirements is very tough.

1. Is this something I should speak to someone at PSA about to change their grading evaluation for these sets?
2. Is resubmitting the cards again and again to play the grading roulette game worthwhile?
3. I'm already number 1 on the PSA registry, and I'd like to get everything graded with PSA, but would trying SGC or BGS be worthwhile or will I run into the same issues?
4. I also have concerns with the cards I've already sent that WERE graded, but seem to be criminally undergraded which I would guess would happen because a lot of graders aren't familiar with grading perforated cards... I'm considering cracking and holding off grading until I get some clarification (For example grading the 1990 Tony Hawk, 1992 Mia Hamm, etc. etc.)

Any help would be immense.

Thanks

[glen87]

start here

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1506327

[Zankyman17]

Originally Posted by glen87

start here

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1506327

Thanks for the link there. Definitely good to see how obvious some of the trimming on those Tiger Woods cards are.

For someone like me who is methodically trying to curate these cards and grade them, is there any precedent for communicating with PSA about it?

[smackvay]

Originally Posted by Zankyman17

Thanks for the link there. Definitely good to see how obvious some of the trimming on those Tiger Woods cards are.

For someone like me who is methodically trying to curate these cards and grade them, is there any precedent for communicating with PSA about it?

Psa is only interested in collecting money not helping out collectors.

[mc1]

If some are too small or cut short then they shouldnt receive a number grade. 90s Autographics cards are notorious for being cut short and for that reason they reject or only grade autos for many of those.

They should also catch trimmed cards, we know they dont.

[mjohnatgt]

Are you measuring that the cards you're submitting measure 2.5" x 3.5" before you send them (or even before you tear the sheets apart)? Because if the cards don't measure up, then PSA is doing the right thing by rejecting them even if they are factory cut that way.
Are the cards that normally get rejected on the top or bottom row, or are they from the middle? The ones in the middle should be uniformly sized, but depending on where the sheet ran through the perforator, it would likely be short on the top row or bottom row.
Is it worth resubmitting them? Since PSA doesn't charge for minsize, there's really no reason not to until they change their policy, as long as you're submitting them in a batch of new cards where you only have to pay the shipping.

For example:

1990 Sports Illustrated for Kids Series 1 - [Base] - Full Sheets #145-153 - Reggie Miller, Mark McGwire, Merlene Ottey, Wendy Lian Williams, Boris Becker, Rex Chapman, Dwight Gooden, Tony Hawk, Sheryl Johnson [Poor to Fair]
Courtesy of COMC.com

Because these cards are printed too close to the bottom border, you could get right-sized cards from the top and middle rows, but not the bottom row. Since the cards are not perforated at the top/bottom of each card, you should be able to laser-cut or guillotine cut the top/bottom borders on these where you choose to.

[towerymt]

I got one number grade and one N6 min size on these two. Makes sense....one is quite small, although I didnt measure them. I didn't know they would have to meet a size standard.