Drew Brees RC Trims: Superior Sports Investments / Bill Sliheet eBay= marketplacessi

[JMANIA]

Originally Posted by corndog

Yes that is a very, very slim possibility.
Would you rather have a few cards unfortunately be factory short or rampant trimming due to no standard minimum sizes established by grading companies?

Some cards, especially vintage, are miscut from the factory and get labeled as Off Center by the grading companies which greatly reduces their value or desirability. Why not have short cards labeled Undersized?

Not looking to argue it, when I said I do not think all cards came the same size out of packs of cards, vending boxes, factory sets although most were suppose to be 2.5 X 3.5 over the years. I did not mean just that some are undersized. I mean some came slightly larger than the 2.5 X 3.5 and those trimmed down (even trimmed ever so slightly) are within the dimensions you would be proposing to be allowed and why they have been missed by grading companies in the past. This again is the human element that they cannot be detected and the limitations of grading companies which they should acknowledge in terms of them doing the best they possible can based upon the information when the card is graded. This all relates back to the incentive for trimming that was created by the value of graded cards and creation of grading companies. These cards are being purchased and trimmed for the sole purpose of being submitted for grading (or resubmitted after crack outs if already graded). If trimming were properly outed and no trimmed cards would be submitted (hypothetically if it could be), there would be a lot less cards to grade.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by JMANIA

The creation of grading companies brought out the trimmers but the grading companies also are what has kept the hobby going.

This isn't true at all. There were arguably more trimmers before PSA, SGC, BGS, and GAI started grading cards.

Either way, I think corndog is onto something here. If you were unfortunate enough to pull an undersized card from a pack, it's almost equivilent to pulling an OC card or a card with a dinged corner; it is what it is. It would prevent a lot of the trimming that is happening, however. I'd be willing to take the smaller hit on the front-end (pulling an undersized card) than taking the bigger hit on the back-end (a hobby loaded with altered cards). The trade-off is a no brainer for me because the whole industry is at stake if this continues.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

This isn't true at all. There were arguably more trimmers before PSA, SGC, BGS, and GAI started grading cards.

Either way, I think corndog is onto something here. If you were unfortunate enough to pull an undersized card from a pack, it's almost equivilent to pulling an OC card or a card with a dinged corner; it is what it is. It would prevent a lot of the trimming that is happening, however. I'd be willing to take the smaller hit on the front-end (pulling an undersized card) than taking the bigger hit on the back-end (a hobby loaded with altered cards). The trade-off is a no brainer for me because the whole industry is at stake if this continues.

Well said.

[Scottish Punk]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

This isn't true at all. There were arguably more trimmers before PSA, SGC, BGS, and GAI started grading cards.

I don't know about more or less than before. With the amount of money that is thrown at high grade cards right now, I can see a whole cottage industry that has opened up with trimming/grading. As evidenced, if you got the right equipment/skill you can turn a healthy profit on each trimmed card. If a few get caught, oh well.

[bamafan3559]

Originally Posted by I only pull for

BGS clearly acknowledges these trimmers exist. Check out the original thread over in the feedback section and take a look at Beckett's Industry Summit list. SSI is one of their guest of honor. He even bragged about being at Beckett everyday on the thread in the feedback section. The Industry Summit is Beckett's baby, and they have invited the most well known trimmers in the hobby. The guys over at Beckett know what these guys do and who they are -- instead of banning them they have chosen to reward them for all of the business they receive from them.

http://theindustrysummit.com/whos-attending

Beckett
Grading
Scams

It's right there for anyone that wants to see it. Remember the Industry Summit is Beckett's and the people on that list are Beckett's guest of honor.

That would explain why my Ronnie Lott 9.5 rookie wouldn't cross to a 10 through PSA. I didn't get it from SSI or any of his alternates though. I went back and checked to be sure.

[JMANIA]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

This isn't true at all. There were arguably more trimmers before PSA, SGC, BGS, and GAI started grading cards.

Either way, I think corndog is onto something here. If you were unfortunate enough to pull an undersized card from a pack, it's almost equivilent to pulling an OC card or a card with a dinged corner; it is what it is. It would prevent a lot of the trimming that is happening, however. I'd be willing to take the smaller hit on the front-end (pulling an undersized card) than taking the bigger hit on the back-end (a hobby loaded with altered cards). The trade-off is a no brainer for me because the whole industry is at stake if this continues.

I respectfully disagree with you that there were more trimmers before grading companies and wonder if you are confusing when grading started. There were less trimmed cards and less counterfeits before grading (used to be 1984 Donruss Mattingly and Pete Rose rookie as main counterfeits prior to 1991). Before 1991, you could go to a card show and cards were not trimmed like they are now and graded. Everyone merely said their card was mint even if maybe near mint, etc. Perhaps you do not realize how many trimmers there are the extent of the problem. Most high volume graders trim. No one before grading was trimming cards for high grade sets for example as grades did not exist. We are talking a ton of cards, not a few noticed on here publicly because they were serial numbered. Ironically, the serial numbered cards are noted here where the card stock and being newer mean many would grade well without the trimming. It is the era of cards before the shiny newer stuff that is also significantly trimmed. And yes, slightly over the 2.5 X 3.5 cut down to size.

The grading companies already measure the cards, so I do not think you are onto anything new. They probably could do better at recognizing the original cuts on all brands of cards and then if the cut is different then it was not an original cut. Requires them to become experts of every brand produced and the look of the cut and to learn what trimmers use and how those cuts, etc., look, feel.

[JMANIA]

Originally Posted by bamafan3559

That would explain why my Ronnie Lott 9.5 rookie wouldn't cross to a 10 through PSA. I didn't get it from SSI or any of his alternates though. I went back and checked to be sure.

No, could be was a sheet cut Lott and why did not cross over.

[Earlsnake07]

At this point in time BGS/PSA reps need to comment - on BO, on twitter or somewhere else because this is ridiculous..........and we have probably just scratched the surface on all the trimmed cards.

I have read (skimmed) several of the threads by superdan......damn good work.

[Cubsfanp]

I would find it difficult to believe all cards were cut to an exact 3.5 or 2.5 or whatever it is. I can't wait for the eBay returns in the future when a pack pulled card comes back from a buyer asking for a refund because it is undersized. I guess that's where we are headed, though.

Greedy people suck - it is certainly eye opening. Does it make sense to move more grading focus to PSA? Not that they are any safer or free from fault 100%, but for the most part the issues being brought to light here are from BGS, correct?

[3124508 on COMC]

Originally Posted by Cubsfanp

I would find it difficult to believe all cards were cut to an exact 3.5 or 2.5 or whatever it is. I can't wait for the eBay returns in the future when a pack pulled card comes back from a buyer asking for a refund because it is undersized. I guess that's where we are headed, though.

Greedy people suck - it is certainly eye opening. Does it make sense to move more grading focus to PSA? Not that they are any safer or free from fault 100%, but for the most part the issues being brought to light here are from BGS, correct?

Many in the other thread are PSA.

[dfr52]

Originally Posted by ih8ca

Look at 1980s donruss factory sets and 1960s topps presentation sets.

Even into the 1990's card sizes varied as a result of over production, poor quality control, and companies focused on getting the next product out to consumers. I do not think it is fair to discount a card because it is either too large or too small coming out of a set, box, or pack.

[3124508 on COMC]

Originally Posted by dfr52

Even into the 1990's card sizes varied as a result of over production, poor quality control, and companies focused on getting the next product out to consumers. I do not think it is fair to discount a card because it is either too large or too small coming out of a set, box, or pack.

But we discount a card if it’s off center or has a dinged corner, both of which could have the same root cause as being undersized (poor quality standards).

[dfr52]

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

But we discount a card if it’s off center or has a dinged corner, both of which could have the same root cause as being undersized (poor quality standards).

So the grading companies should have a qualifier like a 9 large or an eight small? It seems like an over correction when the hobby has accepted this since the first tobacco cards were produced. A rough cut is not considered a flaw or qualifier so I lump size in the same category.

On an side note, psa can be lenient on corners from box sets. I believe I have seen 1989 Donruss graded this way and even 1990 score supplement.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by JMANIA

I respectfully disagree with you that there were more trimmers before grading companies and wonder if you are confusing when grading started. There were less trimmed cards and less counterfeits before grading (used to be 1984 Donruss Mattingly and Pete Rose rookie as main counterfeits prior to 1991). Before 1991, you could go to a card show and cards were not trimmed like they are now and graded. Everyone merely said their card was mint even if maybe near mint, etc. Perhaps you do not realize how many trimmers there are the extent of the problem. Most high volume graders trim. No one before grading was trimming cards for high grade sets for example as grades did not exist. We are talking a ton of cards, not a few noticed on here publicly because they were serial numbered. Ironically, the serial numbered cards are noted here where the card stock and being newer mean many would grade well without the trimming. It is the era of cards before the shiny newer stuff that is also significantly trimmed. And yes, slightly over the 2.5 X 3.5 cut down to size.

The grading companies already measure the cards, so I do not think you are onto anything new. They probably could do better at recognizing the original cuts on all brands of cards and then if the cut is different then it was not an original cut. Requires them to become experts of every brand produced and the look of the cut and to learn what trimmers use and how those cuts, etc., look, feel.

That's cool. We can agree to disagree on this.

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by dfr52

So the grading companies should have a qualifier like a 9 large or an eight small? It seems like an over correction when the hobby has accepted this since the first tobacco cards were produced. A rough cut is not considered a flaw or qualifier so I lump size in the same category.

On an side note, psa can be lenient on corners from box sets. I believe I have seen 1989 Donruss graded this way and even 1990 score supplement.

Cards today do not have the variance they once did. I can see continuing to grade tobacco era cards thru the 1960's or so and be lenient on size as long as the card shows no evidence of trimming. Pre-1960, cards were produced in a much more crude way than they are today. Not saying that cards from the 80's or 90's come out of packs in different sizes, but it's not as common as back then. Modern cards that were produced 2000 have next to no variance in size and yes, I think the grading companies should look at them differently and not assign a numerical grade to a card not measuring 3.5 x 2.5 exactly.

[dfr52]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Cards today do not have the variance they once did. I can see continuing to grade tobacco era cards thru the 1960's or so and be lenient on size as long as the card shows no evidence of trimming. Pre-1960, cards were produced in a much more crude way than they are today. Not saying that cards from the 80's or 90's come out of packs in different sizes, but it's not as common as back then. Modern cards that were produced 2000 have next to no variance in size and yes, I think the grading companies should look at them differently and not assign a numerical grade to a card not measuring 3.5 x 2.5 exactly.

I believe we have the sizing issue easily into the 1990's. Quality control was very lenient and things only got worse during the early to mid 1990's when it seemed like every one was producing sports cards.

[corndog]

Originally Posted by dfr52

I believe we have the sizing issue easily into the 1990's. Quality control was very lenient and things only got worse during the early to mid 1990's when it seemed like every one was producing sports cards.

I think the odds are slim that there are numerous size variations within the same brands production run in the 1990's due to all commercial printers having programmable cutters such as this:



When the printing is finished and the press sheets proceed to the bindery, the cutter operator sets the cutting program for the sheets and will generally cut stacks of sheets that are around 4 inches thick. Each card is cut from the sheets in rows, then final trimmed down to individual stacks of cards that are 2.5"x3.5". The machines are precise and cut to what it is programmed to. It's not an approximate size - it is an exact size.

Just for grins, I gathered a random selection of years and brands of cards from the 1960's to this year and the variation in size might be .002 - .003 thousandths. A trimmed card would stand out more obviously than that. So maybe the answer is to give a card an Undersize label if it measures less than 2.497" or 3.497". The odds of a card being cut under these dimensions is so minimal that it needs to be considered a printing/bindery error or else trimmed. There must be a more stringent and inflexible tolerance when it comes to grading.

All I am saying is that you have to start somewhere to put an end to this rampant mess.

[BradyCollector]

Originally Posted by corndog

I think the odds are slim that there are numerous size variations within the same brands production run in the 1990's due to all commercial printers having programmable cutters such as this:







When the printing is finished and the press sheets proceed to the bindery, the cutter operator sets the cutting program for the sheets and will generally cut stacks of sheets that are around 4 inches thick. Each card is cut from the sheets in rows, then final trimmed down to individual stacks of cards that are 2.5"x3.5". The machines are precise and cut to what it is programmed to. It's not an approximate size - it is an exact size.



Just for grins, I gathered a random selection of years and brands of cards from the 1960's to this year and the variation in size might be .002 - .003 thousandths. A trimmed card would stand out more obviously than that. So maybe the answer is to give a card an Undersize label if it measures less than 2.497" or 3.497". The odds of a card being cut under these dimensions is so minimal that it needs to be considered a printing/bindery error or else trimmed. There must be a more stringent and inflexible tolerance when it comes to grading.



All I am saying is that you have to start somewhere to put an end to this rampant mess.

I apologize upfront for this ridiculously long post.

Totally agree with Corndog. I have always felt that this was the case, but did not have Corndog's printing background to push the assertion. I have somewhat less confidence in machine operators, and less confidence in perfect machines tolerances. I posted an experiment in the Brian Deer Trimming thread (referenced below) using a newly purchased box of 2000 Fleer Tradition to see how well the cards were cut. As Corndog said, the operator in this case was spot-on as most cards were exactly 2.5 x 3.5. There were, however, very common variations of 1/128 inches on either length, width, or both (measured by digital caliper) on dozens of cards, and therefore the stack of cards is not perfectly even as shown in the pics. This is not operator error, but machine tolerance variation. My presumption would be that all 2000 fleer was run consecutively off the same machine in one production run. Now compare this with another product off of another machine with a different operator, and you may have slightly different sized cards from machine settings along with +/- 1/128 inches as well for machine tolerances. Beckett, wanting to set one card size standard, will take a generous range of sizing to make sure they can account for these "small" differences between machines/operators and for the machine tolerances. This was fine in the “old days” when Joe Blow used an X-acto knife to do the trimming work. You could catch a lot of those either by the quality of the trimming, or the amount that was trimmed. The real problem is that with current trimming technology, trimmers can now operate inside of the generous range set by grading companies, and with beautiful precision cuts.

In the Deer thread, there was incriminating evidence near the end of 2016 that he was developing a clean 1/64 inch cutting process. That was shortly before I got burned on my 2000 Brady Ionix Black Label which was previously a PSA 8.5 on worthpoint, and now coincidentally about 2/64 narrower than my comparison Ionix card (shown below). Does this mean that all good precision trimming originated in late 2016? No, but if trimming is like other industries, developments would sort of go chronologically with the industry, so if that is when Deer figures it out I might be close to when the industry figured it out. That is sort of a weak argument, but if you look at all the BGS 9.5 stuff on eBay, a lot of it is serial numbered post late 2016. One extra step I do now to protect myself is measure any card I am interested in against other pictures of the same card (older graded versions) , with Corndog's assumption that they should be VERY close in size. If the pics are high enough definition, you can definitely tell when "one of these things..is not like the other..".
——————-
Casual observation shows a very tight tolerance for the 300+ cards for the box:

Laying horizontally


Laying vertically


Typical card - calipers holding card firm





Release calipers 1/128 and card falls out


Here is what 1/64 inch looks like for trimming


Here’s my Ionix Black Label and older Ionix side by side


Finally with calipers




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[2010GBPackers]

^^^Awesome post Bradycollector. What needs to happen is for the grading companies to do away with the 1/64th inch tolerance. Although tough to detect with the naked eye, 1/64 of an inch with today's precision cutting technology is virtually nonexistent.

I even wonder if a grader at PSA/BGS/SGC is using a digital caliper. God, I hope they are.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

^^^Awesome post Bradycollector. What needs to happen is for the grading companies to do away with the 1/64th inch tolerance. Although tough to detect with the naked eye, 1/64 of an inch with today's precision cutting technology is virtually nonexistent.

I even wonder if a grader at PSA/BGS/SGC is using a digital caliper. God, I hope they are.

Don't assume they measure, and you can virtually guarantee that they aren't using a caliper.

Regarding the technology for cutting, the most basic of technology still works...a knife and a steel edge ruler.

[superdan49]

Brady collector did some great work in the Deer thread, and is turning his financial loss (having bought a trimmed BGS 10 Black Label Brady RC) into a positive learning experience for the hobby. Thanks again!

[Bigbluesooner]

Originally Posted by BradyCollector

Here’s my Ionix Black Label and older Ionix side by side


Finally with calipers

How did you find out the Black Label was trimmed? The reason I ask is I have a 2017 Bowman Prospect I collect and have noticed a couple of cards being slightly smaller L/R than others. Most of these were bought in bulk. I don't believe its a card that anyone would waste time trimming. Sorry if this was addressed before maybe I missed it.

[corndog]

That's some nice work BradyCollector!
I appreciate the time and effort that you put into your findings.

I agree that the tolerances need to be tightened on card dimensions. There is no excuse for the grading companies to not have tighter minimum standards of tolerances.

[I only pull for]

With a scandal this large going on in the Dallas, and the bad look at Beckett -- one would think that someone in charge at Beckett would issue a statement.

Where is the VP or President at Beckett on all of this? They've had a few days to let one of their writers come up with something. Their silence speaks volumes.

[superdan49]

Originally Posted by I only pull for

With a scandal this large going on in the Dallas, and the bad look at Beckett -- one would think that someone in charge at Beckett would issue a statement.

Where is the VP or President at Beckett on all of this? They've had a few days to let one of their writers come up with something. Their silence speaks volumes.

They know there will be a blackout in much of hobby media, because in large part they are the hobby mainstream media. I know Rich Klein has committed to writing an article on this issue, but we don't know when that will be.

I've got more coming in the next few weeks. This won't go just away for them because a lot of us won't let it.