Trimmed 1961 Topps Stuart PSA 9 on ebay?

LateBloomer

Is it my imagination or does the Stuart card looked trimmed? The left border is narrow and the card doesn't even fill the space width-wise in the PSA holder. Compare it to the other card in the listing. I'd be interested in hearing what everyone thinks.





The auction is running at: Ebay Auction

Dallas88

I'll admit the Stuart has a "different" look to the left border (upper left corner looks like a razor), but IF that were a trim job, it's so obvious, especially once it's in the holder, that there's no WAY a card THAT MUCH OFF could be missed by a grader (or multiple graders).

JMO, but I have a hard time believing that the pic isn't "touched-up".

Only one way to find out though!!!

Dal

CON40

It does look a little smaller, but it's not necessarily trimmed. It may have originally come from a presentation set. From certain years (I'm not sure which) presentation sets were notorious for having smaller trim sizes than wax pack cards.

MorrellMan

That's true of presentation sets 1961 thru 1963. I don't know about any other years.

WinPitcher

1961 topps are notorious for having cards of diferent sizes, it is one of the years in which catalogues even state "cards approximate size" .....im sure buckwheat could fill us in on this a lil more.

it is also true regarding presentation sets


i think i read that in a baseball americana or a yearly edition of beckett

Wabittwax

Imo, the Stuart looks ok, I've had many cards that look like that. I think the Kravitz is actually too big. It looks like it is stuffed in the holder and barely fits.

Vargha

The Stuart card looks like it has "bat ears" at the top.

mariner

I will chime in on the presentation sets. My bet is that it did come from one. I know for a fact that presentation cards are different sizes due to the way Topps cut the cards. I own a 1963 and many of the cards are different sizes.

phreakydancin

<< <i>The Stuart card looks like it has "bat ears" at the top. >>

I think that's an optical illusion on the right side due to the fact that it's pushed up against the right plastic edging. To me, it looks bat-eared top/bottom on the right side (illusion), and dead straight on the left, where it is separated from the plastic border.

The Stuart is definitely smaller than the Kravitz, but without looking up close at the edges of the card, it's impossible to tell from the scan whether it was trimmed or not.

jrdolan

<< <i>It does look a little smaller, but it's not necessarily trimmed. It may have originally come from a presentation set. From certain years (I'm not sure which) presentation sets were notorious for having smaller trim sizes than wax pack cards. >>


I agree. My '63 Rose and some other '63s came from the same presentation set and all are very slightly under spec. All made PSA 8. So I have to believe the graders are aware that certain years have irregularities and don't reject a card based purely on being, say 1/32 less than standard in those years. They have to see physical evidence of trimming, too.

WinPitcher

........they still must meet minimum size requirements though

RonD

Same seller. Never have heard of 51 Bowman vending.

maxXposure

<< <i>Same seller. Never have heard of 51 Bowman vending. >>



i dont see anything about "vending" in that 51 Bowman auction you linked..

schr1st

No edits were made to that auction description either (at least not as of Sunday at 3:27 PM EST). What gives?



<< <i>

<< <i>Same seller. Never have heard of 51 Bowman vending. >>



i dont see anything about "vending" in that 51 Bowman auction you linked.. >>

RonD

Was being sarcastic. There is no 51 vending. The seller has a few cards in holders that do not measure up so I doubt it is due to cards being from vending.