@Jayman1982 said:
In the video I just posted the rough cuts alegedly ococcurred when OPC employees were given bonuses for producing higher volumes of cards to ship. They ended up putting more sheets in the cutting machine and the blade ended up tearing through the stack instead of a cleaner cut that would have been the case if a normal thickness of sheets was loaded.
This is something I have said many times. Not sure where the "vibrating wire" story came from, but I have used an industrial cutting machine where I used to work and if you try to cut too much the edge gets "rough".
I don't particularly care if you like it or not. A rough cut card is in fact a damaged card, PSA doesn't seem to deduct for it and I don't think a card with a rough cut should ever grade a 10.
Grading is subjective.
If you think a rough cut is good, that is great!
I would rather see smooth edges from the factory.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
yep. and there are at least two other factors that also “may” help account for the rough cut edges.
while not an exact science, there most certainly is a ton of science involved in the entire printing process. with that being said, the topps and opc stock differ. something as simple as the chemicals used or not used in the pulp to create the different sheets can harden differently. nothing really noticeable on a sheet by sheet basis but when youre cutting stacks deep, it can. think of the blackbelt breaking cinder blocks.
another cause is that the printers and cutters settings are interchangeable. tweaked for whatever they are printing at the time. you can have serious damage to the machine if attempting to cut w more pressure than needed. the reverse also applies but only to the product. so when its time to crank out opc hockey at say 30 sheets per stack and cut at 200lbs / sq inch of pressure, ill let you figure out how easy a miscalculation and set up could occur.
same reason why they call the “quarter-pounder w cheese” the “royale w cheese” in europe.
“thats right! the metric system. check out the big brain on brad!”.
miscalculate the the lbs conversion on the safer side and its exactly like what @Frozencaribou described in trying to cut too many sheets of paper w a guillotine. rough cuts.
In my opinion that Schmidt has very low eye appeal. I've seen a plethora of 7's and 8's that look better to my eyes and PSA routinely gives out 9's to cards with ZERO visible defects to the naked eye (20/20 vision assumed)
Take this 1973 Mays the rough cut is minimal on front - very apparent under magnification though. The front look pretty darn nice. On back the rough cut is more evident (just realized i don't have scan of the back).
Since different degrees of a rough cut's occur it is my opinion that the 1973 Schmidt shown above is a card that should have received no higher than a generous 8.
It's all subjective of course and for true collectors the overused saying applies "Buy the card, not the holder"
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
That Schmidt RC is a beauty. Based on what I've seen with regard to thousands of OPC cards coming out of the pack, from 1973 and many other years, I'd prefer to see that cut over a smooth one for any card I'm considering purchasing any day of the week.
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.
@blurryface said:
yep. and there are at least two other factors that also “may” help account for the rough cut edges.
while not an exact science, there most certainly is a ton of science involved in the entire printing process. with that being said, the topps and opc stock differ. something as simple as the chemicals used or not used in the pulp to create the different sheets can harden differently. nothing really noticeable on a sheet by sheet basis but when youre cutting stacks deep, it can. think of the blackbelt breaking cinder blocks.
another cause is that the printers and cutters settings are interchangeable. tweaked for whatever they are printing at the time. you can have serious damage to the machine if attempting to cut w more pressure than needed. the reverse also applies but only to the product. so when its time to crank out opc hockey at say 30 sheets per stack and cut at 200lbs / sq inch of pressure, ill let you figure out how easy a miscalculation and set up could occur.
same reason why they call the “quarter-pounder w cheese” the “royale w cheese” in europe.
“thats right! the metric system. check out the big brain on brad!”.
miscalculate the the lbs conversion on the safer side and its exactly like what @Frozencaribou described in trying to cut too many sheets of paper w a guillotine. rough cuts.
OPC card stock is noticeably thicker than Topps, one of the reasons I like the sets as much as I do.
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.
@grote15 said:
That Schmidt RC is a beauty. Based on what I've seen with regard to thousands of OPC cards coming out of the pack, from 1973 and many other years, I'd prefer to see that cut over a smooth one for any card I'm considering purchasing any day of the week.
While I agree that yes the worse the rough cut looks the less chance it's been altered, to me it's not a nice looking card as result. Neither point of view is right, nor is either wrong
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
@grote15 said:
That Schmidt RC is a beauty. Based on what I've seen with regard to thousands of OPC cards coming out of the pack, from 1973 and many other years, I'd prefer to see that cut over a smooth one for any card I'm considering purchasing any day of the week.
While I agree that yes the worse the rough cut looks the less chance it's been altered, to me it's not a nice looking card as result. Neither point of view is right, nor is either wrong
Agreed.
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.
@grote15 said:
That Schmidt RC is a beauty. Based on what I've seen with regard to thousands of OPC cards coming out of the pack, from 1973 and many other years, I'd prefer to see that cut over a smooth one for any card I'm considering purchasing any day of the week.
Rough cuts have never bothered me on issues where it is prevalent. From those that have chimed in - many would not have bought this Kaline. I have owned this one for at least a decade now and I personally love the way it is rough cut. Smooth edges are fine too. I like cards that pop with color and have nice focus above all else. I would take the rough-cut Schmidt with the color that pops over the smooth-edged Mays that looks a little washed out. We all have our own preferences - but I personally have no problem with rough-cuts.
@blurryface said:
that 53 early when is almost a deckle edge.
It’s like when you get in a fight and get a shiner. Someone points it out and you say “you should see the other guy”. The poor card that was to the left of the Wynn on that sheet!
Comments
This is something I have said many times. Not sure where the "vibrating wire" story came from, but I have used an industrial cutting machine where I used to work and if you try to cut too much the edge gets "rough".
I don't particularly care if you like it or not. A rough cut card is in fact a damaged card, PSA doesn't seem to deduct for it and I don't think a card with a rough cut should ever grade a 10.
Grading is subjective.
If you think a rough cut is good, that is great!
I would rather see smooth edges from the factory.
yep. and there are at least two other factors that also “may” help account for the rough cut edges.
while not an exact science, there most certainly is a ton of science involved in the entire printing process. with that being said, the topps and opc stock differ. something as simple as the chemicals used or not used in the pulp to create the different sheets can harden differently. nothing really noticeable on a sheet by sheet basis but when youre cutting stacks deep, it can. think of the blackbelt breaking cinder blocks.
another cause is that the printers and cutters settings are interchangeable. tweaked for whatever they are printing at the time. you can have serious damage to the machine if attempting to cut w more pressure than needed. the reverse also applies but only to the product. so when its time to crank out opc hockey at say 30 sheets per stack and cut at 200lbs / sq inch of pressure, ill let you figure out how easy a miscalculation and set up could occur.
same reason why they call the “quarter-pounder w cheese” the “royale w cheese” in europe.
“thats right! the metric system. check out the big brain on brad!”.
miscalculate the the lbs conversion on the safer side and its exactly like what @Frozencaribou described in trying to cut too many sheets of paper w a guillotine. rough cuts.
Thing is with OPC is that not all of a run is badly rough cut. Some cards escaped the process with much less "damage" than others.
This is the 1973 OPC image shown on PSA's pop report:
https://www.psacard.com/cardfacts/baseball-cards/1973-o-pee-chee/3275
In my opinion that Schmidt has very low eye appeal. I've seen a plethora of 7's and 8's that look better to my eyes and PSA routinely gives out 9's to cards with ZERO visible defects to the naked eye (20/20 vision assumed)
Take this 1973 Mays the rough cut is minimal on front - very apparent under magnification though. The front look pretty darn nice. On back the rough cut is more evident (just realized i don't have scan of the back).
Since different degrees of a rough cut's occur it is my opinion that the 1973 Schmidt shown above is a card that should have received no higher than a generous 8.
It's all subjective of course and for true collectors the overused saying applies "Buy the card, not the holder"
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
That Schmidt RC is a beauty. Based on what I've seen with regard to thousands of OPC cards coming out of the pack, from 1973 and many other years, I'd prefer to see that cut over a smooth one for any card I'm considering purchasing any day of the week.
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.
OPC card stock is noticeably thicker than Topps, one of the reasons I like the sets as much as I do.
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.
While I agree that yes the worse the rough cut looks the less chance it's been altered, to me it's not a nice looking card as result. Neither point of view is right, nor is either wrong
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Agreed.
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.
Agreed, that card is amazing.
Here is a 53 that I have that almost looks like it was perforated on the left edge and torn out.
The provenance for this card? If you can share that?
That rough cut has a rough cut
I purchased it on eBay a week or two ago.
Rough cuts have never bothered me on issues where it is prevalent. From those that have chimed in - many would not have bought this Kaline. I have owned this one for at least a decade now and I personally love the way it is rough cut. Smooth edges are fine too. I like cards that pop with color and have nice focus above all else. I would take the rough-cut Schmidt with the color that pops over the smooth-edged Mays that looks a little washed out. We all have our own preferences - but I personally have no problem with rough-cuts.
that 53 early wynn is almost a deckle edge.
It’s like when you get in a fight and get a shiner. Someone points it out and you say “you should see the other guy”. The poor card that was to the left of the Wynn on that sheet!
That Kaline is amazing.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS