I have to contrast the opinions of those who insist that they can tell the card is trimmed when they've only seen a scan of the card. It's also a scan where the right edge that you guys are calling into question is touching the black plastic insert inside the GAI holder. GAI is not GEM or PRO. They are a spin off of PSA. They obviously did not find anything conclusive. It seems to me that there are people on this board who assume that PSA never makes a mistake and if they say a card is tampered with, well they are God and God does not make mistakes. People on this board as biased towards PSA. Sure, nobody knows for sure either way. None of you pulled it out of the pack. I didn't pull it from the pack either. I've read plenty of stories of cards going to PSA and coming back trimmed or recolored and then resubmitted to PSA and they came back slabbed.
The most important point however, is that you guys keep mentioning that PSA denied it twice therefore it must be trimmed. PSA has never said it was trimmed. The first time they said it did not meet the qualifications of a PSA 5. The second time they merely indicated that it did not meet the specifications of a PSA 4. PSA has never even mentioned trimming. Just as many people have said that they see nothing indicating trimming as have said that it has definitely been trimmed. While you may think I'm in denial, you have never looked at the card in person. Is it possible that you are mistaken? Even if PSA thought it was trimmed, do you think it's possible for them to make a mistake?
I also brought it to the National last summer to shop it around to get a feel for the value. I believe it was Levi or one of the other guys working at the 707 table offered me $2200 for it. Of course I wasn't selling since I just bought it, but if a dealer can offer that much for it, I assume he probably thought he could get $3K out of it. Take that for whatever it's worth.
Regarding the entire grading and authentication process, you have to remember that it is all opinion. I don't see how anyone can say that a card has definitely been altered unless something is very obvious. There's plenty of doubt in the case of this card. Also, I've factually proven PSA/DNA wrong before on autograph authentication. A Sue Bird picture came back as fake due to the large print size compared to the size of the photo. She signed that photo while I had a brief chat with her before a game in Indianapolis.
<< <i>I also brought it to the National last summer to shop it around to get a feel for the value. I believe it was Levi or one of the other guys working at the 707 table offered me $2200 for it. Of course I wasn't selling since I just bought it, but if a dealer can offer that much for it, I assume he probably thought he could get $3K out of it. Take that for whatever it's worth. >>
Thats all well and good but Im sure these dealers were thinking of making a quick profit on the card NOT sending it to psa in hopes of a crossover or bump, if Im a dealer and I buy that card for $2200 Im going to put it on the table at $3K and let a buyer feel like he is getting a "deal" on the card when I sell it to him for $2700.
Besides all that is being talked about in this thread I hope in the end it works out in your favor...
Determining alterations is usually VERY far from "opinion."
Trimmed cards are IDd by methods that are ALOT closer to science than they are to "art."
I have NO idea if the subject card is trimmed or otherwise altered. All any of us know is that PSA did not want to put it into a 4 or 5 slab.
If the card was mine:
I would send it IN the GAI holder to SGC. If SGC slabbed it, I would send it to PSA in the SGC holder. If it did not make into the SGC holder, I would send it raw to PSA. If PSA did not slab it, I would send it raw to SGC.
The goal is always to get the card into the right slab, at the highest grade possible.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Determining alterations is usually VERY far from "opinion."
Trimmed cards are IDd by methods that are ALOT closer to science than they are to "art."
I would send it IN the GAI holder to SGC. If SGC slabbed it, I would send it to PSA in the SGC holder. If it did not make into the SGC holder, I would send it raw to PSA. If PSA did not slab it, I would send it raw to SGC.
The goal is always to get the card into the right slab, at the highest grade possible. >>
Uh, all of these resubmissions to different companies hoping for different results sort of contradicts your theory that this is a science as opposed to an art.
In science, I could run a Potassium-Argon dating test 10 times on the same rock sample and come back with results every time that are so close to each other that it is statistically insignificant to say the results are different.
"Uh, all of these resubmissions to different companies hoping for different results sort of contradicts your theory that this is a science as opposed to an art. "
GAI might as well be GEM or PRO to alot of us.. They are not much better if you ask me, and this is not even talking about their latest scandal about having to relocate. Merely on the basis of card grading, is what I am speaking of. Mike Baker has had his fair share of questionable gradings if you know the history that follows him.
Scans have been shown that the right side of the card is small, and the lower right edge dips in, and that is not a natural(McgwireMuseum provided those pics). No, I am not talking about the red border, I mean the actual edge of the card. Head out of sand, look clearly, it's there. Allen, McGwireMuseum, CDnuts and myself are just some of the people who see the problem.
Also, that lower right corner screams all the signs of being trimmed/shaved. I'm sorry, but the tip of a slightly rounded corner should not come to an arrow point on the very tip. It's not natural on corners that have light rounding/wear..
PSA has rejected the card at least twice, and I wonder how many times they rejected it in the past, before the person decided to send it to GAI?? It got slabbed by GAI, and not by PSA OR SGC for a reason, and I am willing to say it is for the same reasons your are finding out right now.
I ask again; Why would PSA not want to holder that Ruth Goudey in their holder, if it did not have an issue that would make them look bad by holdering it? By them slabbing it, they get more promotion to show that they are the place to have big vintage cards graded. You know, the leader, big dog, elite, cream of the crop, ect... It would benefit them, unless they know the card has issues that would come back to haunt them if they slabbed it.
It's a shame, but it's pretty evident that you just want to be in denial about this, and place blame everwhere, but where you should place the blame. If PSA would not holder it as a 5 or even a 4, what can be the issue? You claim it is so nice, and you went over it with a fine toothed comb, right? There is not any paper loss according to you, so that cannot be the issue. It is centered pretty nice, and except for that right edge and lower corner, I do not see any issue that should keep the card from holdering an easy PSA 4 or better, unless it was altered.
after doing a couple examinations in Photoshop, I can positively say that the card is definitely larger at the top than it is at the bottom, by about 2-3 pixels.
<< <i>after doing a couple examinations in Photoshop, I can positively say that the card is definitely larger at the top than it is at the bottom, by about 2-3 pixels. >>
Anybody have opinions about what kind of defect such an alteration would have been meant to correct?
The OP and I are having a hard time with that point.
Compression - from a whack or a side-grab - can sometimes account for "missing pixels." When compressed cardboard is "spooned," such pixels sometimes reappear.
PSA REALLY needs to change its policy to make it PERFECTLY clear what a problem is. "MG" really is not sufficient.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>after doing a couple examinations in Photoshop, I can positively say that the card is definitely larger at the top than it is at the bottom, by about 2-3 pixels. >>
I'm not sure I get what you're saying? 2-3 pixels? WTF, LOL. This card was cut in 1933, a dull blade could cause it to be off a little. Have any of you ever done a lot of paper cutting? I have. Photography is one of my other hobbies. I often shave photos to fit specific frames. Even lining everything with the paper cutter's straight edge and locking the paper in place, you still won't get a 100% even cut no matter how hard you try. How much effort do you think the Goudey gum factory workers put in to making sure the cuts were perfectly straight back in 1933? Shoot, even in the 80's they still didn't have sheet cutting down to a science. I just opened a cello box from 1982 and you should see some of the miscuts on those!
As for the person who said there was no paper loss. I did mention that it had a small amount of ink worn off of the back. Maybe that kept it from crossing.
You guys think I'm in denial over this alleged "obvious trim job". I think some of you must be shareholders in Collector's Universe as you seem to think it's impossible for PSA to be wrong. I already mentioned their rejection of my "forged" Sue Bird autograph which she signed while I was talking to her. They also f***ed up a Winona Ryder autograph I sent them. I didn't see it signed in person but a close friend of mine got it for me when he went to the Sundance Film Fest. I'll take his word over PSA anytime. Don't send your autos to them for authentication. They suck in that area.
My plan is to have some expensive fun with this. I't's already been deemed a 4.5 and unaltered by GAI. I'm going to send it around to other companies both raw and slabbed and eventually back to PSA raw. I want to see how many different opinions I get from the "experts". I think I'll record the entire thing on my camcorder just so that we can see whether this is an art or science.
<< <i>after doing a couple examinations in Photoshop, I can positively say that the card is definitely larger at the top than it is at the bottom, by about 2-3 pixels. >>
I'm not sure I get what you're saying? 2-3 pixels? WTF, LOL. This card was cut in 1933, a dull blade could cause it to be off a little. Have any of you ever done a lot of paper cutting? I have. Photography is one of my other hobbies. I often shave photos to fit specific frames. Even lining everything with the paper cutter's straight edge and locking the paper in place, you still won't get a 100% even cut no matter how hard you try. How much effort do you think the Goudey gum factory workers put in to making sure the cuts were perfectly straight back in 1933? Shoot, even in the 80's they still didn't have sheet cutting down to a science. I just opened a cello box from 1982 and you should see some of the miscuts on those!
As for the person who said there was no paper loss. I did mention that it had a small amount of ink worn off of the back. Maybe that kept it from crossing.
You guys think I'm in denial over this alleged "obvious trim job". I think some of you must be shareholders in Collector's Universe as you seem to think it's impossible for PSA to be wrong. I already mentioned their rejection of my "forged" Sue Bird autograph which she signed while I was talking to her. They also f***ed up a Winona Ryder autograph I sent them. I didn't see it signed in person but a close friend of mine got it for me when he went to the Sundance Film Fest. I'll take his word over PSA anytime. Don't send your autos to them for authentication. They suck in that area. >>
No, I own no stock in PSA in any way, shape, or form.
Instead of coming up with more and more excuses for the card and GAI, will you please address the following issues for me? This is an area you seem to want to avoid answering:
PSA has rejected the card at least twice, and I wonder how many times they rejected it in the past, before the person decided to send it to GAI?? It got slabbed by GAI, and not by PSA OR SGC for a reason, and I am willing to say it is for the same reasons your are finding out right now.
I ask again; Why would PSA not want to holder that Ruth Goudey in their holder, if it did not have an issue that would make them look bad by holdering it? By them slabbing it, they get more promotion to show that they are the place to have big vintage cards graded. You know, the leader, big dog, elite, cream of the crop, ect... It would benefit them, unless they know the card has issues that would come back to haunt them if they slabbed it.
ALL they said was that the card would not go in a 4 or a 5 holder. >>
Stan the Man is 100% positive that it's trimmed, even though he hasn't seen the card in person. He hasn't even seen a scan of the reverse side. That's why I suspect he's a shareholder, LOL.
ALL they said was that the card would not go in a 4 or a 5 holder. >>
Stan the Man is 100% positive that it's trimmed, even though he hasn't seen the card in person. He hasn't even seen a scan of the reverse side. That's why I suspect he's a shareholder, LOL. >>
To repeat again, I have no affiliation to PSA in any way.
I do not have to see the back as proof that the right side has an issue. It's before your very eyes in the scan. I have good eyes, and they are seeing an obvious issue on that right side.
Guys look at this apple I just got. It looks great, I looked it over with a 10x loupe and it is amazing. It is graded by Apple & Oranges grading with the grade of A&O 4. It is all original and not altered! Nobody here can prove it is not 100% complete and original. You have not looked at this apple in your hands so you cannot say for sure it is "trimmed". Why would someone trim it? What would it fix (besides hunger)? I have sent it twice to Apple A Day grading and it has been rejected and did not meet the minimum grade of AAD 5 and then AAD 4. I know this fruit is unaltered and I will believe that to my CORE (apple pun). I took it to the National Farmers' Market and Granny Smith offered me $0.02 for it. I was not selling, but why would they make an offer on it if it was not original. This fruit should easily get in an AAD 5 or Macintosh MAC 5 holder, I just cannot figure out why the guy who sold it to me would not have graded it with them. Just so I say it one more time, Nobody here can prove that my apple is altered. So draw all the lines you want and count all the pixels, but I know the truth.
"Stan the Man is 100% positive that it's trimmed, even though he hasn't seen the card in person. He hasn't even seen a scan of the reverse side. That's why I suspect he's a shareholder, LOL. "
That has nothing to do with my opinion, which remains:
ALL we know is that PSA has ONLY said that the card will not be slabbed as a 4 or a 5.
BUT, if PSA says the subject card is trimmed..... it is likely so. I doubt they could make that decision absolute without removing the card from the slab.
"Evidence of Trimming" often only means that the characteristics of the card are similar to those of trimmed examples.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>Guys look at this apple I just got. It looks great, I looked it over with a 10x loupe and it is amazing. It is graded by Apple & Oranges grading with the grade of A&O 4. It is all original and not altered! Nobody here can prove it is not 100% complete and original. You have not looked at this apple in your hands so you cannot say for sure it is "trimmed". Why would someone trim it? What would it fix (besides hunger)? I have sent it twice to Apple A Day grading and it has been rejected and did not meet the minimum grade of AAD 5 and then AAD 4. I know this fruit is unaltered and I will believe that to my CORE (apple pun). I took it to the National Farmers' Market and Granny Smith offered me $0.02 for it. I was not selling, but why would they make an offer on it if it was not original. This fruit should easily get in an AAD 5 or Macintosh MAC 5 holder, I just cannot figure out why the guy who sold it to me would not have graded it with them. Just so I say it one more time, Nobody here can prove that my apple is altered. So draw all the lines you want and count all the pixels, but I know the truth. >>
Can't you go back to selling your $3 cards on E-bay and sending them to your customers with postage due and leave the discussion of real cards to the rest of us?
The card is not so snug in the holder that you cannot see the edges, if you tilt the holder on it's side. That is all you would have to do to that right side to see a red flag. You do not always need to rely solely on measurement alone, to check for evidence of trimming. Tilting the card on it's side tells alot, too. This can easily be done with plifter's Goudey Ruth, as there is plenty of room in the holder for it to move around to inspect the right and left edges. Not all cards have to taken from the holder to see evidence of trimming/shaving, especially when it's pretty clear just from a scan.
"Not all cards have to taken from the holder to see evidence of trimming/shaving, especially when it's pretty clear just from a scan. "
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Of course, I agree.
And, you have presented "evidence" of trimming.
Under the PSA scheme, we all know that EOT cannot really mean "trimmed," because we have sent cards in that were EOT even though WE personally pulled them from packs. "Minimum-Size-Requirement" is a nice weasel-phrase, but it is almost interchangeable with EOT.
Before PSA would say this card is definitely trimmed, I think/know they would want to pull it out of the slab.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>The card is not so snug in the holder that you cannot see the edges, if you tilt the holder on it's side. That is all you would have to do to that right side to see a red flag. You do not always need to rely solely on measurement alone, to check for evidence of trimming. Tilting the card on it's side tells alot, too. This can easily be done with plifter's Goudey Ruth, as there is plenty of room in the holder for it to move around to inspect the right and left edges. Not all cards have to taken from the holder to see evidence of trimming/shaving, especially when it's pretty clear just from a scan. >>
Do we know whether PSA did this? What happens if he tilts it and decides that he still can't see the edge well enough? Would the card be rejected? I'm not asking this rhetorically, I just have no idea how PSA makes such decisions. And unfortunately PSA doesn't provide explanations, even if you pay for the $100 walk-through service. That's what has me skeptical at this moment of not just PSA, but the entire grading industry. You can't beat an explanation out of anyone working for them. The interrorgators at GITMO would not even be able to get an explanation of my card!
Stop blaming PSA, plifter. It's not their problem, it's yours for buying a GAI holdered Goudey Ruth. You should have done your homework before you dropped over $3000 for a card, with a company you did not know much about. Actually, it makes me wonder just what you thought you knew about them before buying that Ruth.
Grading in general, has it's weak and strong points, but it also has it's weak and strong companies when it comes to grading vintage.
Why would PSA not want to holder your card? You have never answered this question...
If you do not feel it is trimmed, send it back to them for slabbing, and do not use the minimum grade requirement. Then, you will get your answer. If you are so confident it is not trimmed/altered, you should have no problem doing this.
"Do we know whether PSA did this? What happens if he tilts it and decides that he still can't see the edge well enough? Would the card be rejected?..."
"If you do not feel it is trimmed, send it back to them for slabbing, and do not use the minumun grade requirement. Then, you will get your answer. If you are so confident it is not trimmed/altered, you should have no problem doing this. "
<< <i>"Do we know whether PSA did this? What happens if he tilts it and decides that he still can't see the edge well enough? Would the card be rejected?..."
Without permission to crack it out, they have no choice but to "reject" it.
I doubt that there is too much disagreement that it is better to reject 100 good cards than to slab one bad card. >>
There is plenty of room in that slab to see the edges. Clearly..
Plifter should have done his homework before he ever bought a GAI Goudey Ruth card, and especially before he ever sent to PSA for the second round of examination, after it failed the first time. He knows how PSA treated this card the first time he sent it in, so why is he surprise the same thing occured again? Why did he not address these issues with PSA, before it ever went back for a second submission?
<< <i>"If you do not feel it is trimmed, send it back to them for slabbing, and do not use the minumun grade requirement. Then, you will get your answer. If you are so confident it is not trimmed/altered, you should have no problem doing this. "
Not much risk according to plifter's own words, since he claims the card does not have any evidence of trimming. If not, why not put his money where his mouth is?
I would be freaking out if I were the OP as well, but I'm curious.
I can't remember what the reason was for wanting to crossover the card in the first place? From what I can tell it isn't for resale, and I don't think the OP is a diehard PSA guy, since he bought the GAI in the first place.
Did the curiosity get the best of you and you had to see if it would cross, and you were suspicious all along?
If none of the above is accurate, keep it in the holder it is in, enjoy it until you die, and let your kids worry about it. I guess I hate to see everyone so worked up.
The best pitch to start a hitter off with is always strike one.
<< <i>I would be freaking out if I were the OP as well, but I'm curious.
I can't remember what the reason was for wanting to crossover the card in the first place? From what I can tell it isn't for resale, and I don't think the OP is a diehard PSA guy, since he bought the GAI in the first place.
Did the curiosity get the best of you and you had to see if it would cross, and you were suspicious all along?
If none of the above is accurate, keep it in the holder it is in, enjoy it until you die, and let your kids worry about it. I guess I hate to see everyone so worked up. >>
The op wanted to cross it so it would conform with his other PSA graded cards.
BUT, if he is mistaken - at least a 50/50 chance he is - the risk is there, even if he doesn't see it.
The goal is to get the thing in the best possible holder; not to have it declared worthless. >>
True, but if it is not trimmed, according to plifter's own words, then stick by those words, or come clean and admit you are not sure and it might have issues, instead of blaming PSA for all of this drama.
Even if trimmed, it's not entirely worthless. But...... unless he does what I suggested, about trying to get a refund from the guy he bought from, or go straight to GAI, he is going to lose money anyway.
<< <i>especially before he ever sent to PSA for the second round of examination, after it failed the first time. He knows how PSA treated this card the first time he sent it in, so why is he surprise the same thing occured again? Why did he not address these issues with PSA, before it ever went back for a second submission? >>
Why did I send it in a second time? I have addressed this issue already and other posters have been kind enough to point out my reasons as well. Yet again I will explain since I'm having so much fun with this. I'll type my reason for submitting it two times in capital letter, not because I'm shouting, but hopefully so that you can see my answer as lower cased letters didn't get the job done. OK HERE GOES, ON SUBMISSION NUMBER ONE I SELECTED A MINIMUM CROSSOVER GRADE OF "5". IT DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF A 5. I POSTED PICS BEFORE AND AFTER THAT SUBMISSION AND NOBODY POSTED ANYTHING ABOUT THEM BELIEVING THE CARD TO BE TRIMMED. FOR THE SECOND SUBMISSION (PAY ATTENTION, HERE'S WHERE IT MAY CONFUSE YOU) I LOWERED MY EXPECTATIONS AND REQUESTED A MINIMUM GRADE OF "4". ALL WE KNOW AT THIS POINT IS THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE A 4.
Allen, your comment about De Nile is original. For the record, about half of De Nile is in Sudan. The origin of the Nile, the Blue Nile, begins in Ethiopia.
BUT, if he is mistaken - at least a 50/50 chance he is - the risk is there, even if he doesn't see it.
The goal is to get the thing in the best possible holder; not to have it declared worthless. >>
I thought the goal is to find out the truth. If someone can show me positive evidence of trimming, I don't want to pass that card on to anyone else without disclosing such information.
"...But...... unless he does what I suggested, about trying to get a refund from the guy he bought from, or go straight to GAI, he is going to lose money anyway. "
///////////////////////////////////////////////
The more I contemplate the whole circumstance, the more merit that suggestion bears.
BUT, absent a firm opinion from PSA/SGC that the card is "trimmed," GAI would not be likely to offer a solution.
The seller offering a refund is likely a no hoper.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>Allen, your comment about De Nile is original. For the record, about half of De Nile is in Sudan. The origin of the Nile, the Blue Nile, begins in Ethiopia. >>
So are you telling me that the Nile River does not flow through Egypt? Please educate me if that is the case.
<< <i>especially before he ever sent to PSA for the second round of examination, after it failed the first time. He knows how PSA treated this card the first time he sent it in, so why is he surprise the same thing occured again? Why did he not address these issues with PSA, before it ever went back for a second submission? >>
Why did I send it in a second time? I have addressed this issue already and other posters have been kind enough to point out my reasons as well. Yet again I will explain since I'm having so much fun with this. I'll type my reason for submitting it two times in capital letter, not because I'm shouting, but hopefully so that you can see my answer as lower cased letters didn't get the job done. OK HERE GOES, ON SUBMISSION NUMBER ONE I SELECTED A MINIMUM CROSSOVER GRADE OF "5". IT DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF A 5. I POSTED PICS BEFORE AND AFTER THAT SUBMISSION AND NOBODY POSTED ANYTHING ABOUT THEM BELIEVING THE CARD TO BE TRIMMED. FOR THE SECOND SUBMISSION (PAY ATTENTION, HERE'S WHERE IT MAY CONFUSE YOU) I LOWERED MY EXPECTATIONS AND REQUESTED A MINIMUM GRADE OF "4". ALL WE KNOW AT THIS POINT IS THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE A 4.
Allen, your comment about De Nile is original. For the record, about half of De Nile is in Sudan. The origin of the Nile, the Blue Nile, begins in Ethiopia. >>
Ok, well please answer this...
If you are so confident in the card, why not crack it out, send it to PSA with no minimum graded requirement? This way, it will grade what it is, with no excuses about the holder obstructing their examination of the card or anything of the likes.
Get it out there, resolve it with PSA one way or another.
Why can't I blame them for not providing me an explanation? I paid a lot of money for their service.
Also, am I allowed to blame them over my Sue Bird screw up? They wouldn't even refund my money after I told them that she signed it right in front of me.
I'm just trying to get one of you die hard PSA guys to admit that PSA is not the final authority on these issues.
If the card is not for sale, if the sole purpose for the PSA holder is uniformity, and if it is certain to not be altered, if any grade is nothing more than mere opinion, why even request minimum grade?
BUT, absent a firm opinion from PSA/SGC that the card is "trimmed," GAI would not be likely to offer a solution.
The seller offering a refund is likely a no hoper. >>
I agree,He needs to send it back to PSA and have Mr. Orlando get the reasoning why it didn't meet MG,If then they (PSA) states it's because of trimming then you would have a case against GAI.
<< <i>If the card is not for sale, if the sole purpose for the PSA holder is uniformity, and if it is certain to not be altered, if any grade is nothing more than mere opinion, why even request minimum grade? >>
<< <i>"He has paid PSA twice and not once has PSA said it was trimmed... "
/////////////////////////////////////
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!! >>
They never said it was not trimmed, either. >>
I may be a little naive, but doesnt PSA have an obligation here...PSA doesnt see these types of cards everyday, wouldnt there be an obligation to let the customer know if it is trimmed, thus the customer saving $$ on PSA submissions?
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps - uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
Why can't I blame them for not providing me an explanation? I paid a lot of money for their service.
Also, am I allowed to blame them over my Sue Bird screw up? They wouldn't even refund my money after I told them that she signed it right in front of me.
I'm just trying to get one of you die hard PSA guys to admit that PSA is not the final authority on these issues. >>
Not a die hard PSA guy, dude. You obviously do not know me, or you would never make this comment. I was a BGS guy from 2000 until the last year or so, when I seen the light. Most of my vintage is in SGC holders, and I own less than 100 PSA slabbed cards, albiet, they are higher end cards. Far from a die hard PSA guy, but I do concede PSA is pretty darn accurate on vintage.
Comments
The most important point however, is that you guys keep mentioning that PSA denied it twice therefore it must be trimmed. PSA has never said it was trimmed. The first time they said it did not meet the qualifications of a PSA 5. The second time they merely indicated that it did not meet the specifications of a PSA 4. PSA has never even mentioned trimming. Just as many people have said that they see nothing indicating trimming as have said that it has definitely been trimmed. While you may think I'm in denial, you have never looked at the card in person. Is it possible that you are mistaken? Even if PSA thought it was trimmed, do you think it's possible for them to make a mistake?
I also brought it to the National last summer to shop it around to get a feel for the value. I believe it was Levi or one of the other guys working at the 707 table offered me $2200 for it. Of course I wasn't selling since I just bought it, but if a dealer can offer that much for it, I assume he probably thought he could get $3K out of it. Take that for whatever it's worth.
Regarding the entire grading and authentication process, you have to remember that it is all opinion. I don't see how anyone can say that a card has definitely been altered unless something is very obvious. There's plenty of doubt in the case of this card. Also, I've factually proven PSA/DNA wrong before on autograph authentication. A Sue Bird picture came back as fake due to the large print size compared to the size of the photo. She signed that photo while I had a brief chat with her before a game in Indianapolis.
<< <i>I also brought it to the National last summer to shop it around to get a feel for the value. I believe it was Levi or one of the other guys working at the 707 table offered me $2200 for it. Of course I wasn't selling since I just bought it, but if a dealer can offer that much for it, I assume he probably thought he could get $3K out of it. Take that for whatever it's worth. >>
Thats all well and good but Im sure these dealers were thinking of making a quick profit on the card NOT sending it to psa in hopes of a crossover or bump, if Im a dealer and I buy that card for $2200 Im going to put it on the table at $3K and let a buyer feel like he is getting a "deal" on the card when I sell it to him for $2700.
Besides all that is being talked about in this thread I hope in the end it works out in your favor...
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Determining alterations is usually VERY far from "opinion."
Trimmed cards are IDd by methods that are ALOT closer
to science than they are to "art."
I have NO idea if the subject card is trimmed or otherwise
altered. All any of us know is that PSA did not want to
put it into a 4 or 5 slab.
If the card was mine:
I would send it IN the GAI holder to SGC. If SGC slabbed it, I would send it to PSA in the SGC holder.
If it did not make into the SGC holder, I would send it raw to PSA. If PSA did not slab it, I would send
it raw to SGC.
The goal is always to get the card into the right slab, at the highest grade possible.
<< <i>"....you have to remember that it is all opinion. "
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Determining alterations is usually VERY far from "opinion."
Trimmed cards are IDd by methods that are ALOT closer
to science than they are to "art."
I would send it IN the GAI holder to SGC. If SGC slabbed it, I would send it to PSA in the SGC holder.
If it did not make into the SGC holder, I would send it raw to PSA. If PSA did not slab it, I would send
it raw to SGC.
The goal is always to get the card into the right slab, at the highest grade possible. >>
Uh, all of these resubmissions to different companies hoping for different results sort of contradicts your theory that this is a science as opposed to an art.
In science, I could run a Potassium-Argon dating test 10 times on the same rock sample and come back with results every time that are so close to each other that it is statistically insignificant to say the results are different.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Numerical grades are often "art."
Detecting trimmed vintage is NOT.
Scans have been shown that the right side of the card is small, and the lower right edge dips in, and that is not a natural(McgwireMuseum provided those pics). No, I am not talking about the red border, I mean the actual edge of the card. Head out of sand, look clearly, it's there. Allen, McGwireMuseum, CDnuts and myself are just some of the people who see the problem.
Also, that lower right corner screams all the signs of being trimmed/shaved. I'm sorry, but the tip of a slightly rounded corner should not come to an arrow point on the very tip. It's not natural on corners that have light rounding/wear..
PSA has rejected the card at least twice, and I wonder how many times they rejected it in the past, before the person decided to send it to GAI?? It got slabbed by GAI, and not by PSA OR SGC for a reason, and I am willing to say it is for the same reasons your are finding out right now.
I ask again; Why would PSA not want to holder that Ruth Goudey in their holder, if it did not have an issue that would make them look bad by holdering it? By them slabbing it, they get more promotion to show that they are the place to have big vintage cards graded. You know, the leader, big dog, elite, cream of the crop, ect... It would benefit them, unless they know the card has issues that would come back to haunt them if they slabbed it.
It's a shame, but it's pretty evident that you just want to be in denial about this, and place blame everwhere, but where you should place the blame. If PSA would not holder it as a 5 or even a 4, what can be the issue? You claim it is so nice, and you went over it with a fine toothed comb, right? There is not any paper loss according to you, so that cannot be the issue. It is centered pretty nice, and except for that right edge and lower corner, I do not see any issue that should keep the card from holdering an easy PSA 4 or better, unless it was altered.
They may think/know some other things, BUT we don't know what those things are.
<< <i>after doing a couple examinations in Photoshop, I can positively say that the card is definitely larger at the top than it is at the bottom, by about 2-3 pixels. >>
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Anybody have opinions about what kind of defect such an alteration
would have been meant to correct?
The OP and I are having a hard time with that point.
Compression - from a whack or a side-grab - can sometimes account
for "missing pixels." When compressed cardboard is "spooned," such
pixels sometimes reappear.
PSA REALLY needs to change its policy to make it PERFECTLY clear what
a problem is. "MG" really is not sufficient.
What's your plan?
<< <i>after doing a couple examinations in Photoshop, I can positively say that the card is definitely larger at the top than it is at the bottom, by about 2-3 pixels. >>
I'm not sure I get what you're saying? 2-3 pixels? WTF, LOL. This card was cut in 1933, a dull blade could cause it to be off a little. Have any of you ever done a lot of paper cutting? I have. Photography is one of my other hobbies. I often shave photos to fit specific frames. Even lining everything with the paper cutter's straight edge and locking the paper in place, you still won't get a 100% even cut no matter how hard you try. How much effort do you think the Goudey gum factory workers put in to making sure the cuts were perfectly straight back in 1933? Shoot, even in the 80's they still didn't have sheet cutting down to a science. I just opened a cello box from 1982 and you should see some of the miscuts on those!
As for the person who said there was no paper loss. I did mention that it had a small amount of ink worn off of the back. Maybe that kept it from crossing.
You guys think I'm in denial over this alleged "obvious trim job". I think some of you must be shareholders in Collector's Universe as you seem to think it's impossible for PSA to be wrong. I already mentioned their rejection of my "forged" Sue Bird autograph which she signed while I was talking to her. They also f***ed up a Winona Ryder autograph I sent them. I didn't see it signed in person but a close friend of mine got it for me when he went to the Sundance Film Fest. I'll take his word over PSA anytime. Don't send your autos to them for authentication. They suck in that area.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Wrong about what?
ALL they said was that the card would not go in a 4 or a 5 holder.
<< <i>So Mr plifter
What's your plan? >>
My plan is to have some expensive fun with this. I't's already been deemed a 4.5 and unaltered by GAI. I'm going to send it around to other companies both raw and slabbed and eventually back to PSA raw. I want to see how many different opinions I get from the "experts". I think I'll record the entire thing on my camcorder just so that we can see whether this is an art or science.
<< <i>
<< <i>after doing a couple examinations in Photoshop, I can positively say that the card is definitely larger at the top than it is at the bottom, by about 2-3 pixels. >>
I'm not sure I get what you're saying? 2-3 pixels? WTF, LOL. This card was cut in 1933, a dull blade could cause it to be off a little. Have any of you ever done a lot of paper cutting? I have. Photography is one of my other hobbies. I often shave photos to fit specific frames. Even lining everything with the paper cutter's straight edge and locking the paper in place, you still won't get a 100% even cut no matter how hard you try. How much effort do you think the Goudey gum factory workers put in to making sure the cuts were perfectly straight back in 1933? Shoot, even in the 80's they still didn't have sheet cutting down to a science. I just opened a cello box from 1982 and you should see some of the miscuts on those!
As for the person who said there was no paper loss. I did mention that it had a small amount of ink worn off of the back. Maybe that kept it from crossing.
You guys think I'm in denial over this alleged "obvious trim job". I think some of you must be shareholders in Collector's Universe as you seem to think it's impossible for PSA to be wrong. I already mentioned their rejection of my "forged" Sue Bird autograph which she signed while I was talking to her. They also f***ed up a Winona Ryder autograph I sent them. I didn't see it signed in person but a close friend of mine got it for me when he went to the Sundance Film Fest. I'll take his word over PSA anytime. Don't send your autos to them for authentication. They suck in that area. >>
No, I own no stock in PSA in any way, shape, or form.
Instead of coming up with more and more excuses for the card and GAI, will you please address the following issues for me? This is an area you seem to want to avoid answering:
PSA has rejected the card at least twice, and I wonder how many times they rejected it in the past, before the person decided to send it to GAI?? It got slabbed by GAI, and not by PSA OR SGC for a reason, and I am willing to say it is for the same reasons your are finding out right now.
I ask again; Why would PSA not want to holder that Ruth Goudey in their holder, if it did not have an issue that would make them look bad by holdering it? By them slabbing it, they get more promotion to show that they are the place to have big vintage cards graded. You know, the leader, big dog, elite, cream of the crop, ect... It would benefit them, unless they know the card has issues that would come back to haunt them if they slabbed it.
<< <i>"...I think some of you must be shareholders in Collector's Universe as you seem to think it's impossible for PSA to be wrong..."
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Wrong about what?
ALL they said was that the card would not go in a 4 or a 5 holder. >>
Stan the Man is 100% positive that it's trimmed, even though he hasn't seen the card in person. He hasn't even seen a scan of the reverse side. That's why I suspect he's a shareholder, LOL.
<< <i>
<< <i>"...I think some of you must be shareholders in Collector's Universe as you seem to think it's impossible for PSA to be wrong..."
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Wrong about what?
ALL they said was that the card would not go in a 4 or a 5 holder. >>
Stan the Man is 100% positive that it's trimmed, even though he hasn't seen the card in person. He hasn't even seen a scan of the reverse side. That's why I suspect he's a shareholder, LOL. >>
To repeat again, I have no affiliation to PSA in any way.
I do not have to see the back as proof that the right side has an issue. It's before your very eyes in the scan. I have good eyes, and they are seeing an obvious issue on that right side.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Everybody knows I am a shareholder.
That has nothing to do with my opinion, which remains:
ALL we know is that PSA has ONLY said that the card will not be slabbed as a 4 or a 5.
BUT, if PSA says the subject card is trimmed..... it is likely so. I doubt they could make
that decision absolute without removing the card from the slab.
"Evidence of Trimming" often only means that the characteristics of the card are
similar to those of trimmed examples.
<< <i>Guys look at this apple I just got. It looks great, I looked it over with a 10x loupe and it is amazing. It is graded by Apple & Oranges grading with the grade of A&O 4. It is all original and not altered! Nobody here can prove it is not 100% complete and original. You have not looked at this apple in your hands so you cannot say for sure it is "trimmed". Why would someone trim it? What would it fix (besides hunger)? I have sent it twice to Apple A Day grading and it has been rejected and did not meet the minimum grade of AAD 5 and then AAD 4. I know this fruit is unaltered and I will believe that to my CORE (apple pun). I took it to the National Farmers' Market and Granny Smith offered me $0.02 for it. I was not selling, but why would they make an offer on it if it was not original. This fruit should easily get in an AAD 5 or Macintosh MAC 5 holder, I just cannot figure out why the guy who sold it to me would not have graded it with them. Just so I say it one more time, Nobody here can prove that my apple is altered. So draw all the lines you want and count all the pixels, but I know the truth. >>
Can't you go back to selling your $3 cards on E-bay and sending them to your customers with postage due and leave the discussion of real cards to the rest of us?
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Of course, I agree.
And, you have presented "evidence" of trimming.
Under the PSA scheme, we all know that EOT cannot really
mean "trimmed," because we have sent cards in that were
EOT even though WE personally pulled them from packs.
"Minimum-Size-Requirement" is a nice weasel-phrase, but
it is almost interchangeable with EOT.
Before PSA would say this card is definitely trimmed, I think/know they
would want to pull it out of the slab.
<< <i>The card is not so snug in the holder that you cannot see the edges, if you tilt the holder on it's side. That is all you would have to do to that right side to see a red flag. You do not always need to rely solely on measurement alone, to check for evidence of trimming. Tilting the card on it's side tells alot, too. This can easily be done with plifter's Goudey Ruth, as there is plenty of room in the holder for it to move around to inspect the right and left edges. Not all cards have to taken from the holder to see evidence of trimming/shaving, especially when it's pretty clear just from a scan. >>
Do we know whether PSA did this? What happens if he tilts it and decides that he still can't see the edge well enough? Would the card be rejected? I'm not asking this rhetorically, I just have no idea how PSA makes such decisions. And unfortunately PSA doesn't provide explanations, even if you pay for the $100 walk-through service. That's what has me skeptical at this moment of not just PSA, but the entire grading industry. You can't beat an explanation out of anyone working for them. The interrorgators at GITMO would not even be able to get an explanation of my card!
It amazes me that people contine to respond to you when it is clear that you refuse to learn anything from the free education they are giving you.
Did you know that Da Nile is not just a river in Egypt?
Grading in general, has it's weak and strong points, but it also has it's weak and strong companies when it comes to grading vintage.
Why would PSA not want to holder your card? You have never answered this question...
If you do not feel it is trimmed, send it back to them for slabbing, and do not use the minimum grade requirement. Then, you will get your answer. If you are so confident it is not trimmed/altered, you should have no problem doing this.
EDIT: For spelling
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Without permission to crack it out, they have no choice but to "reject" it.
I doubt that there is too much disagreement that it is better to reject
100 good cards than to slab one bad card.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Lots of risk in that solution.
I would try to get SGC to cross it, first.
<< <i>"Do we know whether PSA did this? What happens if he tilts it and decides that he still can't see the edge well enough? Would the card be rejected?..."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Without permission to crack it out, they have no choice but to "reject" it.
I doubt that there is too much disagreement that it is better to reject
100 good cards than to slab one bad card. >>
There is plenty of room in that slab to see the edges. Clearly..
Plifter should have done his homework before he ever bought a GAI Goudey Ruth card, and especially before he ever sent to PSA for the second round of examination, after it failed the first time. He knows how PSA treated this card the first time he sent it in, so why is he surprise the same thing occured again? Why did he not address these issues with PSA, before it ever went back for a second submission?
<< <i>"If you do not feel it is trimmed, send it back to them for slabbing, and do not use the minumun grade requirement. Then, you will get your answer. If you are so confident it is not trimmed/altered, you should have no problem doing this. "
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Lots of risk in that solution.
I would try to get SGC to cross it, first. >>
Not much risk according to plifter's own words, since he claims the card does not have any evidence of trimming. If not, why not put his money where his mouth is?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
BUT, if he is mistaken - at least a 50/50 chance he is - the risk is there, even if he doesn't see it.
The goal is to get the thing in the best possible holder; not to have it declared worthless.
I can't remember what the reason was for wanting to crossover the card in the first place? From what I can tell it isn't for resale, and I don't think the OP is a diehard PSA guy, since he bought the GAI in the first place.
Did the curiosity get the best of you and you had to see if it would cross, and you were suspicious all along?
If none of the above is accurate, keep it in the holder it is in, enjoy it until you die, and let your kids worry about it. I guess I hate to see everyone so worked up.
<< <i>I would be freaking out if I were the OP as well, but I'm curious.
I can't remember what the reason was for wanting to crossover the card in the first place? From what I can tell it isn't for resale, and I don't think the OP is a diehard PSA guy, since he bought the GAI in the first place.
Did the curiosity get the best of you and you had to see if it would cross, and you were suspicious all along?
If none of the above is accurate, keep it in the holder it is in, enjoy it until you die, and let your kids worry about it. I guess I hate to see everyone so worked up. >>
The op wanted to cross it so it would conform with his other PSA graded cards.
//////////////////////////////////////
Everybody wants their cards in the best possible slabs, with the highest possible grades.
A good portion of the market has decided GAI sux.
<< <i>"Not much risk according to plifter's own words, since he claims the card does not have any evidence of trimming...."
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
BUT, if he is mistaken - at least a 50/50 chance he is - the risk is there, even if he doesn't see it.
The goal is to get the thing in the best possible holder; not to have it declared worthless. >>
True, but if it is not trimmed, according to plifter's own words, then stick by those words, or come clean and admit you are not sure and it might have issues, instead of blaming PSA for all of this drama.
Even if trimmed, it's not entirely worthless. But...... unless he does what I suggested, about trying to get a refund from the guy he bought from, or go straight to GAI, he is going to lose money anyway.
<< <i>especially before he ever sent to PSA for the second round of examination, after it failed the first time. He knows how PSA treated this card the first time he sent it in, so why is he surprise the same thing occured again? Why did he not address these issues with PSA, before it ever went back for a second submission? >>
Why did I send it in a second time? I have addressed this issue already and other posters have been kind enough to point out my reasons as well. Yet again I will explain since I'm having so much fun with this. I'll type my reason for submitting it two times in capital letter, not because I'm shouting, but hopefully so that you can see my answer as lower cased letters didn't get the job done. OK HERE GOES, ON SUBMISSION NUMBER ONE I SELECTED A MINIMUM CROSSOVER GRADE OF "5". IT DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF A 5. I POSTED PICS BEFORE AND AFTER THAT SUBMISSION AND NOBODY POSTED ANYTHING ABOUT THEM BELIEVING THE CARD TO BE TRIMMED. FOR THE SECOND SUBMISSION (PAY ATTENTION, HERE'S WHERE IT MAY CONFUSE YOU) I LOWERED MY EXPECTATIONS AND REQUESTED A MINIMUM GRADE OF "4". ALL WE KNOW AT THIS POINT IS THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE A 4.
Allen, your comment about De Nile is original. For the record, about half of De Nile is in Sudan. The origin of the Nile, the Blue Nile, begins in Ethiopia.
<< <i>"Not much risk according to plifter's own words, since he claims the card does not have any evidence of trimming...."
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
BUT, if he is mistaken - at least a 50/50 chance he is - the risk is there, even if he doesn't see it.
The goal is to get the thing in the best possible holder; not to have it declared worthless. >>
I thought the goal is to find out the truth. If someone can show me positive evidence of trimming, I don't want to pass that card on to anyone else without disclosing such information.
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
///////////////////////////////////////////////
The more I contemplate the whole circumstance, the more merit that
suggestion bears.
BUT, absent a firm opinion from PSA/SGC that the card is "trimmed,"
GAI would not be likely to offer a solution.
The seller offering a refund is likely a no hoper.
<< <i>Allen, your comment about De Nile is original. For the record, about half of De Nile is in Sudan. The origin of the Nile, the Blue Nile, begins in Ethiopia. >>
So are you telling me that the Nile River does not flow through Egypt? Please educate me if that is the case.
<< <i>
<< <i>especially before he ever sent to PSA for the second round of examination, after it failed the first time. He knows how PSA treated this card the first time he sent it in, so why is he surprise the same thing occured again? Why did he not address these issues with PSA, before it ever went back for a second submission? >>
Why did I send it in a second time? I have addressed this issue already and other posters have been kind enough to point out my reasons as well. Yet again I will explain since I'm having so much fun with this. I'll type my reason for submitting it two times in capital letter, not because I'm shouting, but hopefully so that you can see my answer as lower cased letters didn't get the job done. OK HERE GOES, ON SUBMISSION NUMBER ONE I SELECTED A MINIMUM CROSSOVER GRADE OF "5". IT DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF A 5. I POSTED PICS BEFORE AND AFTER THAT SUBMISSION AND NOBODY POSTED ANYTHING ABOUT THEM BELIEVING THE CARD TO BE TRIMMED. FOR THE SECOND SUBMISSION (PAY ATTENTION, HERE'S WHERE IT MAY CONFUSE YOU) I LOWERED MY EXPECTATIONS AND REQUESTED A MINIMUM GRADE OF "4". ALL WE KNOW AT THIS POINT IS THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE A 4.
Allen, your comment about De Nile is original. For the record, about half of De Nile is in Sudan. The origin of the Nile, the Blue Nile, begins in Ethiopia. >>
Ok, well please answer this...
If you are so confident in the card, why not crack it out, send it to PSA with no minimum graded requirement? This way, it will grade what it is, with no excuses about the holder obstructing their examination of the card or anything of the likes.
Get it out there, resolve it with PSA one way or another.
/////////////////////////////////////
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
<< <i>Stop blaming PSA, plifter. >>
Why can't I blame them for not providing me an explanation? I paid a lot of money for their service.
Also, am I allowed to blame them over my Sue Bird screw up? They wouldn't even refund my money after I told them that she signed it right in front of me.
I'm just trying to get one of you die hard PSA guys to admit that PSA is not the final authority on these issues.
<< <i>"He has paid PSA twice and not once has PSA said it was trimmed... "
/////////////////////////////////////
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!! >>
They never said it was not trimmed, either.
BUT, absent a firm opinion from PSA/SGC that the card is "trimmed,"
GAI would not be likely to offer a solution.
The seller offering a refund is likely a no hoper. >>
I agree,He needs to send it back to PSA and have Mr. Orlando get the reasoning why it didn't
meet MG,If then they (PSA) states it's because of trimming then you would have a case against GAI.
Jake
<< <i>If the card is not for sale, if the sole purpose for the PSA holder is uniformity, and if it is certain to not be altered, if any grade is nothing more than mere opinion, why even request minimum grade? >>
EXACTLY!
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mixing auto-authentication and alteration-discovery is nonsense.
IF PSA says the subject card is trimmed - after they examine it for
the purpose of making that determination - it is VERY safe to
believe them.
<< <i>
<< <i>"He has paid PSA twice and not once has PSA said it was trimmed... "
/////////////////////////////////////
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!! >>
They never said it was not trimmed, either.
I may be a little naive, but doesnt PSA have an obligation here...PSA doesnt see these types of cards everyday, wouldnt there be an obligation to let the customer know if it is trimmed, thus the customer saving $$ on PSA submissions?
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>
<< <i>Stop blaming PSA, plifter. >>
Why can't I blame them for not providing me an explanation? I paid a lot of money for their service.
Also, am I allowed to blame them over my Sue Bird screw up? They wouldn't even refund my money after I told them that she signed it right in front of me.
I'm just trying to get one of you die hard PSA guys to admit that PSA is not the final authority on these issues. >>
Not a die hard PSA guy, dude. You obviously do not know me, or you would never make this comment. I was a BGS guy from 2000 until the last year or so, when I seen the light. Most of my vintage is in SGC holders, and I own less than 100 PSA slabbed cards, albiet, they are higher end cards. Far from a die hard PSA guy, but I do concede PSA is pretty darn accurate on vintage.