Weird PSA N6 minimum size requirement question.

[SteigerWRX]

So my PSA grades popped this morning. I had 2 Mac Jones contenders rookie autos in my order. On the results, both of them have the "N6 minimum size requirement" denotation with no numerical grade. Yet when I click the "view cert" it brings up pictures of both of them slabbed as PSA 9s?? Does it mean they are 9s or they WERE 9s and then removed during the QA stage? Why would they be scanned in if they are not going to ship as PSA 9s?







Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[RufussCkingston]

If they are both min-size, then it would have to be one is short and one is skinny... I guess due to the workflow optimizations, they scan all the cards after encapsulation but before QA stages. You could probably send the "skinny" one back through again, I'd probably use a different account or send it through PCsportscards... I guess "Shorty" can go to SGC!

[rohara99]

Grade + slab them... then scan... then measure at QA stage? WTF

[TooManyCards76]

Weren’t 2021 Contenders trimmed by a few nefarious folks with the intention to grade? I wonder if all 2022 Contenders are scrutinized for trimming and/or min-size just to be safe after PSA graded a few that were obviously trimmed with some before/after photos from eBay.. These cards have edges that chip extremely easily, not saying yours are trimmed, just that PSA is probably being extremely careful about grading these.

[Kobe101]

Originally Posted by TooManyCards76

Weren’t 2021 Contenders trimmed by a few nefarious folks with the intention to grade? I wonder if all 2022 Contenders are scrutinized for trimming and/or min-size just to be safe after PSA graded a few that were obviously trimmed with some before/after photos from eBay.. These cards have edges that chip extremely easily, not saying yours are trimmed, just that PSA is probably being extremely careful about grading these.

I remember a big deal was made of an IG account Kong getting caught trimming a bunch of contenders rookies.

PSA is probably going to screw over people who just got crappy cut cards by Panini to be safe.

[RufussCkingston]

Originally Posted by rohara99

Grade + slab them... then scan... then measure at QA stage? WTF

Nah, it is obvious that the QA person saw #906 and noticed the "large" gap from the top of the card to the top rail which raised a red flag. Then, since the same QA person noticed an identical card right next to it, that person decided to put that one through the ringer too. If they were not submitted in the same sub, or at least not right next to each other in the order, the "skinny" one probably doesn't get caught!

[3124508 on COMC]

Originally Posted by RufussCkingston

Nah, it is obvious that the QA person saw #906 and noticed the "large" gap from the top of the card to the top rail which raised a red flag. Then, since the same QA person noticed an identical card right next to it, that person decided to put that one through the ringer too. If they were not submitted in the same sub, or at least not right next to each other in the order, the "skinny" one probably doesn't get caught!

907 is just centered in the slab more than 906.

[imbluestreak23]

None of those Contenders cards that year were clean enough to grade. I'd be leary of them if you see clean raw ones with the info provided

[rfgilles]

Originally Posted by RufussCkingston

If they are both min-size, then it would have to be one is short and one is skinny... I guess due to the workflow optimizations, they scan all the cards after encapsulation but before QA stages. You could probably send the "skinny" one back through again, I'd probably use a different account or send it through PCsportscards... I guess "Shorty" can go to SGC!

If they are trimmed then they shouldn't be graded.