Question on "Minimum Size Requirement"

Bigdaddy101 · April 30, 2004 5:52AM

Does anybody know what the "minimum size requirement" is for a 1965 Topps card?

I have a 1965 Topps card sitting in a PSA 9 holder (bought a long time ago on ebay) that is clearly undersized, likely due to trimming. Instead of measuring the regulation 2 1/2 x 3 1/2, it measures 2 29/64 x 3 1/2 (it is 3/64 undersized). Check out the link to a scan of the card below.

I sent it in to PSA for them to review for trimming and/or minimum size requirement. They sent it back with the note "not trimmed".

My followup question is therefore - If the card is not trimmed, then what about the minimum size requirement? I've had a number of card submissions returned by PSA over the years with the designation "failure to meet minimum size requirement". This designation presumably applies to cards that show no evidence of trimming, but are an undersized factory cut.

I contacted PSA customer support twice seeking an answer to the simple question.."What is the minimum size requirement, in inches, for a 1965 Topps card?" You wouldn't believe the double talk answers that I got. Bottom line - nobody at PSA would committ to any measurements other than restating the standard size of 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 for the 1965 Topps card.

I'm now losing faith in PSA. I thought they would stand behind their grades and be honest when they obviously made a mistake. The reality here is that this is a trimmed card in a PSA 9 holder. PSA refuses to admit it, because they don't want to pay me a refund of the SMR value.

If they keep this up, they'll have to change their name to PRO grading.

65 Niekro PSA 9?

Stone193 · April 30, 2004 5:57AM

BigD
Hi - I talked to a customer service rep who asked a grader and the answer I got: if the card does NOT show a sign of trimming, it can be undersized by 1/32" and still be holdered. Hope this restores a little confidence.
Mike

envoy98 · April 30, 2004 6:08AM

They probably don't want to make it real obvious what their standards are for fear of people thinking they can "trim" 1/32 off a card and still have it slabbed. I don't know if that is the case, but it would seem to reason that it could be one reason they don't publish that information. They don't want some idiot to think that if he finds one 1/32 oversized and drops'er into the ole paper cutter he'll make a 9.

Griffins · April 30, 2004 6:10AM

There was an editorial in SMR a few months ago by Joe Orlando entitled "Whack Jobs". I think it was a veiled reference to the insignificant 1% of collectors, but it stated that many seemingly undersized cards were actually from presentation sets and not trimmed.
edited to add
Envoy, a paper cutter will most likely give you bat ears, and that is what psa is looking for- EVIDENCE or trim. I also look for an edge that looks sharper or fresher than the rest, and especially how the card comes to a point at the corners.
There are stories of collectors/dealers buying up oversized T206's at the time Jim Copeland was buying everything in sight that was nrmint or better, and trimming them down to perscribed size. So maybe size isn't everything- at least with cards.

rw2win · April 30, 2004 7:08AM

Ask the wife...

tripoli · April 30, 2004 7:14AM

They also weigh the cards to ensure they are within prescribed limits

DeutscherGeist · April 30, 2004 8:20AM

IF PSA slabs a trimmed card and it goes into circulation, no matter how many times it changes hands, if one of the owners comes forward and says this card is trimmed because of bat ears or something, then PSA must give that owner with the claim cash compensation equal to SMR value. Then PSA must take that card and destroy it or stamp right on it (yes, right on it) that it is trimmed --so no one else gets screwed.

If PSA or any other company does not stand behind the cards they grade, there is no purpose in getting cards graded in the first place. One of our good friends on this board, ydsotter, bought some basketball cards in BGS holders. he crossed them over to PSA, but they came back as evidence of trimming. In his heart, Ydsotter knows he has been ripped off, but how does BGS know that it was the exact card they graded and not one that ydsotter switched (I know ydsotter is speaking the truth, but how does BGS know this?). That is one tough case. The guarantee, then becomes worthless. So, one would have to determine that a card is trimmed while still in the holder, which is very hard to do.

Very few cards that are trimmed get slabbed by PSA. Out of those cards, far fewer are ever discovered as trimmed by the owners. Those very few cases where the owner takes the time and effort to use a high powered microscope to identify trimming and then going over to PSA and telling them that under 100x magnification, there is evidence of this and that is extremely rare (PSA will certainly pay up at that point). However, hardly anyone collects on the gaurantee, and if they ever do, it is neglible to PSA as they deal in large volume--it barely makes a dent in their pocket book. Maybe this is BGS mentality, that they can grade a few trimmed cards and not worry about it.

One more angle: Does PSA check every card for trimming or just high priced cards? It would take too much time to check for trimming on Dave Hansen cards, which are likely never ever going to be trimmed, but the Mattingly, Ruth, Mantle cards probably are more likely. Some cards are never thouroughly inspected, but they should be. Frank Thomas is dirt cheap now and so is Strawberry and Canseco, but those cards used to be the holy grail at one point in time and surely there are trimmed and counterfeits still floating out there. If I buy a raw Strawberry and then submit it, will PSA check for those points I mentioned or just consider it an inconsequential card and not bother taking the time to evaluate it under close scurtiny? What protocol do they follow when determining whether a card needs to be checked more closely than other ones? Let's say, I do discover evidence of trimming on the Strawberry rookie once it has been slabbed. Then I would take it to PSA and they would give me SMR (about $25). After all the trouble I went through taking that card to a university electron microscope lab and having it checked, I only am entitled to $25 (or maybe just the grading fee since I was the one to submit it and didn't pay someone to acquire the card). Some guarantee. No compensation for the time and effort and emotional damage caused by it all. It all makes it not worth it.

Bigdaddy101 · April 30, 2004 8:24AM

Thanks for the great replies and information so far -

Based on the 1/32" standard, my PSA 9 card should be officially rejected as undersized by PSA, because it is 3/64" undersized.

Who do I need to contact at PSA to correct this injustice, or am I just SOL?

KallMaloneSay · April 30, 2004 8:28AM

Trimming and altering techniques are getting better, soon most high grade cards will be trimmed and have no signs of bat ears or any other evidence. Grading companies know this and there's really nothing that can be done.

phreakydancin · April 30, 2004 9:16AM

<< Thanks for the great replies and information so far - Based on the 1/32" standard, my PSA 9 card should be officially rejected as undersized by PSA, because it is 3/64" undersized. Who do I need to contact at PSA to correct this injustice, or am I just SOL? >>

Based on your original posting, I'd say your card is nearly 1/2" oversized. Did you mean the width is 2-29/64" ?

Maybe you can give us a little more info on why you think it is "likely" trimmed? If PSA reviews it twice, once specifically for trimming, and declares it "not trimmed," I'd be satisfied with that. Do you want the card to have been trimmed?

koby · April 30, 2004 9:21AM

Bigdaddy,

If the card is undersized, it there should be space in the holder. When you get the chance, can you post a scan for us the see?

Koby

murcerfan · April 30, 2004 9:39AM

They also weigh the cards to ensure they are within prescribed limits

Oh, really !

do they measure the moisture content before or after they weigh each card.

edited to add:

the minimum size for us mortals is 2 15/32" x 3 15/16".

cards from "presentation sets" submitted by certain large submitters are "subjective"
and are often smaller than this.

..............and remember that everybody makes mistakes too.

Bigdaddy101 · April 30, 2004 10:42AM

OK Guys - Thanks for the great comments and cross examination. Now some additional info and clarifications -

Thanks to "phreakydancin" for pointing out my measurement error. The card measures: 2 29/64; it is 3/64 undersized.

For "koby" - here is the scan. Would you buy this card?!?!?!?

65 Niekro PSA 9?

Again for "phreakydancin" - I don't want it to be trimmed phreaky; I just want justice!!!

mariner · April 30, 2004 1:16PM

I own a 1963 Topps Presentation Set and I can say for sure that many cards from Pres Sets are "undersized". The cutting process for them was different and the cards are different sizes.

Stone193 · April 30, 2004 1:39PM

<< Again for "phreakydancin" - I don't want it to be trimmed phreaky; I just want justice!!! >>

BigD
That is a beautiful card! You can rest assured holdered as a PSA 9 and slightly undersized, as opposed to trimmed, is a tremendous asset to anyone's collection. I know you are only worried about getting stuck. IMO, you don't have anything to worry about and could sell it tonite and sleep tite. Hope this helps.
Mike

Aknot · April 30, 2004 1:47PM

See I look at all the "real estate" at the "bottom" (right side) of the card and go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. It looks like it is to small for the holder to me. Now I am by nomeans an expert. It is just I wouldnt bid on it. BUT from Stones response I would be loosing out. ITs enough to make me start drinking again. Im glad I keep my hair short or I would have pulled it out a long time ago.

murcerfan · April 30, 2004 1:49PM

The cutting process for them was different and the cards are different sizes

could you describe this process ?

was a wider "knife" used ?

Aknot · April 30, 2004 1:55PM

<< The cutting process for them was different and the cards are different sizes

could you describe this process ?

was a wider "knife" used ? >>

Well I dont know why people bring up "paper cutters", when a "nice" exacto knife, metal ruler and a small clamp would probably work wonders.

If people want me to delet this I will.

Stone193 · April 30, 2004 2:04PM

<< See I look at all the "real estate" at the "bottom" >>

Jim
I just looked at the card again and used the magnifier button - Wow! There is a lot of space there - I may have messed up on my "strong" sense to allay suspicion - however, having said that - the card was resubmitted and I would hope that their reputation is worth more than $350 to refund the sender. I think if he emailed PSA and presented his grievance - you would hope they would take it back again and recheck it.
What do you guys think on this one?
Mike

PS: Aknot - thanx for showing me some deference on this one - a slam would've been OK?!?!

<< a "nice" exacto knife, metal ruler and a small clamp >>

Try paper cutting laser?

Question on &quot;Minimum Size Requirement&quot;

Comments

Question on "Minimum Size Requirement"