The cards aren’t measured so I don’t believe there is a min or max. Its all eyeball and the graders should have an idea on how much border there should be
@80sOPC said:
The cards aren’t measured so I don’t believe there is a min or max. Its all eyeball and the graders should have an idea on how much border there should be
How do you know this? I always assumed there was some kind of measurement taken. Of course I have never been employed as a baseball card grader.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@80sOPC said:
The cards aren’t measured so I don’t believe there is a min or max. Its all eyeball and the graders should have an idea on how much border there should be
How do you know this? I always assumed there was some kind of measurement taken. Of course I have never been employed as a baseball card grader.
"1) Graders Measure Each and Every Card With a Ruler – False
When a card is evaluated by a grader, they may or may not choose to physically measure the card. Many people are under the false impression that locating evidence of trimming, for example, is a simple product of measurement and nothing could be further from the truth. Graders will measure the card if they think the card needs to actually be measured. Their eyes, due to their experience, are much more crucial than a ruler."
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.
I do agree, and again would urge someone wondering to do their own xacto experimenting (on a otherwise beater/worthless vintage card obviously) to compare the differences of the edge vs. an unaltered example's edge, under strong magnification and light. This works for vintage. For modern stuff, well... maybe serial numbers and strict measurement will save us.
@80sOPC said:
The cards aren’t measured so I don’t believe there is a min or max. Its all eyeball and the graders should have an idea on how much border there should be
How do you know this? I always assumed there was some kind of measurement taken. Of course I have never been employed as a baseball card grader.
"1) Graders Measure Each and Every Card With a Ruler – False
When a card is evaluated by a grader, they may or may not choose to physically measure the card. Many people are under the false impression that locating evidence of trimming, for example, is a simple product of measurement and nothing could be further from the truth. Graders will measure the card if they think the card needs to actually be measured. Their eyes, due to their experience, are much more crucial than a ruler."
That may well have to change in the future, I'd think. Quick eyeballing stuff only is how grading got into this mess (apart from the original sin trimmers, of course.)
@addicted2ebay said:
A big registry guy told me they grade a card in less than 10 seconds.
For high-end (higher value) cards, one must submit at a higher service level (higher cost per card). That is well known, so I would like to suggest to PSA’s Chief Innovation Officer to consider using an automated measurement tool. I am not an engineer or cannot specifically speak about such a tool existing, but surely, there must be some instrument that can accurately measure the length and width of an object that is placed x distance from it (the measuring device). The measurement of the card can be shown right on the PSA grade label. The price to the consumer can be automatically included in the charge for higher service levels, and hell, even delay the turnaround if needed.
@80sOPC said:
The cards aren’t measured so I don’t believe there is a min or max. Its all eyeball and the graders should have an idea on how much border there should be
How do you know this? I always assumed there was some kind of measurement taken. Of course I have never been employed as a baseball card grader.
"1) Graders Measure Each and Every Card With a Ruler – False
When a card is evaluated by a grader, they may or may not choose to physically measure the card. Many people are under the false impression that locating evidence of trimming, for example, is a simple product of measurement and nothing could be further from the truth. Graders will measure the card if they think the card needs to actually be measured. Their eyes, due to their experience, are much more crucial than a ruler."
That may well have to change in the future, I'd think. Quick eyeballing stuff only is how grading got into this mess (apart from the original sin trimmers, of course.)
Your “expectation of human opinion-based services is simply unattainable.”
@80sOPC said:
The cards aren’t measured so I don’t believe there is a min or max. Its all eyeball and the graders should have an idea on how much border there should be
How do you know this? I always assumed there was some kind of measurement taken. Of course I have never been employed as a baseball card grader.
"1) Graders Measure Each and Every Card With a Ruler – False
When a card is evaluated by a grader, they may or may not choose to physically measure the card. Many people are under the false impression that locating evidence of trimming, for example, is a simple product of measurement and nothing could be further from the truth. Graders will measure the card if they think the card needs to actually be measured. Their eyes, due to their experience, are much more crucial than a ruler."
That may well have to change in the future, I'd think. Quick eyeballing stuff only is how grading got into this mess (apart from the original sin trimmers, of course.)
Your “expectation of human opinion-based services is simply unattainable.”
@addicted2ebay said:
A big registry guy told me they grade a card in less than 10 seconds.
For high-end (higher value) cards, one must submit at a higher service level (higher cost per card). That is well known, so I would like to suggest to PSA’s Chief Innovation Officer to consider using an automated measurement tool. I am not an engineer or cannot specifically speak about such a tool existing, but surely, there must be some instrument that can accurately measure the length and width of an object that is placed x distance from it (the measuring device). The measurement of the card can be shown right on the PSA grade label. The price to the consumer can be automatically included in the charge for higher service levels, and hell, even delay the turnaround if needed.
Just thinking out loud?!
I used a "View Precis" optical scanning/inspecting machine over 20 years ago to measure circuit boards. Could be programmed for each individual card to check size, squareness, corners and even centering. Can print out a list of the measurements and how far from "nominal" the actual measurements are.
The machine is very fast. It would take longer to put the card on, enter the information and remove the card than it would take the machine to do the actual measuring.
There you go!
Edited to add; the machine is accurate to .0005 of an inch. Human hair about .0020.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I used a "View Precis" optical scanning/inspecting machine...
Edited to add; the machine is accurate to .0005 of an inch. Human hair about .0020.
Thanks Joe!
How about it PSA? Surely at the Express level at $75 a pop, you can provide a desired value-add feature, enhance confidence and build trust by providing this service, and by showing the results directly on the label. No?
@80sOPC said:
The cards aren’t measured so I don’t believe there is a min or max. Its all eyeball and the graders should have an idea on how much border there should be
How do you know this? I always assumed there was some kind of measurement taken. Of course I have never been employed as a baseball card grader.
"1) Graders Measure Each and Every Card With a Ruler – False
When a card is evaluated by a grader, they may or may not choose to physically measure the card. Many people are under the false impression that locating evidence of trimming, for example, is a simple product of measurement and nothing could be further from the truth. Graders will measure the card if they think the card needs to actually be measured. Their eyes, due to their experience, are much more crucial than a ruler."
That may well have to change in the future, I'd think. Quick eyeballing stuff only is how grading got into this mess (apart from the original sin trimmers, of course.)
Your “expectation of human opinion-based services is simply unattainable.”
A card’s measurement is not subjective.
Agreed but the interpretation of that measurement can be.
I used a "View Precis" optical scanning/inspecting machine...
Edited to add; the machine is accurate to .0005 of an inch. Human hair about .0020.
Thanks Joe!
How about it PSA? Surely at the Express level at $75 a pop, you can provide a desired value-add feature, enhance confidence and build trust by providing this service, and by showing the results directly on the label. No?
Buddy, this was 20 years ago and the thing was amazing. Could measure straight lines angles and curves. We didn't even use it to measure thickness, but it could. It would print out as many dimensions as you asked it to and tell you if they were too small or too big and by how much.
The REAL problem here is MONEY. No one wants to spend it if they don't have to.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
There is something Nathan said in his interview that I completely agree with. That is that young people are turned off to collecting now because you have to pay $1,000 for a pack in order to pull something significant. It used to be anyone - an experienced adult collector or a kid buying his very first pack - could buy a $5 pack & pull an awesome, holy grail card. Now if you want a high dollar card you have to pay high dollars. Its not really fair anymore. Everyone had an equal chance to pull something great. It's taken something important away from our hobby. I hope it doesn't drive away too many new, would-be collectors.
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.
I do not think accurately measuring cards would really help. Cards are not uniform size there is natural variation. Trimmers know the tolerance and can make sure cards fall within the range. To me a wiser investment would be in a database of scanned card and AI technology that finds and shows possible matches. Photo matching to previous submissions would be a useful tool.
Regardless, we have been patient and PSA has not announced measures to try to get better. This is disappointing given that we zoomed through the National where the most media would be there to publicize any new measures without a peep. It seems that PSA sees these undetected alterations as comfortably within their acceptable margin of error.
@brad31 said:
I do not think accurately measuring cards would really help. Cards are not uniform size there is natural variation. Trimmers know the tolerance and can make sure cards fall within the range. To me a wiser investment would be in a database of scanned card and AI technology that finds and shows possible matches. Photo matching to previous submissions would be a useful tool.
Regardless, we have been patient and PSA has not announced measures to try to get better. This is disappointing given that we zoomed through the National where the most media would be there to publicize any new measures without a peep. It seems that PSA sees these undetected alterations as comfortably within their acceptable margin of error.
Both ways of documenting cards would be good.
I think you miss the point on measuring, it would give the buyer another bit of accurate information on which to base his decision.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@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.
Well stated.
My understanding also is that PSA focuses equally on the cut of the card in addition to its size to determine if a card has been trimmed or not. A card that is trimmed will not exhibit the same cut as one that was cut in the factory 50 years ago.
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.
@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.
Well stated.
My understanding also is that PSA focuses equally on the cut of the card in addition to its size to determine if a card has been trimmed or not. A card that is trimmed will not exhibit the same cut as one that was cut in the factory 50 years ago.
I understand that the cut is also a key identifier, but I don’t agree that a card can be “slightly undersized”. IMO, the sizing is binary: it is either undersized or it is of acceptable size, no slightly about it. Why not just take this out of the possibility of human error and grader interpretation variance and have a card accurately measured.
The host has compared the most recent alteration matter with wanting to take umpires right out of baseball. Well, the baseball analogy is quite appropriate. The electronic strike zone technology is used to grade how well umpires are performing and you can see the trend towards replay reviews/coaches challenges. Players and owners are gaining more and more traction in this matter. The game itself is evolving along with advances in technology...this should be the same with grading. Why not make the most objective factor in grading as precise (human error- and interpretation-free) and transparent as possible.
@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.
Well stated.
My understanding also is that PSA focuses equally on the cut of the card in addition to its size to determine if a card has been trimmed or not. A card that is trimmed will not exhibit the same cut as one that was cut in the factory 50 years ago.
I understand that the cut is also a key identifier, but I don’t agree that a card can be “slightly undersized”. IMO, the sizing is binary: it is either undersized or it is of acceptable size, no slightly about it. Why not just take this out of the possibility of human error and grader interpretation variance and have a card accurately measured.
The host has compared the most recent alteration matter with wanting to take umpires right out of baseball. Well, the baseball analogy is quite appropriate. The electronic strike zone technology is used to grade how well umpires are performing and you can see the trend towards replay reviews/coaches challenges. Players and owners are gaining more and more traction in this matter. The game itself is evolving along with advances in technology...this should be the same with grading. Why not make the most objective factor in grading as precise (human error- and interpretation-free) and transparent as possible.
I'm not saying undersized should be holdered. Cards that do not meet size requirements should be (and usually are) rejected as minsizereq but that is also different from a trimmed card which PSA designates as evidtrim. The former example PSA does not charge the submission fee for while in cases of evidtrim cases they do. The reason for that is cards were often cut short at the factory for which PSA will not penalize the submitter.
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.
@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.
Well stated.
My understanding also is that PSA focuses equally on the cut of the card in addition to its size to determine if a card has been trimmed or not. A card that is trimmed will not exhibit the same cut as one that was cut in the factory 50 years ago.
I understand that the cut is also a key identifier, but I don’t agree that a card can be “slightly undersized”. IMO, the sizing is binary: it is either undersized or it is of acceptable size, no slightly about it. Why not just take this out of the possibility of human error and grader interpretation variance and have a card accurately measured.
The host has compared the most recent alteration matter with wanting to take umpires right out of baseball. Well, the baseball analogy is quite appropriate. The electronic strike zone technology is used to grade how well umpires are performing and you can see the trend towards replay reviews/coaches challenges. Players and owners are gaining more and more traction in this matter. The game itself is evolving along with advances in technology...this should be the same with grading. Why not make the most objective factor in grading as precise (human error- and interpretation-free) and transparent as possible.
I'm not saying undersized should be holdered. Cards that do not meet size requirements should be (and usually are) rejected as minsizereq but that is also different from a trimmed card which PSA designates as evidtrim. The former example PSA does not charge the submission fee for while in cases of evidtrim cases they do. The reason for that is cards were often cut short at the factory for which PSA will not penalize the submitter.
Understood. I did not mean to come across as being adversarial, and I enjoy the constructive and respectful discussion on the thread.
Comments
The cards aren’t measured so I don’t believe there is a min or max. Its all eyeball and the graders should have an idea on how much border there should be
How do you know this? I always assumed there was some kind of measurement taken. Of course I have never been employed as a baseball card grader.
Straight from the horse's mouth.
psacard.com/articles/articleview/5054/taking-my-hacks-card-grading-urban-legend
"1) Graders Measure Each and Every Card With a Ruler – False
When a card is evaluated by a grader, they may or may not choose to physically measure the card. Many people are under the false impression that locating evidence of trimming, for example, is a simple product of measurement and nothing could be further from the truth. Graders will measure the card if they think the card needs to actually be measured. Their eyes, due to their experience, are much more crucial than a ruler."
I do agree, and again would urge someone wondering to do their own xacto experimenting (on a otherwise beater/worthless vintage card obviously) to compare the differences of the edge vs. an unaltered example's edge, under strong magnification and light. This works for vintage. For modern stuff, well... maybe serial numbers and strict measurement will save us.
That may well have to change in the future, I'd think. Quick eyeballing stuff only is how grading got into this mess (apart from the original sin trimmers, of course.)
A big registry guy told me they grade a card in less than 10 seconds.
For high-end (higher value) cards, one must submit at a higher service level (higher cost per card). That is well known, so I would like to suggest to PSA’s Chief Innovation Officer to consider using an automated measurement tool. I am not an engineer or cannot specifically speak about such a tool existing, but surely, there must be some instrument that can accurately measure the length and width of an object that is placed x distance from it (the measuring device). The measurement of the card can be shown right on the PSA grade label. The price to the consumer can be automatically included in the charge for higher service levels, and hell, even delay the turnaround if needed.
Just thinking out loud?!
Your “expectation of human opinion-based services is simply unattainable.”
A card’s measurement is not subjective.
This is different than saying "they don't measure the cards".
I used a "View Precis" optical scanning/inspecting machine over 20 years ago to measure circuit boards. Could be programmed for each individual card to check size, squareness, corners and even centering. Can print out a list of the measurements and how far from "nominal" the actual measurements are.
The machine is very fast. It would take longer to put the card on, enter the information and remove the card than it would take the machine to do the actual measuring.
There you go!
Edited to add; the machine is accurate to .0005 of an inch. Human hair about .0020.
Thanks Joe!
How about it PSA? Surely at the Express level at $75 a pop, you can provide a desired value-add feature, enhance confidence and build trust by providing this service, and by showing the results directly on the label. No?
Agreed but the interpretation of that measurement can be.
Buddy, this was 20 years ago and the thing was amazing. Could measure straight lines angles and curves. We didn't even use it to measure thickness, but it could. It would print out as many dimensions as you asked it to and tell you if they were too small or too big and by how much.
The REAL problem here is MONEY. No one wants to spend it if they don't have to.
There is something Nathan said in his interview that I completely agree with. That is that young people are turned off to collecting now because you have to pay $1,000 for a pack in order to pull something significant. It used to be anyone - an experienced adult collector or a kid buying his very first pack - could buy a $5 pack & pull an awesome, holy grail card. Now if you want a high dollar card you have to pay high dollars. Its not really fair anymore. Everyone had an equal chance to pull something great. It's taken something important away from our hobby. I hope it doesn't drive away too many new, would-be collectors.
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.
I do not think accurately measuring cards would really help. Cards are not uniform size there is natural variation. Trimmers know the tolerance and can make sure cards fall within the range. To me a wiser investment would be in a database of scanned card and AI technology that finds and shows possible matches. Photo matching to previous submissions would be a useful tool.
Regardless, we have been patient and PSA has not announced measures to try to get better. This is disappointing given that we zoomed through the National where the most media would be there to publicize any new measures without a peep. It seems that PSA sees these undetected alterations as comfortably within their acceptable margin of error.
Both ways of documenting cards would be good.
I think you miss the point on measuring, it would give the buyer another bit of accurate information on which to base his decision.
Well stated.
My understanding also is that PSA focuses equally on the cut of the card in addition to its size to determine if a card has been trimmed or not. A card that is trimmed will not exhibit the same cut as one that was cut in the factory 50 years ago.
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.
I understand that the cut is also a key identifier, but I don’t agree that a card can be “slightly undersized”. IMO, the sizing is binary: it is either undersized or it is of acceptable size, no slightly about it. Why not just take this out of the possibility of human error and grader interpretation variance and have a card accurately measured.
The host has compared the most recent alteration matter with wanting to take umpires right out of baseball. Well, the baseball analogy is quite appropriate. The electronic strike zone technology is used to grade how well umpires are performing and you can see the trend towards replay reviews/coaches challenges. Players and owners are gaining more and more traction in this matter. The game itself is evolving along with advances in technology...this should be the same with grading. Why not make the most objective factor in grading as precise (human error- and interpretation-free) and transparent as possible.
I'm not saying undersized should be holdered. Cards that do not meet size requirements should be (and usually are) rejected as minsizereq but that is also different from a trimmed card which PSA designates as evidtrim. The former example PSA does not charge the submission fee for while in cases of evidtrim cases they do. The reason for that is cards were often cut short at the factory for which PSA will not penalize the submitter.
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.
Understood. I did not mean to come across as being adversarial, and I enjoy the constructive and respectful discussion on the thread.