1980 Henderson REA Auction
bgr
Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am curious what other people think as this card measures quite short -1.85mm left/right and looks trimmed on the right (viewed from front). Trimmed or not guys?
https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=185294
0
Comments
It has a slight tilt... a cert starting with a zero, graded may moons ago, would be a psa 9 today.
It does appear to be short (side-to-side). Also…agree it would not grade a PSA-10 today.
Eeek. Dandruff.
Gobble.
That upper right corner (near the #482) on the back looks too soft for this card to be in a 10 holder.
buying O-Pee-Chee (OPC) baseball
When you scan the card you can see a small circle on the top left of the card. This is an indention. I have several. I have one that's a psa 9. I have one without that's a 7. it should be reversed.
Having a Henderson 10 is my grail. I'd love to have one. Rickey was so iconic and I love this card. My favorite rookie of any player.
I'd even take this one.
Are you referring to this?
This isn't an indentation, but I'm not speaking to the quality.
I'm not speaking to the quality, but that corner looks fine to me.
Even if it was trimmed? I had a card get returned recently MINSIZERQ at 2.482 inches and this is (at best) 2.454 inches. So what is the minimum size allowed?
Very few vintage cards fill the holder completely left to right. This card looks no different size-wise then dozens of others I own.
I would take it. Even 10s aren't 100% perfect and I can take a few dings on this card. If I were a bidder (not happening) I would try to get it on the lower end of the 10 range, but would still buy it.
Slick maneuver having it re-slabbed to throw off the rich boy rubes
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
i am not speaking to the quality of this particular card, but keep in mind that PSA 10's are not "perfect" cards. there is no such thing.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
A PSA slab is 13.5mm long and 8mm wide. This allows you to measure a card in an image with relative ease.
You’re right that many vintage cards don’t fill the holders but we do know the expected size for each issue and this one should be 2.5” x 3.5”. Being this far undersize isn’t uncommon but it is uncommon for a card this size to be slabbed as it’s well under the margin they reject at.
But that’s not the big thing. My software merely flagged this card as minsize. When I reviewed it I saw the right edge of the card and it certainly looks trimmed to me. Here I’m not referring to the size either. Take a look at that edge vs all of the other edges. Take a look under a 30x loupe at some pack-fresh 70s or early 80s edges. You can get fresh cuts on edges but usually all the edges look similar as they are cut with the same blades. But also look at the corners on that edge. Those are called dog ears when they bulge out a little like they do. It’s subtle. I think this card is trimmed.
^ Given the 0 series it is certainly plausible
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Oops. I mean cm not mm. But when the mini minis come out then the smaller holders will be clutch.
@bgr
I won’t dispute your measurements but honestly it doesn’t look that small to me. One edge of the card is right up against the rail and the other is only a shade away from the rail. What size do you measure this card as?
I measured side to side at the top of the card quick - watching movie with wife.
62.929mm ~= 2.478 inches wide. within margin for 72 less than 1mm short.
That same cert has sold twice in the last couple years, 132K & 120K, I would expect a continued downward trend for this card. But it's an auction and you never know.
It is. I have several with them and you can feel it when you touch it. I have one that doesn't have it. It is some type of cardboard issue.
That particular spot is so common, and I've never felt it to be anything but flush.
You’re not going to tell me what it measures?
I don’t have any means of measuring it precisely. I just wondered what your way would show since it doesn’t look that much wider than the Henderson to me in terms of unoccupied horizontal space in the slab.
bgr - agreed. but i have a nice 8 without it. looks better than my 9 with the circle. shouldn't be like that.
It's good to know some things haven't changed. Even back when I was building graded sets in the very early 2000s people were arguing over over-graded 10s
Back then I always felt that a 10 was a grader having a good day. Then and now, I'm not convinced a grader can go back and differentiate between a 9 and 10 more than 50 or 60% of the time in a blind test.