I like this guy already. I was a die hard Ryan Klesko collector after seeing him blast a 500+ foot bomb while playing against the Orlando Sun Rays in 1990.
So is this guy considered an “Advanced Collector”? I always chuckled when that term is thrown out there with guys like this, if I had an extra million laying around I could be an Advanced Collector too. I’m not throwing stones by any means, reading this guys article just reminded me of that term I’ve seen connected to articles written about big time collections over the years. I like the versatility of his collection, beautiful cards for sure
Pretty cool quest for perfection. Having the bucks to pursue the finest such as these is nice, but even so some cards worthy of "10s" may not exist. I find the '63 Mantle (and perhaps the '62 as well) interesting in that the borders are seemingly a touch more closely cropped than typical for those issues; not that they are trimmed, but rather, probably were produced in the limited edition "collectors set" that Topps made and packaged in fancy card-deck type boxes in those years. Tiffany cards of their time, IMO.
@originalisbest said:
probably were produced in the limited edition "collectors set" that Topps made and packaged in fancy card-deck type boxes in those years. Tiffany cards of their time, IMO.
Any idea what years these limited edition collector's sets were issued? I had no idea such thing existed in the 50s & 60s, thank you for that info. I thought the first collector's set was 1974.
Did I read that right? Busted 10 boxes of '75 mini's and not (1) PSA 10? Wow! I'm going to conclude; either the mini boxes on the market are full of off-centered and fished-eyed cards, or, going 0 for 3600 is astronomically bad luck.
Collecting PSA 9's from 1970-1977. Raw 9's from 72-77. Raw 10's from '78-'83. Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks. Prefer to buy in bulk.
Am curious to know more too. Have always been told they were called Topps presentation sets. Was told a Santo rookie I purchased came from one - no idea if it really did and it really does not matter. Card is a PSA 8.5.
@Sdub said:
Did I read that right? Busted 10 boxes of '75 mini's and not (1) PSA 10? Wow! I'm going to conclude; either the mini boxes on the market are full of off-centered and fished-eyed cards, or, going 0 for 3600 is astronomically bad luck.
I've opened about 6-8 mini boxes over the years and have pulled at least 25 PSA 10s, including several pop 1s that are still pop 1s today. The key is to steer clear of boxes from OC cases.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@brad31 said:
Am curious to know more too. Have always been told they were called Topps presentation sets. Was told a Santo rookie I purchased came from one - no idea if it really did and it really does not matter. Card is a PSA 8.5.
Presentation sets do not = 9-10
Tallulah Bankhead — 'There have been only two geniuses in the world. Willie Mays and Willie Shakespeare.'
@brad31 said:
Am curious to know more too. Have always been told they were called Topps presentation sets. Was told a Santo rookie I purchased came from one - no idea if it really did and it really does not matter. Card is a PSA 8.5.
Presentation sets do not = 9-10
Understood. Just curious about them. Before reading this thread I had not heard they were in individual small boxes. Googled and saw some old auction listings for some. Appears they were mailed out to people sometimes. The Santo I have was already graded. No disappointment in the grade or card and will never know if it was or wasn’t. Been going to shows since the 80s and have never scene one for sale. I wonder how few were made each year and how few are still in set form.
@brad31 said:
Am curious to know more too. Have always been told they were called Topps presentation sets. Was told a Santo rookie I purchased came from one - no idea if it really did and it really does not matter. Card is a PSA 8.5.
Presentation sets do not = 9-10
Understood. Just curious about them. Before reading this thread I had not heard they were in individual small boxes. Googled and saw some old auction listings for some. Appears they were mailed out to people sometimes. The Santo I have was already graded. No disappointment in the grade or card and will never know if it was or wasn’t. Been going to shows since the 80s and have never scene one for sale. I wonder how few were made each year and how few are still in set form.
I am not certain how they were distributed exactly, and I doubt very much were made. It's also quite true that they were a little bit on the "special" side in regard to their production, but they were still o/c here and there, tiny dings here and there, as they were placed into their presentation boxes. No guarantee that if one were to find an untouched box, that all would be 9s -- but some certainly could be. I'll try and dig up a picture of a '63 small Topps box I saw in years past.
And here's an image from that auction. To the point that such sets don't guarantee PSA gems -- there are O/C cards, some with snow, tiny corner dings, etc. The boxes are cool, and appear to have been packaged by series released.
Above is a helpful link right on the site with more info about the presentation sets. I suspect strongly (without being able to say for certain) that a PSA 8 '63 Hodges I have is from such a set, as it is tightly cropped in its trim, vs. a more typical production '63 card. Interesting things to have! Hope the above link is helpful.
From a post in the old thread (below) -- one poster mentions a '67 presentation set, which I'd never heard of; I have heard of '62s and '63's. Ah, to have some Topps executive (Sy?) wanting to have kept a presentation set from 1952 onwards....
PSA will grade them as long as they meet size requirements. I do have some that came back as "does not meet minimum size requirements". I re-submitted them and some of them even graded the second time around. If you were to stack all the raw cards together in my set, you would see that they all vary in size. Some are smaller and some are larger. I did some research on this and found out that when Topps produced these Presentation Sets, they used a different cutting process than they normally did with the cards you would find in packs. The cutting process they used for Presentation Set cards was referred to as a "guillotine cut". It was as the name implies. Because of this cutting process, what you got was different sized cards and a fair amount of gorgeous cards that were off center.
I have seen some 1962 Topps Presentation cards before and they, too, are just unbelievably beautiful. There was a higher quality with the color and registry typically with the Presentation cards versus the cards that we got in packs. Why, I don't know, but it is true.
@perkdog said:
So is this guy considered an “Advanced Collector”? I always chuckled when that term is thrown out there with guys like this, if I had an extra million laying around I could be an Advanced Collector too. I’m not throwing stones by any means, reading this guys article just reminded me of that term I’ve seen connected to articles written about big time collections over the years. I like the versatility of his collection, beautiful cards for sure
Took the words out of my mouth. Awesome to see the Psa 10's all together like that, but it's all about having the money to get them too. It's not like he scoured the earth for raw examples & submitted them and got back 10's.
@DM23HOF said:
Some really beautiful cards pictured there. Though all the money in the world won't make that 1963 Mick full-sized.
My thoughts are solidly towards its being from a '63 Collectors' set. It particularly matches up well with the raw example pictured in the Huggins & Scott auction from 2010 above.
@originalisbest Thank you for this info and the link to the Huggins & Scott sale from March 2010. In that auction, it said that the set was complete (7 series). I only see 5 boxes in the picture, so I wonder where the 2 high series are (unless all 7 series fit in 5 boxes).
@waxman2745 said: @originalisbest Thank you for this info and the link to the Huggins & Scott sale from March 2010. In that auction, it said that the set was complete (7 series). I only see 5 boxes in the picture, so I wonder where the 2 high series are (unless all 7 series fit in 5 boxes).
I do know that any planned All-Star cards for '63 never happened, so the card set was shorter than the then-typical 598; Series 6 was #447-522, and Series 7 was 523-576.
Definitely helps a collection when you have cash to buy anything you want. I know there are some wealthy folks who collect (invest) in sports collectibles and I have always thought about how dominant one could be in this industry with the funds to spare. The guy has done very well in his professional career indeed.
@perkdog said:
So is this guy considered an “Advanced Collector”? I always chuckled when that term is thrown out there with guys like this, if I had an extra million laying around I could be an Advanced Collector too. I’m not throwing stones by any means, reading this guys article just reminded me of that term I’ve seen connected to articles written about big time collections over the years. I like the versatility of his collection, beautiful cards for sure
I collect Steve Garvey, Dodgers and signed cards. Collector since 1978.
I think it’s easy to judge and say “Oh he can buy what he wants, it’s easy when your a billionaire.” But I think you’ll find he’s just as passionate as any other collector without the funds. He spends a lot of time on his cards and you can see he gets true enjoyment out of the hobby, he’s just doing what probably all of us would if we had the funds. Even with the money you need to spend the time finding the cards, building the relationships for deals to happen. He’s a billionaire yet personally spends hours scanning his cards I think that says something.
I would hate to bid on anything this guy wants, but it is great when someone with unlimited cash still has a passion to do this. I don't think that I could ever walk away from collecting if I became a billionaire, it's just too much fun.
After all this time, I just found this thread. Some great comments all and Nat does have an amazing collection. He is also a great guy and passionate collector.
Speaking of Topps Presentation Sets, I won a 1963 set in an auction in 1997. I have the boxes the cards came in plus the set, partially graded and some raw.....raw cards are OC, miscut or have snow or dinged corners. These days, one never sees complete Presentation Sets for auction or sale.
Don
Collect primarily 1959-1963 Topps Baseball set registry id Don Johnson Collection ebay id truecollector14
Have you guys checked out his collection on Instagram? I've been following his collection for a few years now & he has one of, if not the best Jordan collection I've ever seen. Or I should say the most expensive. He has every valuable insert including that '97 PMG Green he won at auction this year. He has a lot of my wish list.
As much as I'd love to have the money to buy whatever I wanted there's a part of me that thinks it might take some of the fun out of it. I love saving for that special high value item. If I had that kind of card budget I'd own anything I ever wanted inside of a year. Can you be a glutton card shopper?
I'm all about that Jordan stuff. Cards, stickers, posters & whatever else is cool. The rarer the better. And always in a PSA 10 if I can help it.
Any other big Jordan nuts out there let me know.
@80sOPC said:
The Turner Killebrew is swimming in the holder, not even close to the size of Joes. And the 63 Mantle looks way small as well.
Based on what we know today would be very interesting to go card by card and measure, I bet there are a bunch of shorts in that collection.
Does any one know if the interior size of the holders was made bigger? Perhaps to accommodate a slightly oversize card. If not the PSA 10 looks too small!?!?!?!?
My card is in a pre .5 holder. Think I could get an 8.5?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@80sOPC said:
The Turner Killebrew is swimming in the holder, not even close to the size of Joes. And the 63 Mantle looks way small as well.
Based on what we know today would be very interesting to go card by card and measure, I bet there are a bunch of shorts in that collection.
I would agree it very well could be, but as disappointed as I am in PSA lately, I would contend the '63 Mantle could very well be from a presentation set, and came that way. OR it could have been Moser'd to appear as such. Agreed the '55 Killebrew is now also a very likely suspect; I wouldn't be comfortable with that much room.
The folks with the brightest torches wouldn't like my stance on pressing (as with comics where it's become standard practice, I have no problem with it) but trimming and color touch are beyond the pale. I don't think anyone willl argue PSA needs to do a better job at detecting the fubar'd ones.
The most annoying thing to me is Moser's stuff IS detectable, but one would need to take time and observe a given card for more than a blink. Overall size is just an initial tell but more examination is needed. His patented "rough cuts" (when used) have their own repeating patterns that don't look quite like the real deal if more than a casual glance is employed. I'd love to see one of his jacked creations on the edge, under 20X magnification and have a known "good" edge from the same set/same card to compare it against, whether a rough cut or smooth. If one takes an exacto to a card edge, compare that edge vs. an untouched factory edge from the same set under 20X (or greater) magnification -- you'll marvel at the differences.
Size can definitely be a canary in a coal mine (the many super jacked floating '48 Leafs we've seen that swim in their holders) but a close examination of the edge itself under magnification would be what's most needed to condemn/bless (IMO.)
Wherever the Mantle came from it should meet a minimum size. The grader would not or at least should not know the provenance of the card. If presentation sets are short then they don’t get holdered.
@80sOPC said:
Wherever the Mantle came from it should meet a minimum size. The grader would not or at least should not know the provenance of the card. If presentation sets are short then they don’t get holdered.
There again it's not purely the size that should be the final indicator. There is a difference, very noticeable, under magnification, for a factory cut vs. a boinked card made ("improved") by an x-acto artist. And that would also go for the presentation sets (examining known presentation cards for their particular appearance under magnification.) That said, sure, avoid cards that are to you, too small personally. But a card that measures out doesn't mean it wasn't messed with either (all of Moser's little color touch print dot fill-ins) -- it's just that if the scammers bother to color touch, they're usually also taking a little off the top.
It is a fact that not every card that is slightly smaller is necessarily altered. If a card does not meet the min size requirement, it should be N6-ed. But I really hope we’re not going to start calling every card into question that is slightly undersized.
Agreed, but how do you define slightly undersized? I would think slightly undersized would require measurement and wouldn’t be obvious to the eye.
@PaulMaul said:
It is a fact that not every card that is slightly smaller is necessarily altered. If a card does not meet the min size requirement, it should be N6-ed. But I really hope we’re not going to start calling every card into question that is slightly undersized.
This card looks slightly undersized by the naked eye to me. I very much doubt it is trimmed given what it is. Like everything else, the willingness to accept slight undersizing vs. N6-ing varies from grader to grader.
As a buyer, I can certainly see being more exacting with major high dollar stars. But the problem is it is now apparently possible to “micro-trim” so that the card doesn’t appear alarmingly undersized. So I hope it is true that trimming can be detected other than by size assessment, otherwise I fear we are in big trouble.
Another thing you need to understand is that a size tolerance goes BOTH ways; on the two Killebrews here mine could be oversized by the maximum and the "10" could be undersized by the maximum, in effect doubling the 1/16 (?) so that one card is 1/8 inch smaller and yet still within tolerance.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Tomi
Posts: 643 ✭✭✭
Comments
I like this guy already. I was a die hard Ryan Klesko collector after seeing him blast a 500+ foot bomb while playing against the Orlando Sun Rays in 1990.
That right there is some serious cardboard!
WOW!
Pretty awesome! What a great collection he has.
C-R-A-Z-Y!
Shane
I don't even dream that good.
It's just a shame that the "only" a 7.5 1952 Mantle sort of spoils it all.
Mickey Mantle Basic Set - Of the 21 cards necessary to complete the set, Nat Turner has 10 of them in PSA 10.
Wow. That is a collection !!
It's quite the collection when a couple of PSA 7 Kobe rookies seem completely out of place.
DesertIceSports.Com
He states in the article that he is active on the Collectors Universe forums...
Come out, come out wherever you are!
eBay Store
Greg Maddux #1 Master SetGreg Maddux #2 Basic Set
He is a forum member. He has posted in the 1959 baseball registry thread several times.
His username is @natsturner.
Nice article, I like seeing pieces written like this.
I collect: 80’s Rookies and 86 Fleer Basketball
Some really beautiful cards pictured there. Though all the money in the world won't make that 1963 Mick full-sized.
Instagram: mattyc_collection
I thought it was the Nat Turner of "Birth of A Nation" fame. Boy was I wrong!
Good luck Nat going against the 1959 Topps Don Johnson Collection!
That's a great collection......
Very nice indeed!! Did I miss the 57 and 58 Topps?
They are two of my favorites.
Does that 55 Killebrew look a little thin on the left and right borders?? Some gap in that holder??
So is this guy considered an “Advanced Collector”? I always chuckled when that term is thrown out there with guys like this, if I had an extra million laying around I could be an Advanced Collector too. I’m not throwing stones by any means, reading this guys article just reminded me of that term I’ve seen connected to articles written about big time collections over the years. I like the versatility of his collection, beautiful cards for sure
Nice read.
Beautiful cards. Glad he shared the pictures in the article. My eyes gravitated to the two Banks cards.
Pretty cool quest for perfection. Having the bucks to pursue the finest such as these is nice, but even so some cards worthy of "10s" may not exist. I find the '63 Mantle (and perhaps the '62 as well) interesting in that the borders are seemingly a touch more closely cropped than typical for those issues; not that they are trimmed, but rather, probably were produced in the limited edition "collectors set" that Topps made and packaged in fancy card-deck type boxes in those years. Tiffany cards of their time, IMO.
Any idea what years these limited edition collector's sets were issued? I had no idea such thing existed in the 50s & 60s, thank you for that info. I thought the first collector's set was 1974.
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
Did I read that right? Busted 10 boxes of '75 mini's and not (1) PSA 10? Wow! I'm going to conclude; either the mini boxes on the market are full of off-centered and fished-eyed cards, or, going 0 for 3600 is astronomically bad luck.
Collecting Unopened from '72-'83; mostly BBCE certified boxes/cases/racks.
Prefer to buy in bulk.
Am curious to know more too. Have always been told they were called Topps presentation sets. Was told a Santo rookie I purchased came from one - no idea if it really did and it really does not matter. Card is a PSA 8.5.
I've opened about 6-8 mini boxes over the years and have pulled at least 25 PSA 10s, including several pop 1s that are still pop 1s today. The key is to steer clear of boxes from OC cases.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Presentation sets do not = 9-10
Understood. Just curious about them. Before reading this thread I had not heard they were in individual small boxes. Googled and saw some old auction listings for some. Appears they were mailed out to people sometimes. The Santo I have was already graded. No disappointment in the grade or card and will never know if it was or wasn’t. Been going to shows since the 80s and have never scene one for sale. I wonder how few were made each year and how few are still in set form.
I am not certain how they were distributed exactly, and I doubt very much were made. It's also quite true that they were a little bit on the "special" side in regard to their production, but they were still o/c here and there, tiny dings here and there, as they were placed into their presentation boxes. No guarantee that if one were to find an untouched box, that all would be 9s -- but some certainly could be. I'll try and dig up a picture of a '63 small Topps box I saw in years past.
Here's an old Huggins & Scott auction for a complete '63 set, along with their boxes. I believe there was a '62 set as well, not sure on other years.
mar10.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=19050
And here's an image from that auction. To the point that such sets don't guarantee PSA gems -- there are O/C cards, some with snow, tiny corner dings, etc. The boxes are cool, and appear to have been packaged by series released.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/278115/what-are-topps-presentation-sets
Above is a helpful link right on the site with more info about the presentation sets. I suspect strongly (without being able to say for certain) that a PSA 8 '63 Hodges I have is from such a set, as it is tightly cropped in its trim, vs. a more typical production '63 card. Interesting things to have! Hope the above link is helpful.
From a post in the old thread (below) -- one poster mentions a '67 presentation set, which I'd never heard of; I have heard of '62s and '63's. Ah, to have some Topps executive (Sy?) wanting to have kept a presentation set from 1952 onwards....
PSA will grade them as long as they meet size requirements. I do have some that came back as "does not meet minimum size requirements". I re-submitted them and some of them even graded the second time around. If you were to stack all the raw cards together in my set, you would see that they all vary in size. Some are smaller and some are larger. I did some research on this and found out that when Topps produced these Presentation Sets, they used a different cutting process than they normally did with the cards you would find in packs. The cutting process they used for Presentation Set cards was referred to as a "guillotine cut". It was as the name implies. Because of this cutting process, what you got was different sized cards and a fair amount of gorgeous cards that were off center.
I have seen some 1962 Topps Presentation cards before and they, too, are just unbelievably beautiful. There was a higher quality with the color and registry typically with the Presentation cards versus the cards that we got in packs. Why, I don't know, but it is true.
Thanks for all of the information.
Took the words out of my mouth. Awesome to see the Psa 10's all together like that, but it's all about having the money to get them too. It's not like he scoured the earth for raw examples & submitted them and got back 10's.
My thoughts are solidly towards its being from a '63 Collectors' set.
It particularly matches up well with the raw example pictured in the Huggins & Scott auction from 2010 above.
@originalisbest Thank you for this info and the link to the Huggins & Scott sale from March 2010. In that auction, it said that the set was complete (7 series). I only see 5 boxes in the picture, so I wonder where the 2 high series are (unless all 7 series fit in 5 boxes).
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
I do know that any planned All-Star cards for '63 never happened, so the card set was shorter than the then-typical 598; Series 6 was #447-522, and Series 7 was 523-576.
Maybe an extra BILLION...
Definitely helps a collection when you have cash to buy anything you want. I know there are some wealthy folks who collect (invest) in sports collectibles and I have always thought about how dominant one could be in this industry with the funds to spare. The guy has done very well in his professional career indeed.
https://www.businessinsider.com/nat-turner-flatiron-health-interview-2018-3
Here’s a good collector based interview with him:
I think it’s easy to judge and say “Oh he can buy what he wants, it’s easy when your a billionaire.” But I think you’ll find he’s just as passionate as any other collector without the funds. He spends a lot of time on his cards and you can see he gets true enjoyment out of the hobby, he’s just doing what probably all of us would if we had the funds. Even with the money you need to spend the time finding the cards, building the relationships for deals to happen. He’s a billionaire yet personally spends hours scanning his cards I think that says something.
I would hate to bid on anything this guy wants, but it is great when someone with unlimited cash still has a passion to do this. I don't think that I could ever walk away from collecting if I became a billionaire, it's just too much fun.
After all this time, I just found this thread. Some great comments all and Nat does have an amazing collection. He is also a great guy and passionate collector.
Speaking of Topps Presentation Sets, I won a 1963 set in an auction in 1997. I have the boxes the cards came in plus the set, partially graded and some raw.....raw cards are OC, miscut or have snow or dinged corners. These days, one never sees complete Presentation Sets for auction or sale.
Collect primarily 1959-1963 Topps Baseball
set registry id Don Johnson Collection
ebay id truecollector14
Have you guys checked out his collection on Instagram? I've been following his collection for a few years now & he has one of, if not the best Jordan collection I've ever seen. Or I should say the most expensive. He has every valuable insert including that '97 PMG Green he won at auction this year. He has a lot of my wish list.
As much as I'd love to have the money to buy whatever I wanted there's a part of me that thinks it might take some of the fun out of it. I love saving for that special high value item. If I had that kind of card budget I'd own anything I ever wanted inside of a year. Can you be a glutton card shopper?
I'm all about that Jordan stuff. Cards, stickers, posters & whatever else is cool. The rarer the better. And always in a PSA 10 if I can help it.
Any other big Jordan nuts out there let me know.
Hmmmmmmm.
Here's mine.
The Turner Killebrew is swimming in the holder, not even close to the size of Joes. And the 63 Mantle looks way small as well.
Based on what we know today would be very interesting to go card by card and measure, I bet there are a bunch of shorts in that collection.
Does any one know if the interior size of the holders was made bigger? Perhaps to accommodate a slightly oversize card. If not the PSA 10 looks too small!?!?!?!?
My card is in a pre .5 holder. Think I could get an 8.5?
I would agree it very well could be, but as disappointed as I am in PSA lately, I would contend the '63 Mantle could very well be from a presentation set, and came that way. OR it could have been Moser'd to appear as such. Agreed the '55 Killebrew is now also a very likely suspect; I wouldn't be comfortable with that much room.
The folks with the brightest torches wouldn't like my stance on pressing (as with comics where it's become standard practice, I have no problem with it) but trimming and color touch are beyond the pale. I don't think anyone willl argue PSA needs to do a better job at detecting the fubar'd ones.
The most annoying thing to me is Moser's stuff IS detectable, but one would need to take time and observe a given card for more than a blink. Overall size is just an initial tell but more examination is needed. His patented "rough cuts" (when used) have their own repeating patterns that don't look quite like the real deal if more than a casual glance is employed. I'd love to see one of his jacked creations on the edge, under 20X magnification and have a known "good" edge from the same set/same card to compare it against, whether a rough cut or smooth. If one takes an exacto to a card edge, compare that edge vs. an untouched factory edge from the same set under 20X (or greater) magnification -- you'll marvel at the differences.
Size can definitely be a canary in a coal mine (the many super jacked floating '48 Leafs we've seen that swim in their holders) but a close examination of the edge itself under magnification would be what's most needed to condemn/bless (IMO.)
Wherever the Mantle came from it should meet a minimum size. The grader would not or at least should not know the provenance of the card. If presentation sets are short then they don’t get holdered.
There again it's not purely the size that should be the final indicator. There is a difference, very noticeable, under magnification, for a factory cut vs. a boinked card made ("improved") by an x-acto artist. And that would also go for the presentation sets (examining known presentation cards for their particular appearance under magnification.) That said, sure, avoid cards that are to you, too small personally. But a card that measures out doesn't mean it wasn't messed with either (all of Moser's little color touch print dot fill-ins) -- it's just that if the scammers bother to color touch, they're usually also taking a little off the top.
The 55 bowman mantle is super short. That card is doing the backstroke in that slab. Too bad about the 55 killebrew as well.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It is a fact that not every card that is slightly smaller is necessarily altered. If a card does not meet the min size requirement, it should be N6-ed. But I really hope we’re not going to start calling every card into question that is slightly undersized.
Agreed, but how do you define slightly undersized? I would think slightly undersized would require measurement and wouldn’t be obvious to the eye.
@80sOPC
This card looks slightly undersized by the naked eye to me. I very much doubt it is trimmed given what it is. Like everything else, the willingness to accept slight undersizing vs. N6-ing varies from grader to grader.
As a buyer, I can certainly see being more exacting with major high dollar stars. But the problem is it is now apparently possible to “micro-trim” so that the card doesn’t appear alarmingly undersized. So I hope it is true that trimming can be detected other than by size assessment, otherwise I fear we are in big trouble.
Another thing you need to understand is that a size tolerance goes BOTH ways; on the two Killebrews here mine could be oversized by the maximum and the "10" could be undersized by the maximum, in effect doubling the 1/16 (?) so that one card is 1/8 inch smaller and yet still within tolerance.