Love everyone's card here. Thoughts on a few of mine. Again these are from when I bought them from the store 40 years ago. Sorry my scanner is dirty. Doug
Sweet assortment of cardboard there, Doug! Have you/Are you submitting them to PSA for grading?
With regard to short cards, I would not purchase or sell a short card that was anything other than red/yellow or green/yellow as those are often times slightly short from the factory and straight out of the pack. I do think there is a definite premium for a full-sized red/yellow or green/yellow card from the pack, but I personally have no problem with PSA grading those color combos when short out of the pack. Of course, usually those cards will typically come back minsize anyway, but there are also some allowances there with regard to variance, and strictness on that tends to wax and wane over time. For me, as a collector, if the card is authentic and unaltered and not sheet cut (i.e. pulled straight from the pack) I have no problem with it being graded (within reason). I'd rather have a slightly short red/yellow or green/yellow card out of the pack than a full-sized sheet cut card, personally.
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.
<< <i>I'[d be a lot more excited about the Stanley and I don't mean that as a knock on the Carter at all. Nice rips Tim, Good luck! >>
Thanks, Jim! You are right about that~keeping my fingers crossed!
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.
<< <i>Sweet assortment of cardboard there, Doug! Have you/Are you submitting them to PSA for grading?
With regard to short cards, I would not purchase or sell a short card that was anything other than red/yellow or green/yellow as those are often times slightly short from the factory and straight out of the pack. I do think there is a definite premium for a full-sized red/yellow or green/yellow card from the pack, but I personally have no problem with PSA grading those color combos when short out of the pack. Of course, usually those cards will typically come back minsize anyway, but there are also some allowances there with regard to variance, and strictness on that tends to wax and wane over time. For me, as a collector, if the card is authentic and unaltered and not sheet cut (i.e. pulled straight from the pack) I have no problem with it being graded (within reason). I'd rather have a slightly short red/yellow or green/yellow card out of the pack than a full-sized sheet cut card, personally. >>
As you guys know, I respect your opinions on this, but let me ask you...if someone cuts the cards to "perfect" them - it is bad; but if the company messes up the cut, it is just as valid as a correctly manufactured card? Further, we obsess over tiny corner dings but we then decide we can ignore the obvious defect of cutting a card short? - the issue with the red/yellow green/yellow is based on sheet placement not some special privilege. Using the conventional logic, a corner ding from the factory should not be reflected in the grade because it occurred from the "factory." Sorry guys, I just don't buy it. The most I would ever accept on this is that PSA gives these cards a MC designation. Joe has heard this opinion several times from me, I really don't know why they don't just clean this issue up. In the meantime, it has been a blessing for me because this just keeps knocking the price of the minis down on VCP and makes it SUPER easy for me to scoop up cards I know are much more rare than they are being priced for.
For me, as a collector, the issue about sheet cut cards is a simple one, and the reason that PSA will not knowingly grade them, even though other grading companies may not be as strict, and it's this:
The whole basis of the value behind these rectangular pieces of cardboard is that these cards survived (in the case of 75 minis, for example) virtually unscathed for 40 years without being dinged or touched over those decades. Not just that, but Topps production methods in the factory in 1975 were primitive at best, making even decently centered cards very tough to come by. Anyone who has opened a box of mini wax packs knows firsthand the frustration of finding even one or two nicely centered cards in a pack. You just can't compare those production methods and the test of four decades of time with someone using 21st century technology to create a gem mint card. Heck, with that kind of technology and attention to detail, one can fabricate the toughest cards as mint, or at least nm-mt. The whole premise of "tough" low pop cards goes out the window if one can simply fabricate them from a sheet using modern day technology. That is why I consider sheet cut cards far less desirable than cards that are naturally short from the factory and cut as such during the year of issue.
I do agree that there is definitely a premium for a full-sized red/yellow or green/yellow vs one that was cut short in the factory due to its placement on the sheet. I just don't view them (in the limited scope of these specific color combos, that is) as negatively as you do, Henry. For me, personally, I just want to know that my card came straight from the pack in the same state as it sits in the holder.
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.
BTW all, someone asked me an interesting question. On the old flips there is sometimes a natural gap because the frame is a bit different. The easiest way for me to tell whether one card is significantly shorter than normal is get a card that fills the holder and turn it to its back. Then get the card with the old flip and stack it on top so you are looking at the two backs. You'll easily see whether the card on top is the same size or shorter than the bottom card. The only thing is make sure the card is sitting flush to the bottom of the holder.
As you guys know, I respect your opinions on this, but let me ask you...if someone cuts the cards to "perfect" them - it is bad; but if the company messes up the cut, it is just as valid as a correctly manufactured card? Further, we obsess over tiny corner dings but we then decide we can ignore the obvious defect of cutting a card short? - the issue with the red/yellow green/yellow is based on sheet placement not some special privilege.
This is probably where you and I diverge in our opinions on the factory cut green/yellow and red/yellow shorts. On a card being "correctly manufactured" which in the context of the discussion, I take to mean correctly sized, my viewpoint is that the correct size is whatever Topps decided it was at the time. There was no official, published specification on Mini card size from Topps that I know of, so pretty much whatever Topps decided to release from the factory was the "correct" size as far as I'm concerned. Depending on the color combo, that size varied anywhere from 78 mm (tall) on the green/yellow and red/yellows up to about 82 mm for the tan/blues and pink/yellows. On some of the green/yellows (Tommy Davis, for example) and red/yellows (Don Gullett, for example), I've seen the size vary from 78 mm up to 81 mm +, so green/yellows and red/yellows can be factory long as well. It was a test issue, so the size variability comes as no surprise to me, as the company and their subcontractors likely struggled to calibrate the machinery to the smaller card size. Yes, we ended up with factory cut shorts and longs and everything in between, but to me, they are legitimate, because that's how Topps released them.
The comparison of a factory cut to a factory ding is an apples to oranges comparison for Mini's when determining whether a card is defective or not, IMO. A factory cut short was common on the green/yellows and red/yellows, and evidently was deemed ok by the company, given that they were so commonly found in legitimate packs, cellos, and racks. The company obviously didn't make much of an attempt to target a specific size with all the combos, otherwise we wouldn't see all the natural shorts out there for the green/yellows and red/yellows (or the longs for that matter). Therefore, I don't put the card size in the same category as a factory "corner ding," which clearly was not common and certainly wasn't purposeful.
Henry, I certainly respect your opinion on the desirability of the natural shorts, but I can't agree that the natural shorts (or natural longs - it works both ways) are illegitimate or that those who submit them, buy them, sell them, etc., are doing something that is "not correct." I just don't see it that way for the reasons I laid out above. The variability in size is one of the many attributes that gives this set, in particular, its character and its appeal, and to a significant extent, its value.
Nick, there is no debate on the fact that the cards were intended to be 81mm. That is the standard by which 90% of the cards can be deemed correctly cut. Then the correct grade assignment from PSA for cards they deem to be naturally short rather than "cut" short should have a MC (miscut) designation. I disagree with your implied assertion that the size of the cards are basically all totally random from 78-81. There was just a percentage of 2 color combos that came miscut from the factory because they were the top row of the sheet. I just believe that as THE professional grading company - it is wrong to place a clearly miscut short 8 in a holder as equivalent to a correctly cut 8. If PSA feels that they can tell a natural versus a cut red/yellow or green/yellow then they are also obligated to designate that the shorts were NOT the intended size; or it should be reflected in the grade because the card is not up to the intended size. I just don't see the uniqueness in accepting the short card regardless of the fault of the printing process - using your logic then the company should disregard the ink stains on the 78 Molitor/Trammell rookie or the 1979 Marc Hill because it is systematic on over 80% of the cards and it is the same stain. The stain is a stain period and detracts from the card thus it lowers the grade. A card cut shorter than intended is by definition a miscut card - or one that lacks "minimum size requirement"
EDIT 1 (ethics): I also want to clarify that I did not intend to question the ethics of those that are pushing for short cards - that is just a difference of opinion. I am mostly frustrated with PSA for not handling the short issue in a clear and consistent manner. As mini collectors, I do feel the push towards allowing size variance with these color combos might be tolerable for experts like ourselves but it is, IMO a snake eating its own tail because we just continue to confuse and delegitimize our own collection to the community every time they see these ridiculously short cards at auction and on ebay.
Very eloquently and accurately stated, Nick. I agree completely with your assessment.
Henry, I share your viewpoint regarding cards that were not naturally short out of the pack. As I also stated previously, I also agree that there is a premium for full sized red/yellow and green/yellow cards. . Also, what is your position then on cards that are "tall" or oversized out of the pack?
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.
Generally accepted fact: the intended and actual standard is 81mm. For 80% of the cards this is what you'll find period, with the usual abysmal centering.
Problem: 2 color combos were miscut short and 2 color combos were miscut long.
Critical question: In your experience what actual percentage of these two color combos come naturally short? In my experience around 30% of the cards I opened from packs and cellos had this issue (perhaps less because I tend to remember them). I believe that the red/yellows tend to come up shorter much more often than the green/yellows (am I correct?).
Nick's assertion is that because of this error we should abandon standards and consider all sizes of these color combos equally for grading purposes and we/PSA can create whatever standard we choose. My assertion is that 81mm is the standard and miscut cards are simply miscut; and Nick's strategy harms us because now you have the problem of a short Guisti psa 9 side by side with a strong full Guisti psa 8. You CANT solve that problem with a simple "premium" price because these cards are so rare to find in these conditions.
As for the longs, that is a great question Tim. Here is what has happened. Most of these tend to be cut correct anyway. The ones that are bigger tend to be put in baggies. The unique problem here is that one can cut the card to the intended size! So there is no easy way to handle this. For sure, I have NEVER come across a tan/blue, pink/yellow shorter than 81mm.
Why is this so important? Well it is fine to argue this out because to be honest the number of people that actually collect these cards is extremely limited and will always be this way. So we can basically create whatever market we want. I would have to admit that I would have a personal interest in limiting the cards since I have so many but it should be obvious to everyone I will only lose money on minis (and have already lost a substantial amount destroying cut cards I have accumulated rather than pass them on to others).
So, Henry, in your eyes, miscut cards that are tall are ok in baggies but miscut cards that are short out of the pack are not?
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.
<< <i>So, Henry, in your eyes, miscut calls that are tall are ok in baggies but miscut cards that are short out of the pack are not? >>
Not really Tim I just don't have an answer for that. Of course, I would consider them miscut - but the problem is that they can then be cut to normal size manually. Your comment is critical Tim, read it carefully - miscut short out of the pack. Yes, they are legitimate, but they are miscut. So the question should be whether they are then NOT graded as minimum size requirement or graded with a MC designation. They should not be graded ignoring the fact that they are shorter than intended.
<< <i>So, Henry, in your eyes, miscut calls that are tall are ok in baggies but miscut cards that are short out of the pack are not? >>
Not really Tim I just don't have an answer for that. Of course, I would consider them miscut - but the problem is that they can then be cut to normal size manually. Your comment is critical Tim, read it carefully - miscut short out of the pack. Yes, they are legitimate, but they are miscut. So the question should be whether they are then NOT graded as minimum size requirement or graded with a MC designation. They should not be graded ignoring the fact that they are shorter than intended. >>
I would say that if you classify a card as short out of the pack as miscut, then a tall card would have to be classified as miscut, as well, to remain consistent. As far as one being able to trim the tall cards to size, I think we can all agree that such an effort is far more egregious, but for the purpose of this discussion, we are assuming that no one is trimming any cards.
I think the negative stigma associated with a card that is short vs one that is tall out of the pack is what drives your perception, but that perception cannot be used to justify one vs the other in the context of this discussion, as both are "miscut" and not to standard size.
Personally, I am in agreement with Nick's assessment, as far as 75 minis go. I understand the reasoning behind a cut and dried standard, but minis were an experimental issue by definition, which is also a large part of their charm and appeal.
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.
Tim, I said that it should be labelled miscut. PSA has a standard by which they lower a card's grade based on centering, corners, and surface. Until they issue a standard based on size differential then I just disagree.
<< <i>Tim, I said that it should be labelled miscut. PSA has a standard by which they lower a card's grade based on centering, corners, and surface. Until they issue a standard based on size differential then I just disagree. >>
I also don't agree that cards that are naturally tall should be deemed or labeled miscut by PSA. I respect your opinion, Henry, but I disagree with it.
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.
I should add that I have no problem with PSA rejecting as minsize red/yellow and green/yellow cards~the reality is that most noticeably short cards from those color combos ARE rejected by PSA anyway. I just don't have any strong opposition to seeing them holdered, either, within reason, of course, though as I also stated, I would certainly pay a nice premium for one that is full-sized.
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.
<< <i>Tim, I said that it should be labelled miscut. PSA has a standard by which they lower a card's grade based on centering, corners, and surface. Until they issue a standard based on size differential then I just disagree. >>
I also don't agree that cards that are naturally tall should be deemed or labeled miscut by PSA. I respect your opinion, Henry, but I disagree with it. >>
Obviously, we will talk in circles in ad-infinitum. The reason I said they should but are allowed is that PSA is primarily protecting the collector from buying "trimmed" cards, this was the main reason that PSA was born into existence! No one can make a card larger, thus my nuance. At the end of the day, without attribution, this debate basically separates collectors versus traders. It is in the interest of traders to make a few bucks passing off short rare red/yellows green/yellows for 50-70 bucks for an 8 to cover expenses. As long as PSA allows this then guys will try make a buck (thus people on this forum even admitting sending in short cards over and over again using MinSizeReq vouchers hoping to sneak in a win). Obviously, it is in the interest of collectors who have made sets not to see their investment diluted by inferior products being passed off as comparable to their cards.
IMO a "traders" mentality is short-sighted because we just de-legitimize this set.
<< <i>Tim, I said that it should be labelled miscut. PSA has a standard by which they lower a card's grade based on centering, corners, and surface. Until they issue a standard based on size differential then I just disagree. >>
I also don't agree that cards that are naturally tall should be deemed or labeled miscut by PSA. I respect your opinion, Henry, but I disagree with it. >>
Obviously, we will talk in circles in ad-infinitum. The reason I said they should but are allowed is that PSA is primarily protecting the collector from buying "trimmed" cards, this was the main reason that PSA was born into existence! No one can make a card larger, thus my nuance. At the end of the day, without attribution, this debate basically separates collectors versus traders. It is in the interest of traders to make a few bucks passing off short rare red/yellows green/yellows for 50-70 bucks for an 8 to cover expenses. As long as PSA allows this then guys will try make a buck (thus people on this forum even admitting sending in short cards over and over again using MinSizeReq vouchers hoping to sneak in a win). Obviously, it is in the interest of collectors who have made sets not to see their investment diluted by inferior products being passed off as comparable to their cards.
IMO a "traders" mentality is short-sighted because we just de-legitimize this set. >>
Again, Henry, just because it is your opinion doesn't make it fact. I feel that my position (as well as Nick's) are at least as valid as yours, and again, I respect your opinion, even though I disagree with it. Characterizing those who submit cards that are short right out of the pack as "trying to sneak one past PSA" or "passing off short red/yellow or green/yellow to cover expenses" is unjustly negative, imo. You say in a previous post that you are not calling into question the ethics of those who disagree with your position on this topic, yet you are employing negative verbiage to describe them.
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.
The Market Knows Quality: My two cents, if I may, is that regardless of what your individual thoughts are on “shorties,” “miscuts,” etc. the Market has a way of weeding things out despite what the plastic holder states. Just look at what is stagnant on Ebay right now, real low population samples such as Rader (31), Goodson (322), Bando (380), Stanley (503), Cruz (514), Brown (596), etc. While exact “fuller,” better centered, less print issue cards have recently and rapidly sold for above the current Buy It Now prices of the aforementioned cards. List a full-size Palmer (335), Twitchell (326), etc. and watch how they will fly off the net at premium prices!
The population numbers will always have significant variance, especially when you consider re-grading/re-submitting, crossover to other companies, unreported destruction/loss of cards, etc. I believe the Market will figure things out in terms of scarcity and rarely listed quality cards, with not as much attention to the pop numbers as many focus on. If your set is littered with shorties, print defects, poor centering, it will simply not fetch the premium of a similar set without those issues. And if you decide to break it up, the Market will pick and choose quality, and you will be left holding the junk. I simply trust the Market.
Tim, you can go back and read the historic posts of people who say they send the same short card in multiple times in the hopes of it getting holdered eventually. That is a fact not opinion. I have never judged it, but it is what it is. The main problem is not the individuals it is up to PSA to clarify how they will handle this issue. As for the market, I have bought out 4+ complete sets, believe me it is not fun going through the cards and finding many of the key cards cut (another issue) and/or short (in the 2 colors in question). I guess I could ask the seller to go card by card and provide a scan, but shouldn't the grade designated by PSA mean something? Do I honestly have to scrutinize every 8 to see how much it fills the holder?
EDIT: Also, unfortunately Pop does effect value (perceived or real). For example, a pop 2-3 psa 9 would command one price on auction versus a pop 6. Most of us know which pop 6s are valid or not but it still does affect this price. So if Ryan's recent pop 3 doubles to pop 6 because PSA has loosened what it will grade then it actually does affect the value. You are right that we will be able to tell the difference between a full and short. So let's look at some real life examples (you can see this on VCP) - one card sells for 600.00, then a shortie comes up and sell for 150...then VCP goes to 325 as the average. Another comes up and I snipe 400 and 9 times out of 10 I get the card. So as I said before, this has actually been a blessing to me because I have bought countless low pop 9s at ridiculous prices compared to its actual rarity because I have taken the time to look at the true population of all the cards. This is how I have been able to accumulate a large number of strong red/yellows green/yellows for a low price over the past 7 years. I am certain nothing will change because I have been a minority (perhaps alone). In the end, the reason most of us collect this set is because we truly love the cards. This is perhaps our only point of contention but it is a major point. I'll keep destroying cut/short cards in my hands and that is that.
Interesting discussion. Sorry for the delay in my response. I had to read to the kids and put them down for the night. I do have a few responses and comments.
I disagree with your implied assertion that the size of the cards are basically all totally random from 78-81.
That's not what I was implying. I said, "depending on the color combo" the observed size range coming out of the factory was 78-82 mm (approximately). In other words, it's not totally random, but varies by color combo. This is largely anecdotal, I admit, so I welcome anyone who has opened packs from a variety of sources to measure the cards and place them into size histograms, but I'll bet if they do so, they'll find that some color combos have tighter ranges on the order of 80-81 mm, others have wider ranges on the order of 78-81 mm, and still others are somewhere in between.
Nick, there is no debate on the fact that the cards were intended to be 81mm.
Actually, this is largely what we're debating. My position is that we don't know exactly what Topps intended. It was definitely not 81 mm, but probably closer to 80 mm (3-5/16 inches for those who like English units) (when we're talking Mini's, we're not splitting hairs when talking about a 1-mm difference -- the difference between a 79 mm Mini versus an 80 mm Mini versus and 81 mm depending on the color combo, is huge in terms of the card's suspected history). This is purely speculation based on my observation that the statistical mode of Mini's other than natural shorts and longs that I've measured is right at 80 mm. What I am saying is that perhaps initially, Topps targeted 80 mm for all Mini's, but when they went to production, they determined that it wasn't possible (or more likely, not worth the effort) to be that precise on all color combos. Does that make those color combos where there wasn't good consistency defective or illegitimate? That's the other part of the debate. I say, no.
The most I would ever accept on this is that PSA gives these cards a MC designation. Joe has heard this opinion several times from me, I really don't know why they don't just clean this issue up.
I'm not at all crazy about that idea, because I don't consider a factory cut short to be miscut when it comes to Mini's for the reasons I've already stated. I would rather they receive the N6 designation.
...using your logic then the company should disregard the ink stains on the 78 Molitor/Trammell rookie or the 1979 Marc Hill because it is systematic on over 80% of the cards and it is the same stain...
I never got to the point in my last post on how I think PSA ought to treat a factory cut short. My point was that regardless of the intended cut size at the onset for the natural shorts, Topps never got there with any high degree of consistency. And its plausible that the reason they didn't was because they couldn't get the calibration consistent. I don't view a factory short as aesthetically unpleasing, so I don't quite get the comparison of a factory cut short to the Molitor RC ink stain or the blurry Marc Hill. Incidentally, "the company" does largely disregard those flaws at least compared to snow on Tommy Davis card, for example, in that an ink blotched Molitor or a blurry Marc Hill can receive at least an 8 - not so for a Tommy Davis Mini with snow.
Nick's assertion is that because of this error we should abandon standards and consider all sizes of these color combos equally for grading purposes and we/PSA can create whatever standard we choose.
Now come on, Henry, you know I'm not saying that. I do believe in standards. Where I am headed is that because a factory short (less than 80 mm) red/yellow or green/yellow Mini is relatively common (you mentioned 30 percent, which is not rare), the N6 threshold should be lower for the natural shorts. If it were my decision, the N6 threshold would be 79.5 mm for the natural shorts and 80 mm for the rest. Again, I don't have good empirical evidence, but for many of the natural shorts, 79.5 mm seems to be a common size. I suppose one could make a case for a higher threshold for the natural longs, but I haven't really thought of or focused on the natural longs in the past.
and Nick's strategy harms us because now you have the problem of a short Guisti psa 9 side by side with a strong full Guisti psa 8.
I don't see the harm. Pitting the beauty of short Giusti PSA 9 versus a full-sized PSA 8 version is a subjective endeavor. Your going to get a different viewpoint depending upon who you ask. I see no difference between your scenario and one where you have a full sized PSA 9 Burleson with a thin yellow stripe at the top versus a full sized PSA 8 Burleson with a perfect, solid red top. Personally, I hate the yellow stripe and will choose the PSA 8 Burleson with no stripe every time.
Why is this so important? Well it is fine to argue this out because to be honest the number of people that actually collect these cards is extremely limited and will always be this way. So we can basically create whatever market we want.
I agree that this is an important discussion to have, and I'm glad we're having it. I'm with you 100 percent that we can basically create whatever market we want. It's that latter fact that motivates me to engage in this discussion. I think back to pre-2008, and I honestly don't remember anyone complaining about the visual appeal of a factory cut short green/yellow or red/yellow. They were accepted (and rightly so in my opinion) as a nuance of the set, and I'm of the thought that if we can get back to that point while still protecting ourselves from the unnatural shorts, then it's worth investigating.
Thanks Nick: Please answer these questions: 1. What is the percentage in your experience of red/yellows short (I believe between 30-35%) and green/yellow (I believe between 25-30%). 2. Isn't the whole issue of shorts based on the initial problem that we DID not truly know what the size was therefore 2 major companies flooded the market with cut cards? So as we slowly clean this up, your contention is that we should allow for size variance on these two? Then why not grade every card regardless of size since it is possible for them to come at that size naturally? What would be the purpose of stating a certain tolerable level of shortness? Who determines this at PSA?
To Jasme11, I do agree with your market assessment overall. I would suggest that you spend a bit of time investigating how this particular market has worked and you'll see the influence that this issue has had on real prices. In the end, it is good if you are a buyer, not so good if you are a seller; and I believe that this issue has turned off many potential collectors and members of this community. I personally know it has in talking with several people who sold out. It is just a f-ing headache to figure out compared to any other set.
EDIT: Nick I wish we had the old forum, the problem in 2008 grew from an overall realization of a large percentage of cut-cards. It was a long 1 year discussion and investigation among members that revealed the green/yellow red/yellow distinction. This was led by MattyC, MM, and Miniduff as well as Tim and myself. The reason people accepted short cards at that time was that we honestly did not know any better. Once we did, there was a huge outcry and PSA, to their credit, worked with us. But it was not without a lot of pain and effort - ie the reason the old forum was banned was for this reason. There was never a period then where people said green/yellow shorts are fine and the others are not; rather that the natural shorts were the reason for the confusion at PSA which allowed cutters through the window.
I will say this~I would favor consistency with regard to the natural shorts being submitted. In my experience, in the vast majority of cases, those cards come back N6 anyway, and I have never had any consistent success getting them holdered in the first place. That said, strictness on this issue, as far as grading goes, does wax and wane over time, and has done so in trhe eight years I've been actively pursuing this set in graded form. I have no personal objection to getting an N6 on a naturally short red/yellow or green/yellow card. I know full well why Henry doesn't like them, and even though I don't prefer them for my collection, either, authenticity and originality are what I'm most concerned about as a collector, so I am also not adverse to accepting the realities and the nuances behind this experimental set. After all, Topps even called it that~and released these cards in very limited markets, too. For that reason alone, I don't think you can draw analogies between mainstream sets from the 1970s and the 1975 mini set.
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.
1. What is the percentage in your experience of red/yellows short (I believe between 30-35%) and green/yellow (I believe between 25-30%).
That sounds about right. Red/yellows in my experience definitely come up short more often then green/yellows. It also depends on the card. It's relatively easy to find an 80 mm or taller Tommy Davis card. The Jesus Alou card is a different story.
I don't want to wade too deeply into the second set of questions, as it gets too close to a separate touchy topic. But the purpose of maintaining a min size is the same as for every other card issue. All I'm saying is that I think there is room for lowering it for the green/yellows and red/yellows.
<< <i> I don't want to wade too deeply into the second set of questions, as it gets too close to a separate touchy topic. But the purpose of maintaining a min size is the same as for every other card issue. All I'm saying is that I think there is room for lowering it for the green/yellows and red/yellows. >>
Bingo! You now nailed the essence of my concern Nick. If you or Tim say that a short red/yellow came from one of your packs - I believe you 100% based on your integrity. However, once we allow this, then we know that unscrupulous individuals will get out the cutters. So we will rehash the problem we had with all the cards with two color combos. However, these two combos have high visibility and value in this set. Therefore, there will be confusion in population, value, and now validity. This is my main point about this being harmful long-term. Perhaps I am just being overly paranoid because it is so hard to find these in any condition that could be manipulated anyway. I am not trying to be overly dogmatic or a jerk, but some of you old timers remember that I was the absolute main person that got burned in 2007-2009 because I was putting together 3 sets for my 3 boys.
If you or Tim say that a short red/yellow came from one of your packs - I believe you 100% based on your integrity. However, once we allow this, then we know that unscrupulous individuals will get out the cutters. So we will rehash the problem we had with all the cards with two color combos. However, these two combos have high visibility and value in this set. Therefore, there will be confusion in population, value, and now validity. This is my main point about this being harmful long-term.
I'm certain this battle is already being waged with full-sized Mini's (as well as most other card issues with any kind of value). It only takes a ruler, time, and a handful of graded Mini's to figure out that the min size is currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 mm or a few tenths above that. With many Mini's 1-2 mm above that min size, it's not difficult to imagine the scenario you paint already now occurring.
I appreciate your kind words toward me, but I'm not the one you should be trusting. Whether we realize or not, we've thrown our lot in with PSA by being collectors of graded Mini's; they are on our team. I for one continue to buy PSA-graded Mini's, because I trust them based on their demonstrated abilities. Their consistency throughout the past 7 years or so in grading Mini's has been awesome in my view. Do they get it right 100 percent of the time? Of course, not. That's an unreasonable expectation. They certainly get it right close to that, and where they don't, they offer a guarantee.
Which leads me back to where I considered going with my very first post a few days ago on this issue. Henry, I sympathize with you as well as respect where you've been and where you are with collecting Mini's, but when we publicly say things like I'm going to take it upon myself to destroy holdered cards because, in essence, I don't trust the cards (reading between the lines, I really feel this gets to the heart of what you're saying), it needlessly creates all kinds of paranoia, which then breeds distrust, and then discontent. It's as if we're saying, we don't trust the abilities of the grader, which begs the question, why then continue collecting graded cards in light of the fact that this battle is in all likelihood, currently being fought not just with the Mini's but with other card issues as well. And it certainly can't be good for all of us who either buy, sell, or grade Mini's. IMO, the old thread went Poof because the paranoia and discontent got way out of hand and really hurt all of us, though I'm certain that wasn't the intention of the posters -- I miss most of that old thread, but certainly not all of it.
If it were me, I would at least consider not bearing the burden myself, but instead, use our most powerful ally, PSA, to review the cards and render a second opinion on their authenticity. Again, I trust their ability to detect an altered card - I think they've proven themselves, and for this reason, I would welcome them lowering the N6 threshold for the natural shorty color combos.
I am of the opinion that there has to be a minimum size standard.....solely based on the collectors history of this set. I've measured over 1000 of my graded minis and I'm of the opinion that 80.5mm is the standard size. A majority of cards can be found in this size. If cards are accepted less than a standard length and width, what would stop trimming? Start with a card that is 80.5mm, trim the top and bottom, and now you have a card with 4 very sharp corners, viola.
Shorter cards, longer cards, cards with the yellow line should be graded as MC. Wavey ink, print smudges, snow, significant fish-eyes are PDs IMO. It is a crying shame that the old thread is not still around. It contained such a great history of the progression of this wonderful set. TheVon, Marz, jivan are some other names Henry. There were also some trouble makers whom I won't name....
<< <i>I am of the opinion that there has to be a minimum size standard.....solely based on the collectors history of this set. I've measured over 1000 of my graded minis and I'm of the opinion that 80.5mm is the standard size. A majority of cards can be found in this size. If cards are accepted less than a standard length and width, what would stop trimming? Start with a card that is 80.5mm, trim the top and bottom, and now you have a card with 4 very sharp corners, viola.
Shorter cards, longer cards, cards with the yellow line should be graded as MC. Wavey ink, print smudges, snow, significant fish-eyes are PDs IMO. It is a crying shame that the old thread is not still around. It contained such a great history of the progression of this wonderful set. TheVon, Marz, jivan are some other names Henry. There were also some trouble makers whom I won't name.... >>
Interesting to read this topic, having seen it from day one many years ago in the original thread. Yes, it would be great to have that thread back since it contained a lot of great info on the set, and the good discussions about set standards. I've been off the boards with other needs to attend to, but I still pick up the occasional card as I fill in the final gaps or upgrade.
I agree with Todd (an original trouble maker, perhaps?) that the min size is a key issue to revisit. I would prefer min size to seeing MC cards added. We've all opened packs with factory cut shorties. MC is a different standard that PSA uses on all sets. A short is a min size fault, not a miscut. Do any of you like the look of green/yellow cards with the yellow top line and yet they get the standard grade? To me those are MC, and I don't submit them for grading.
And the many have noted, the slabbed short cuts are not for everyone and I, for one, won't buy them. I thought PSA had finally set the standard at 80 mm and lower were short, but judging from recent ebay offerings it seems that standard has slipped.
Ripped 3 more packs from the half box I won on ebay and pulled a few more very nice cards, including a couple I still need for my set. Most 1975 mini wax packs feature back card face out and will yield 7 cards from the one * sheets and then switch to two ** sheet cards for last 3. The packs in this box have back card facing inward and are yielding first six cards from one * sheet before switching to last four cards from two ** sheets. Interesting to study these collations and sequencing in vintage packs...A couple of the packs pack also yielded factory short green/yellow cards (Lis and Grimsley).
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.
I've been choosing to stay out of the religious debate around the natural short cards.
Here's my take. Having opened my share of packs, I'd say that ~30% of red/yellows and probably a slightly smaller percentage of green/yellows come out of the pack under 80.5 mm (which does seem to be the typical size I see from the majority of my cards). That said, I have not problem seeing a card get slabbed without a qualifier if it is in the 79.5 mm to 80 mm range. The ones that are are 77-78 mm are more of an eyesore IMO as a result, I avoid subbing those or purchasing them already graded.
Now on to talk about actual cards! Tim- you pulled some nice ones there. I really like the Boog and the Kison. Those look like the best ones with a shot at a 9.
Here's two more cards that I pulled from packs recently that I just send off for grading along with a couple dozen others. These are camera phone pics since I forgot to scan them before I was packing up the order to PSA. I'm hoping for 9s on both of these. The Johnson measures just a tad over 80mm and has only the slight bit of yellow showing up the red area. The centering appears within range of a 9. The Aaron is an all around great card with near perfect centering front and back.
Thanks, Ryan~the Powell looks nicer than my 9, so I'm hoping that one may have a shot at a 10. The Stanley would be huge in a 9, too, as it is full-sized.
I would grade the Johnson as an 8. Aaron 8/8.5, possibly a 9 if they don't ding you for the chip on bottom left edge and slight PD. Both are very nice.
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.
My it's been awhile since some of the wax workers showed up on this thread Not surprising once I read through the juicy conversations about the variations of Mini's. Mainly regarding the acceptable size of circa 1975 Mini cardboard. Of all the remarks I felt most comfortable with Jasme 11's. Nick and Tim bravo, Enjoyed your words as well. While I understand and have experienced first hand the anger and frustration of those collectors, myself included, upset with the fact that there are graded mini's out there that don't live up to their (my) expectations. I personally have taken it upon myself to use the information I have been gifted from all of you 75 Topps Mini collectors that have thankfully shared your information on this thread and the thread of the past. I've used this information to bring myself to a better understanding of what I look for in a graded 75 Topps Mini card. This thread will no doubt help other collectors that may decide to collect this amazingly unique and colorful set.
It's important for us to share what we discover as we collect this set in whatever grade we elect to pursue. We shouldn't be here to pass judgment on each other or press our personal opinions on fellow collectors. The best dialogue's I've observed on both the old and new threads were those of open and friendly discussions. These are the discussions that make me want to come back to this thread and communicate with fellow collectors. The joy and passion of collecting 1975 Topps Mini's. There is far more good about this set than to dwell on and rehash the ugly. It's ok to discuss and inform about some of the negative. It's what helps new collectors and old. The far more interesting discussions involve the nuances of the set, the unique and rare qualities of certain cards. Sharing photo's, experiences, results of submissions. Should I sub or this card? Tales of a cracked wax pack, box.... my oh my.... a case break!! Jasme 11 got it right, and it's been talked about on the old thread and probably somewhere in this thread. We as collectors decide what is a quality example of any graded card offered us. We can let any card go that doesn't sit well with us. Yes, PSA grades them, and as a result the value of the cards they grade increase. By the way, that's a good thing, most of the time. We decide if they got it right by how much we're willing to pay! Joe Orlando tells collectors every issue of SMR...... Never get cheated! That's good advice. My passion for the Mini's runs deep! Henry I know yours does too! Who would collect 12 sets if not passionate about the cards! You and I and a few others have been through the battle, but we're going to win the war in the end. Reject the garbage move on and try and outbid me on the quality stuff Let's have some fun collecting PSA graded 75 Topps Mini's!!!
So that makes three minty, full size #143 Johnson Minis shown here over the last two weeks. That's incredible considering how difficult that card is to find in 8 or higher.
Ryan, while the centering on that C. Johnson is very nice. The yellow uneven lines scattered at the top of the card, the bottom border, especially lower right appears roughed. Left corner suspect as well. There is also a PD on the right side upper middle that you can detect when enlarging the scan. Some of these individual PD's might get by for an 8. I've even seen 9's with the yellow uneven lines within the red on an otherwise near perfect example. I don't agree that cards with those obvious uneven yellow lines should receive a 9 or better NQ'er grade, but they on rare occasion get by? However, in combination with the other issues with your example, I would guess a grade of 6 or 7.
Is that Aaron a 75 Mini or 75 standard? The Aaron looks nice at first glance. However, upon closer inspection there appears chipping on the lower left border and lower left corner. The right upper corner appears slightly dinged. These defects likely end it's shot at an 8 or better. To bad, as it has such nice centering.
<< <i>Ryan, while the centering on that C. Johnson is very nice. The yellow uneven lines scattered at the top of the card, the bottom border, especially lower right appears roughed. Left corner suspect as well. There is also a PD on the right side upper middle that you can detect when enlarging the scan. Some of these individual PD's might get by for an 8. I've even seen 9's with the yellow uneven lines within the red on an otherwise near perfect example. I don't agree that cards with those obvious uneven yellow lines should receive a 9 or better NQ'er grade, but they on rare occasion get by? However, in combination with the other issues with your example, I would guess a grade of 6 or 7.
Is that Aaron a 75 Mini or 75 standard? The Aaron looks nice at first glance. However, upon closer inspection there appears chipping on the lower left border and lower left corner. The right upper corner appears slightly dinged. These defects likely end it's shot at an 8 or better. To bad, as it has such nice centering. >>
Thanks T.Allan. The Aaron is most certainly a mini. I just took the photo a little closer than the Johnson. A thing to keep in mind with both of these, they are really blown up from what you would see holding the card in hand. I've taken a close look at these and compared them to other 9s that I have (especially the red/yellows) and I think both of these have a legit chance. If I had to guess, I'd say the Johnson lands in an 8 or 8.5 and the Aaron a 9. We will see. I've got a 28 card sub of all minis that should be delivered to PSA tomorrow. Hoping for quick poppage.
So hold onto your seats...Mintmoondog quantitative de-easing II is soon to commence. almost 400 cards 185 8s and 193 9s. 3 C. Johnson (143) 8s, so the pop will go to 25...the nice raws that have been shown on this thread should DEF be submitted. Others of note: 23 Russell 2x 9s (pop goes to 11) 53 Guisti 2x 8s 56 Wise 9 and 2 8s (9 pop goes to 3) 65 Gullett 9 81 Reed 9 94 Lonborg 9 155 Bibby 2x 9 (pop goes to 8) 162 Montenez 9 177 Correll 2x 9 178 Tovar 2x 9! (pop goes to 7) 219 Hermann 9 227 Watson 9 229 Foote 9 297 Kusick 9 (pop goes to 2) 307 HR leaders 3x 9 (that card is cut often) 315 Kessinger 9 326 Twitchell 9 (pop goes to 4) 339 Fergosi 9 (pop goes to 5) 382 Baylor 2x 9 (pop goes to 10) 407 Washington 3x 9!! (dang - pop goes to 10 and one other cut is currently on ebay) 410 Cueller 9 440 Messersmith 2x 9 481 McEnany 2x 9!! (pop goes to 2) 489 Cooper 9 513 Pole 9 526 Hisle 3x 9 (pop goes to 9) 551 Christenson 9
EDIT: So if anyone has #407 Washington in an 8 or 9 I'll meet your price! EDIT2: I'll pay 150.00 for any C. Johnson full-sized 8, you should auction it on ebay with that as a starting price and see what the demand is, I bet there are less than 20 legit 8s in existence.
Henry, considering the stock you are decommissioning, what is the threshold you have set for t/b measure? >80 mm stays? 80 mm and < goes? 80 mm seems to be the standard we are often accepting, but lately there is disagreement on this.
<< <i>Henry, considering the stock you are decommissioning, what is the threshold you have set for t/b measure? >80 mm stays? 80 mm and < goes? 80 mm seems to be the standard we are often accepting, but lately there is disagreement on this. >>
I fully agree with the 80mm threshold. When the card gets to 79.5 or 79 it becomes plainly obvious that it is short. Of course, for most of the color combos that is tantamount to a smoking gun (other than the red/yellow and green/yellow which we are debating). Those cards never come short like that naturally; never.
Now for some good news. After the destruction of 1500 cards last time and the cards I have this time - actually, the quality of the population of minis has improved greatly in this regard. What we must understand is that the problem is finite, the mistake by PSA is totally understandable because of the confusion about correct size as indicated in old Beckett guides, and we can correct most of this internally as a group. Anyone can have my spreadsheet if they wish that shows all the key card cert numbers etc. The remaining issue will be mostly with Star cards - many of these are bad (i.e. PSA 9s of Jackson and Winfield among others are probably around 40% obvious cut cards - and there are a good number of really ugly Yount and Brett rookies still floating around) and peeps have been holding them unaware. Also, a larger portion of the 10s (many of the old ones) are still held in collections.
It is also easy to determine when/where the trouble began and ended. Most of the bad cards have the old flips with the grade on the top line (as Nick stated). Also, you should always beware of any cert beginning with the dreaded 6004...
Henry, what I want to know is when you are going to make another pact with God so ebay prices can retreat on minis again, LOL..
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.
<< <i>What do you do with them when they are cracked out? >>
This is actually a VERY interesting comment - and something that has received almost no real discussion. When the card is destroyed I send the flip to PSA so that they can reduce the population - they do so. However, I know that most people have never sent in the old flip. Therefore, the pops for cards have always been inflated. However; the interesting thing is that the inflation occurs almost exclusively on star cards. That is why those pops are always so high compared to commons. With minis there have been some historic crack-heads I know that Eric used to crack the hell out of cards trying for 10s. He tried to take down MM several times for the number one set. Another example is MattyC who basically sent in the same Rose PSA 9 trying for the first 10 around 7 times (and never sent in the flip). Therefore, the Rose psa 9 is overstated by at least 6 or so. Lets' look at the famously difficult 459/460 championship cards. The pop for both in 2009 was 3...the 459 has jumped to 9 while the 460 has only risen to 5. Interestingly, you will have not found any additional 459s for sale! I am sure that 5 more 9s would not exist without them going to auction so my guess is that someone cracked out their nice 459 several times looking for a 10 and didn't get it. There are certain other cards I know that have been cracked out often, which has inflated their pops, by how rare they actually come up for auction over the past 7 years. I bid heavy on those when I see them
Regarding the numerical grade on one line on the flip: PSA changed that format to coincide with the advent of the half point grade, so any card that had the numerical grade on one line was graded pre-half-point grading.
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.
<< <i>What do you do with them when they are cracked out? >>
This is actually a VERY interesting comment - and something that has received almost no real discussion. When the card is destroyed I send the flip to PSA so that they can reduce the population - they do so. However, I know that most people have never sent in the old flip. Therefore, the pops for cards have always been inflated. However; the interesting thing is that the inflation occurs almost exclusively on star cards. That is why those pops are always so high compared to commons. With minis there have been some historic crack-heads I know that Eric used to crack the hell out of cards trying for 10s. He tried to take down MM several times for the number one set. Another example is MattyC who basically sent in the same Rose PSA 9 trying for the first 10 around 7 times (and never sent in the flip). Therefore, the Rose psa 9 is overstated by at least 6 or so. Lets' look at the famously difficult 459/460 championship cards. The pop for both in 2009 was 3...the 459 has jumped to 9 while the 460 has only risen to 5. Interestingly, you will have not found any additional 459s for sale! I am sure that 5 more 9s would not exist without them going to auction so my guess is that someone cracked out their nice 459 several times looking for a 10 and didn't get it. There are certain other cards I know that have been cracked out often, which has inflated their pops, by how rare they actually come up for auction over the past 7 years. I bid heavy on those when I see them >>
The pop report for most cards of value during the 1970s between PSA 8-9 is inflated for this reason, particularly PSA 8, imho, that have big jumps in value between the 8 and 9 grade, as most people will try the review route to bump the PSA 9 to a 10 rather than risk cracking out the card. I have had moderate success using that method, and in the case of a review, the pop report is automatically corrected if the card bumps.
It's funny to hear a story about MattyC cracking out a card over and over again looking for a bump as he is now a staunch advocate now of buying the card and not the number on the flip, or what he terms "label collecting."
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.
<< <i>Henry, what I want to know is when you are going to make another pact with God so ebay prices can retreat on minis again, LOL.. >>
Haha Tim, I have been on a 1 year pent-up buying spree. I figure, now we'll see some nice cards begin to pop up on the bay with the money being thrown around. Did you see the ended Aaron psa8 (full) auction where I got beat out at 122.00? Nice. That card is notorious for being short and the number of 8s and 9s graded over the past 5 years has been VERY small. Therefore, a legit Aaron 660 is under-valued IMO. However, just watch - we'll be seeing some really ugly examples start showing up on ebay which will reduce the VCP back down until another nice one pops up
Comments
With regard to short cards, I would not purchase or sell a short card that was anything other than red/yellow or green/yellow as those are often times slightly short from the factory and straight out of the pack. I do think there is a definite premium for a full-sized red/yellow or green/yellow card from the pack, but I personally have no problem with PSA grading those color combos when short out of the pack. Of course, usually those cards will typically come back minsize anyway, but there are also some allowances there with regard to variance, and strictness on that tends to wax and wane over time. For me, as a collector, if the card is authentic and unaltered and not sheet cut (i.e. pulled straight from the pack) I have no problem with it being graded (within reason). I'd rather have a slightly short red/yellow or green/yellow card out of the pack than a full-sized sheet cut card, personally.
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.
<< <i>I'[d be a lot more excited about the Stanley and I don't mean that as a knock on the Carter at all. Nice rips Tim, Good luck! >>
Thanks, Jim! You are right about that~keeping my fingers crossed!
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.
<< <i>Sweet assortment of cardboard there, Doug! Have you/Are you submitting them to PSA for grading?
With regard to short cards, I would not purchase or sell a short card that was anything other than red/yellow or green/yellow as those are often times slightly short from the factory and straight out of the pack. I do think there is a definite premium for a full-sized red/yellow or green/yellow card from the pack, but I personally have no problem with PSA grading those color combos when short out of the pack. Of course, usually those cards will typically come back minsize anyway, but there are also some allowances there with regard to variance, and strictness on that tends to wax and wane over time. For me, as a collector, if the card is authentic and unaltered and not sheet cut (i.e. pulled straight from the pack) I have no problem with it being graded (within reason). I'd rather have a slightly short red/yellow or green/yellow card out of the pack than a full-sized sheet cut card, personally. >>
As you guys know, I respect your opinions on this, but let me ask you...if someone cuts the cards to "perfect" them - it is bad; but if the company messes up the cut, it is just as valid as a correctly manufactured card? Further, we obsess over tiny corner dings but we then decide we can ignore the obvious defect of cutting a card short? - the issue with the red/yellow green/yellow is based on sheet placement not some special privilege. Using the conventional logic, a corner ding from the factory should not be reflected in the grade because it occurred from the "factory." Sorry guys, I just don't buy it. The most I would ever accept on this is that PSA gives these cards a MC designation. Joe has heard this opinion several times from me, I really don't know why they don't just clean this issue up.
In the meantime, it has been a blessing for me because this just keeps knocking the price of the minis down on VCP and makes it SUPER easy for me to scoop up cards I know are much more rare than they are being priced for.
The whole basis of the value behind these rectangular pieces of cardboard is that these cards survived (in the case of 75 minis, for example) virtually unscathed for 40 years without being dinged or touched over those decades. Not just that, but Topps production methods in the factory in 1975 were primitive at best, making even decently centered cards very tough to come by. Anyone who has opened a box of mini wax packs knows firsthand the frustration of finding even one or two nicely centered cards in a pack. You just can't compare those production methods and the test of four decades of time with someone using 21st century technology to create a gem mint card. Heck, with that kind of technology and attention to detail, one can fabricate the toughest cards as mint, or at least nm-mt. The whole premise of "tough" low pop cards goes out the window if one can simply fabricate them from a sheet using modern day technology. That is why I consider sheet cut cards far less desirable than cards that are naturally short from the factory and cut as such during the year of issue.
I do agree that there is definitely a premium for a full-sized red/yellow or green/yellow vs one that was cut short in the factory due to its placement on the sheet. I just don't view them (in the limited scope of these specific color combos, that is) as negatively as you do, Henry. For me, personally, I just want to know that my card came straight from the pack in the same state as it sits in the holder.
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.
<< <i>Sweet assortment of cardboard there, Doug! Have you/Are you submitting them to PSA for grading?
A few. A 9 Brett, 8.5 Gibson #150, 8 Schmidt, 7.5 Yount and 7 Tanana.
This is probably where you and I diverge in our opinions on the factory cut green/yellow and red/yellow shorts. On a card being "correctly manufactured" which in the context of the discussion, I take to mean correctly sized, my viewpoint is that the correct size is whatever Topps decided it was at the time. There was no official, published specification on Mini card size from Topps that I know of, so pretty much whatever Topps decided to release from the factory was the "correct" size as far as I'm concerned. Depending on the color combo, that size varied anywhere from 78 mm (tall) on the green/yellow and red/yellows up to about 82 mm for the tan/blues and pink/yellows. On some of the green/yellows (Tommy Davis, for example) and red/yellows (Don Gullett, for example), I've seen the size vary from 78 mm up to 81 mm +, so green/yellows and red/yellows can be factory long as well. It was a test issue, so the size variability comes as no surprise to me, as the company and their subcontractors likely struggled to calibrate the machinery to the smaller card size. Yes, we ended up with factory cut shorts and longs and everything in between, but to me, they are legitimate, because that's how Topps released them.
The comparison of a factory cut to a factory ding is an apples to oranges comparison for Mini's when determining whether a card is defective or not, IMO. A factory cut short was common on the green/yellows and red/yellows, and evidently was deemed ok by the company, given that they were so commonly found in legitimate packs, cellos, and racks. The company obviously didn't make much of an attempt to target a specific size with all the combos, otherwise we wouldn't see all the natural shorts out there for the green/yellows and red/yellows (or the longs for that matter). Therefore, I don't put the card size in the same category as a factory "corner ding," which clearly was not common and certainly wasn't purposeful.
Henry, I certainly respect your opinion on the desirability of the natural shorts, but I can't agree that the natural shorts (or natural longs - it works both ways) are illegitimate or that those who submit them, buy them, sell them, etc., are doing something that is "not correct." I just don't see it that way for the reasons I laid out above. The variability in size is one of the many attributes that gives this set, in particular, its character and its appeal, and to a significant extent, its value.
I just don't see the uniqueness in accepting the short card regardless of the fault of the printing process - using your logic then the company should disregard the ink stains on the 78 Molitor/Trammell rookie or the 1979 Marc Hill because it is systematic on over 80% of the cards and it is the same stain. The stain is a stain period and detracts from the card thus it lowers the grade. A card cut shorter than intended is by definition a miscut card - or one that lacks "minimum size requirement"
EDIT 1 (ethics): I also want to clarify that I did not intend to question the ethics of those that are pushing for short cards - that is just a difference of opinion. I am mostly frustrated with PSA for not handling the short issue in a clear and consistent manner. As mini collectors, I do feel the push towards allowing size variance with these color combos might be tolerable for experts like ourselves but it is, IMO a snake eating its own tail because we just continue to confuse and delegitimize our own collection to the community every time they see these ridiculously short cards at auction and on ebay.
Henry, I share your viewpoint regarding cards that were not naturally short out of the pack. As I also stated previously, I also agree that there is a premium for full sized red/yellow and green/yellow cards. . Also, what is your position then on cards that are "tall" or oversized out of the pack?
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.
Problem: 2 color combos were miscut short and 2 color combos were miscut long.
Critical question: In your experience what actual percentage of these two color combos come naturally short? In my experience around 30% of the cards I opened from packs and cellos had this issue (perhaps less because I tend to remember them). I believe that the red/yellows tend to come up shorter much more often than the green/yellows (am I correct?).
Nick's assertion is that because of this error we should abandon standards and consider all sizes of these color combos equally for grading purposes and we/PSA can create whatever standard we choose.
My assertion is that 81mm is the standard and miscut cards are simply miscut; and Nick's strategy harms us because now you have the problem of a short Guisti psa 9 side by side with a strong full Guisti psa 8.
You CANT solve that problem with a simple "premium" price because these cards are so rare to find in these conditions.
As for the longs, that is a great question Tim. Here is what has happened. Most of these tend to be cut correct anyway. The ones that are bigger tend to be put in baggies. The unique problem here is that one can cut the card to the intended size! So there is no easy way to handle this. For sure, I have NEVER come across a tan/blue, pink/yellow shorter than 81mm.
Why is this so important? Well it is fine to argue this out because to be honest the number of people that actually collect these cards is extremely limited and will always be this way. So we can basically create whatever market we want. I would have to admit that I would have a personal interest in limiting the cards since I have so many but it should be obvious to everyone I will only lose money on minis (and have already lost a substantial amount destroying cut cards I have accumulated rather than pass them on to others).
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.
<< <i>So, Henry, in your eyes, miscut calls that are tall are ok in baggies but miscut cards that are short out of the pack are not? >>
Not really Tim
<< <i>
<< <i>So, Henry, in your eyes, miscut calls that are tall are ok in baggies but miscut cards that are short out of the pack are not? >>
Not really Tim
I would say that if you classify a card as short out of the pack as miscut, then a tall card would have to be classified as miscut, as well, to remain consistent. As far as one being able to trim the tall cards to size, I think we can all agree that such an effort is far more egregious, but for the purpose of this discussion, we are assuming that no one is trimming any cards.
I think the negative stigma associated with a card that is short vs one that is tall out of the pack is what drives your perception, but that perception cannot be used to justify one vs the other in the context of this discussion, as both are "miscut" and not to standard size.
Personally, I am in agreement with Nick's assessment, as far as 75 minis go. I understand the reasoning behind a cut and dried standard, but minis were an experimental issue by definition, which is also a large part of their charm and appeal.
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.
PSA has a standard by which they lower a card's grade based on centering, corners, and surface. Until they issue a standard based on size differential then I just disagree.
<< <i>Tim, I said that it should be labelled miscut.
PSA has a standard by which they lower a card's grade based on centering, corners, and surface. Until they issue a standard based on size differential then I just disagree. >>
I also don't agree that cards that are naturally tall should be deemed or labeled miscut by PSA. I respect your opinion, Henry, but I disagree with it.
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.
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.
<< <i>
<< <i>Tim, I said that it should be labelled miscut.
PSA has a standard by which they lower a card's grade based on centering, corners, and surface. Until they issue a standard based on size differential then I just disagree. >>
I also don't agree that cards that are naturally tall should be deemed or labeled miscut by PSA. I respect your opinion, Henry, but I disagree with it. >>
Obviously, we will talk in circles in ad-infinitum. The reason I said they should but are allowed is that PSA is primarily protecting the collector from buying "trimmed" cards, this was the main reason that PSA was born into existence! No one can make a card larger, thus my nuance.
At the end of the day, without attribution, this debate basically separates collectors versus traders. It is in the interest of traders to make a few bucks passing off short rare red/yellows green/yellows for 50-70 bucks for an 8 to cover expenses. As long as PSA allows this then guys will try make a buck (thus people on this forum even admitting sending in short cards over and over again using MinSizeReq vouchers hoping to sneak in a win). Obviously, it is in the interest of collectors who have made sets not to see their investment diluted by inferior products being passed off as comparable to their cards.
IMO a "traders" mentality is short-sighted because we just de-legitimize this set.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Tim, I said that it should be labelled miscut.
PSA has a standard by which they lower a card's grade based on centering, corners, and surface. Until they issue a standard based on size differential then I just disagree. >>
I also don't agree that cards that are naturally tall should be deemed or labeled miscut by PSA. I respect your opinion, Henry, but I disagree with it. >>
Obviously, we will talk in circles in ad-infinitum. The reason I said they should but are allowed is that PSA is primarily protecting the collector from buying "trimmed" cards, this was the main reason that PSA was born into existence! No one can make a card larger, thus my nuance.
At the end of the day, without attribution, this debate basically separates collectors versus traders. It is in the interest of traders to make a few bucks passing off short rare red/yellows green/yellows for 50-70 bucks for an 8 to cover expenses. As long as PSA allows this then guys will try make a buck (thus people on this forum even admitting sending in short cards over and over again using MinSizeReq vouchers hoping to sneak in a win). Obviously, it is in the interest of collectors who have made sets not to see their investment diluted by inferior products being passed off as comparable to their cards.
IMO a "traders" mentality is short-sighted because we just de-legitimize this set. >>
Again, Henry, just because it is your opinion doesn't make it fact. I feel that my position (as well as Nick's) are at least as valid as yours, and again, I respect your opinion, even though I disagree with it. Characterizing those who submit cards that are short right out of the pack as "trying to sneak one past PSA" or "passing off short red/yellow or green/yellow to cover expenses" is unjustly negative, imo. You say in a previous post that you are not calling into question the ethics of those who disagree with your position on this topic, yet you are employing negative verbiage to describe them.
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.
The population numbers will always have significant variance, especially when you consider re-grading/re-submitting, crossover to other companies, unreported destruction/loss of cards, etc. I believe the Market will figure things out in terms of scarcity and rarely listed quality cards, with not as much attention to the pop numbers as many focus on. If your set is littered with shorties, print defects, poor centering, it will simply not fetch the premium of a similar set without those issues. And if you decide to break it up, the Market will pick and choose quality, and you will be left holding the junk. I simply trust the Market.
you can go back and read the historic posts of people who say they send the same short card in multiple times in the hopes of it getting holdered eventually. That is a fact not opinion. I have never judged it, but it is what it is. The main problem is not the individuals it is up to PSA to clarify how they will handle this issue.
As for the market, I have bought out 4+ complete sets, believe me it is not fun going through the cards and finding many of the key cards cut (another issue) and/or short (in the 2 colors in question). I guess I could ask the seller to go card by card and provide a scan, but shouldn't the grade designated by PSA mean something? Do I honestly have to scrutinize every 8 to see how much it fills the holder?
EDIT: Also, unfortunately Pop does effect value (perceived or real). For example, a pop 2-3 psa 9 would command one price on auction versus a pop 6. Most of us know which pop 6s are valid or not but it still does affect this price. So if Ryan's recent pop 3 doubles to pop 6 because PSA has loosened what it will grade then it actually does affect the value. You are right that we will be able to tell the difference between a full and short. So let's look at some real life examples (you can see this on VCP) - one card sells for 600.00, then a shortie comes up and sell for 150...then VCP goes to 325 as the average. Another comes up and I snipe 400 and 9 times out of 10 I get the card. So as I said before, this has actually been a blessing to me because I have bought countless low pop 9s at ridiculous prices compared to its actual rarity because I have taken the time to look at the true population of all the cards. This is how I have been able to accumulate a large number of strong red/yellows green/yellows for a low price over the past 7 years. I am certain nothing will change because I have been a minority (perhaps alone).
In the end, the reason most of us collect this set is because we truly love the cards. This is perhaps our only point of contention but it is a major point.
I'll keep destroying cut/short cards in my hands and that is that.
I disagree with your implied assertion that the size of the cards are basically all totally random from 78-81.
That's not what I was implying. I said, "depending on the color combo" the observed size range coming out of the factory was 78-82 mm (approximately). In other words, it's not totally random, but varies by color combo. This is largely anecdotal, I admit, so I welcome anyone who has opened packs from a variety of sources to measure the cards and place them into size histograms, but I'll bet if they do so, they'll find that some color combos have tighter ranges on the order of 80-81 mm, others have wider ranges on the order of 78-81 mm, and still others are somewhere in between.
Nick, there is no debate on the fact that the cards were intended to be 81mm.
Actually, this is largely what we're debating. My position is that we don't know exactly what Topps intended. It was definitely not 81 mm, but probably closer to 80 mm (3-5/16 inches for those who like English units) (when we're talking Mini's, we're not splitting hairs when talking about a 1-mm difference -- the difference between a 79 mm Mini versus an 80 mm Mini versus and 81 mm depending on the color combo, is huge in terms of the card's suspected history). This is purely speculation based on my observation that the statistical mode of Mini's other than natural shorts and longs that I've measured is right at 80 mm. What I am saying is that perhaps initially, Topps targeted 80 mm for all Mini's, but when they went to production, they determined that it wasn't possible (or more likely, not worth the effort) to be that precise on all color combos. Does that make those color combos where there wasn't good consistency defective or illegitimate? That's the other part of the debate. I say, no.
The most I would ever accept on this is that PSA gives these cards a MC designation. Joe has heard this opinion several times from me, I really don't know why they don't just clean this issue up.
I'm not at all crazy about that idea, because I don't consider a factory cut short to be miscut when it comes to Mini's for the reasons I've already stated. I would rather they receive the N6 designation.
...using your logic then the company should disregard the ink stains on the 78 Molitor/Trammell rookie or the 1979 Marc Hill because it is systematic on over 80% of the cards and it is the same stain...
I never got to the point in my last post on how I think PSA ought to treat a factory cut short. My point was that regardless of the intended cut size at the onset for the natural shorts, Topps never got there with any high degree of consistency. And its plausible that the reason they didn't was because they couldn't get the calibration consistent. I don't view a factory short as aesthetically unpleasing, so I don't quite get the comparison of a factory cut short to the Molitor RC ink stain or the blurry Marc Hill. Incidentally, "the company" does largely disregard those flaws at least compared to snow on Tommy Davis card, for example, in that an ink blotched Molitor or a blurry Marc Hill can receive at least an 8 - not so for a Tommy Davis Mini with snow.
Nick's assertion is that because of this error we should abandon standards and consider all sizes of these color combos equally for grading purposes and we/PSA can create whatever standard we choose.
Now come on, Henry, you know I'm not saying that. I do believe in standards. Where I am headed is that because a factory short (less than 80 mm) red/yellow or green/yellow Mini is relatively common (you mentioned 30 percent, which is not rare), the N6 threshold should be lower for the natural shorts. If it were my decision, the N6 threshold would be 79.5 mm for the natural shorts and 80 mm for the rest. Again, I don't have good empirical evidence, but for many of the natural shorts, 79.5 mm seems to be a common size. I suppose one could make a case for a higher threshold for the natural longs, but I haven't really thought of or focused on the natural longs in the past.
and Nick's strategy harms us because now you have the problem of a short Guisti psa 9 side by side with a strong full Guisti psa 8.
I don't see the harm. Pitting the beauty of short Giusti PSA 9 versus a full-sized PSA 8 version is a subjective endeavor. Your going to get a different viewpoint depending upon who you ask. I see no difference between your scenario and one where you have a full sized PSA 9 Burleson with a thin yellow stripe at the top versus a full sized PSA 8 Burleson with a perfect, solid red top. Personally, I hate the yellow stripe and will choose the PSA 8 Burleson with no stripe every time.
Why is this so important? Well it is fine to argue this out because to be honest the number of people that actually collect these cards is extremely limited and will always be this way. So we can basically create whatever market we want.
I agree that this is an important discussion to have, and I'm glad we're having it. I'm with you 100 percent that we can basically create whatever market we want. It's that latter fact that motivates me to engage in this discussion. I think back to pre-2008, and I honestly don't remember anyone complaining about the visual appeal of a factory cut short green/yellow or red/yellow. They were accepted (and rightly so in my opinion) as a nuance of the set, and I'm of the thought that if we can get back to that point while still protecting ourselves from the unnatural shorts, then it's worth investigating.
Please answer these questions:
1. What is the percentage in your experience of red/yellows short (I believe between 30-35%) and green/yellow (I believe between 25-30%).
2. Isn't the whole issue of shorts based on the initial problem that we DID not truly know what the size was therefore 2 major companies flooded the market with cut cards? So as we slowly clean this up, your contention is that we should allow for size variance on these two? Then why not grade every card regardless of size since it is possible for them to come at that size naturally? What would be the purpose of stating a certain tolerable level of shortness? Who determines this at PSA?
To Jasme11, I do agree with your market assessment overall. I would suggest that you spend a bit of time investigating how this particular market has worked and you'll see the influence that this issue has had on real prices. In the end, it is good if you are a buyer, not so good if you are a seller; and I believe that this issue has turned off many potential collectors and members of this community. I personally know it has in talking with several people who sold out. It is just a f-ing headache to figure out compared to any other set.
EDIT: Nick I wish we had the old forum, the problem in 2008 grew from an overall realization of a large percentage of cut-cards. It was a long 1 year discussion and investigation among members that revealed the green/yellow red/yellow distinction. This was led by MattyC, MM, and Miniduff as well as Tim and myself. The reason people accepted short cards at that time was that we honestly did not know any better. Once we did, there was a huge outcry and PSA, to their credit, worked with us. But it was not without a lot of pain and effort - ie the reason the old forum was banned was for this reason. There was never a period then where people said green/yellow shorts are fine and the others are not; rather that the natural shorts were the reason for the confusion at PSA which allowed cutters through the window.
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.
That sounds about right. Red/yellows in my experience definitely come up short more often then green/yellows. It also depends on the card. It's relatively easy to find an 80 mm or taller Tommy Davis card. The Jesus Alou card is a different story.
I don't want to wade too deeply into the second set of questions, as it gets too close to a separate touchy topic. But the purpose of maintaining a min size is the same as for every other card issue. All I'm saying is that I think there is room for lowering it for the green/yellows and red/yellows.
<< <i> I don't want to wade too deeply into the second set of questions, as it gets too close to a separate touchy topic. But the purpose of maintaining a min size is the same as for every other card issue. All I'm saying is that I think there is room for lowering it for the green/yellows and red/yellows. >>
Bingo! You now nailed the essence of my concern Nick. If you or Tim say that a short red/yellow came from one of your packs - I believe you 100% based on your integrity. However, once we allow this, then we know that unscrupulous individuals will get out the cutters. So we will rehash the problem we had with all the cards with two color combos. However, these two combos have high visibility and value in this set. Therefore, there will be confusion in population, value, and now validity. This is my main point about this being harmful long-term. Perhaps I am just being overly paranoid because it is so hard to find these in any condition that could be manipulated anyway. I am not trying to be overly dogmatic or a jerk, but some of you old timers remember that I was the absolute main person that got burned in 2007-2009 because I was putting together 3 sets for my 3 boys.
I'm certain this battle is already being waged with full-sized Mini's (as well as most other card issues with any kind of value). It only takes a ruler, time, and a handful of graded Mini's to figure out that the min size is currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 mm or a few tenths above that. With many Mini's 1-2 mm above that min size, it's not difficult to imagine the scenario you paint already now occurring.
I appreciate your kind words toward me, but I'm not the one you should be trusting. Whether we realize or not, we've thrown our lot in with PSA by being collectors of graded Mini's; they are on our team. I for one continue to buy PSA-graded Mini's, because I trust them based on their demonstrated abilities. Their consistency throughout the past 7 years or so in grading Mini's has been awesome in my view. Do they get it right 100 percent of the time? Of course, not. That's an unreasonable expectation. They certainly get it right close to that, and where they don't, they offer a guarantee.
Which leads me back to where I considered going with my very first post a few days ago on this issue. Henry, I sympathize with you as well as respect where you've been and where you are with collecting Mini's, but when we publicly say things like I'm going to take it upon myself to destroy holdered cards because, in essence, I don't trust the cards (reading between the lines, I really feel this gets to the heart of what you're saying), it needlessly creates all kinds of paranoia, which then breeds distrust, and then discontent. It's as if we're saying, we don't trust the abilities of the grader, which begs the question, why then continue collecting graded cards in light of the fact that this battle is in all likelihood, currently being fought not just with the Mini's but with other card issues as well. And it certainly can't be good for all of us who either buy, sell, or grade Mini's. IMO, the old thread went Poof because the paranoia and discontent got way out of hand and really hurt all of us, though I'm certain that wasn't the intention of the posters -- I miss most of that old thread, but certainly not all of it.
If it were me, I would at least consider not bearing the burden myself, but instead, use our most powerful ally, PSA, to review the cards and render a second opinion on their authenticity. Again, I trust their ability to detect an altered card - I think they've proven themselves, and for this reason, I would welcome them lowering the N6 threshold for the natural shorty color combos.
Shorter cards, longer cards, cards with the yellow line should be graded as MC. Wavey ink, print smudges, snow, significant fish-eyes are PDs IMO. It is a crying shame that the old thread is not still around. It contained such a great history of the progression of this wonderful set. TheVon, Marz, jivan are some other names Henry. There were also some trouble makers whom I won't name....
<< <i>I am of the opinion that there has to be a minimum size standard.....solely based on the collectors history of this set. I've measured over 1000 of my graded minis and I'm of the opinion that 80.5mm is the standard size. A majority of cards can be found in this size. If cards are accepted less than a standard length and width, what would stop trimming? Start with a card that is 80.5mm, trim the top and bottom, and now you have a card with 4 very sharp corners, viola.
Shorter cards, longer cards, cards with the yellow line should be graded as MC. Wavey ink, print smudges, snow, significant fish-eyes are PDs IMO. It is a crying shame that the old thread is not still around. It contained such a great history of the progression of this wonderful set. TheVon, Marz, jivan are some other names Henry. There were also some trouble makers whom I won't name.... >>
Interesting to read this topic, having seen it from day one many years ago in the original thread. Yes, it would be great to have that thread back since it contained a lot of great info on the set, and the good discussions about set standards. I've been off the boards with other needs to attend to, but I still pick up the occasional card as I fill in the final gaps or upgrade.
I agree with Todd (an original trouble maker, perhaps?) that the min size is a key issue to revisit. I would prefer min size to seeing MC cards added. We've all opened packs with factory cut shorties. MC is a different standard that PSA uses on all sets. A short is a min size fault, not a miscut. Do any of you like the look of green/yellow cards with the yellow top line and yet they get the standard grade? To me those are MC, and I don't submit them for grading.
And the many have noted, the slabbed short cuts are not for everyone and I, for one, won't buy them. I thought PSA had finally set the standard at 80 mm and lower were short, but judging from recent ebay offerings it seems that standard has slipped.
1975 mini's
1954 Wilson Franks
1975 mini's
1954 Wilson Franks
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.
Here's my take. Having opened my share of packs, I'd say that ~30% of red/yellows and probably a slightly smaller percentage of green/yellows come out of the pack under 80.5 mm (which does seem to be the typical size I see from the majority of my cards). That said, I have not problem seeing a card get slabbed without a qualifier if it is in the 79.5 mm to 80 mm range. The ones that are are 77-78 mm are more of an eyesore IMO as a result, I avoid subbing those or purchasing them already graded.
Now on to talk about actual cards! Tim- you pulled some nice ones there. I really like the Boog and the Kison. Those look like the best ones with a shot at a 9.
Here's two more cards that I pulled from packs recently that I just send off for grading along with a couple dozen others. These are camera phone pics since I forgot to scan them before I was packing up the order to PSA. I'm hoping for 9s on both of these. The Johnson measures just a tad over 80mm and has only the slight bit of yellow showing up the red area. The centering appears within range of a 9. The Aaron is an all around great card with near perfect centering front and back.
Ryan Hoge - PSA President, IG: @maysmantle
I would grade the Johnson as an 8. Aaron 8/8.5, possibly a 9 if they don't ding you for the chip on bottom left edge and slight PD. Both are very nice.
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.
Great cards. Good luck on the submissions. I'll be ripping a couple of mini packs this week when they arrive.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
It's important for us to share what we discover as we collect this set in whatever grade we elect to pursue. We shouldn't be here to pass judgment on each other or press our personal opinions on fellow collectors. The best dialogue's I've observed on both the old and new threads were those of open and friendly discussions. These are the discussions that make me want to come back to this thread and communicate with fellow collectors. The joy and passion of collecting 1975 Topps Mini's. There is far more good about this set than to dwell on and rehash the ugly. It's ok to discuss and inform about some of the negative. It's what helps new collectors and old. The far more interesting discussions involve the nuances of the set, the unique and rare qualities of certain cards. Sharing photo's, experiences, results of submissions. Should I sub or this card? Tales of a cracked wax pack, box.... my oh my.... a case break!! Jasme 11 got it right, and it's been talked about on the old thread and probably somewhere in this thread. We as collectors decide what is a quality example of any graded card offered us. We can let any card go that doesn't sit well with us. Yes, PSA grades them, and as a result the value of the cards they grade increase. By the way, that's a good thing, most of the time. We decide if they got it right by how much we're willing to pay! Joe Orlando tells collectors every issue of SMR...... Never get cheated! That's good advice. My passion for the Mini's runs deep! Henry I know yours does too! Who would collect 12 sets if not passionate about the cards! You and I and a few others have been through the battle, but we're going to win the war in the end. Reject the garbage move on and try and outbid me on the quality stuff
Tim and Ryan: Awesome cards.
So that makes three minty, full size #143 Johnson Minis shown here over the last two weeks. That's incredible considering how difficult that card is to find in 8 or higher.
Good luck on the subs, guys!
Is that Aaron a 75 Mini or 75 standard? The Aaron looks nice at first glance. However, upon closer inspection there appears chipping on the lower left border and lower left corner. The right upper corner appears slightly dinged. These defects likely end it's shot at an 8 or better. To bad, as it has such nice centering.
<< <i>Ryan, while the centering on that C. Johnson is very nice. The yellow uneven lines scattered at the top of the card, the bottom border, especially lower right appears roughed. Left corner suspect as well. There is also a PD on the right side upper middle that you can detect when enlarging the scan. Some of these individual PD's might get by for an 8. I've even seen 9's with the yellow uneven lines within the red on an otherwise near perfect example. I don't agree that cards with those obvious uneven yellow lines should receive a 9 or better NQ'er grade, but they on rare occasion get by? However, in combination with the other issues with your example, I would guess a grade of 6 or 7.
Is that Aaron a 75 Mini or 75 standard? The Aaron looks nice at first glance. However, upon closer inspection there appears chipping on the lower left border and lower left corner. The right upper corner appears slightly dinged. These defects likely end it's shot at an 8 or better. To bad, as it has such nice centering. >>
Thanks T.Allan. The Aaron is most certainly a mini. I just took the photo a little closer than the Johnson. A thing to keep in mind with both of these, they are really blown up from what you would see holding the card in hand. I've taken a close look at these and compared them to other 9s that I have (especially the red/yellows) and I think both of these have a legit chance. If I had to guess, I'd say the Johnson lands in an 8 or 8.5 and the Aaron a 9. We will see. I've got a 28 card sub of all minis that should be delivered to PSA tomorrow. Hoping for quick poppage.
Ryan Hoge - PSA President, IG: @maysmantle
almost 400 cards 185 8s and 193 9s.
3 C. Johnson (143) 8s, so the pop will go to 25...the nice raws that have been shown on this thread should DEF be submitted.
Others of note:
23 Russell 2x 9s (pop goes to 11)
53 Guisti 2x 8s
56 Wise 9 and 2 8s (9 pop goes to 3)
65 Gullett 9
81 Reed 9
94 Lonborg 9
155 Bibby 2x 9 (pop goes to 8)
162 Montenez 9
177 Correll 2x 9
178 Tovar 2x 9! (pop goes to 7)
219 Hermann 9
227 Watson 9
229 Foote 9
297 Kusick 9 (pop goes to 2)
307 HR leaders 3x 9 (that card is cut often)
315 Kessinger 9
326 Twitchell 9 (pop goes to 4)
339 Fergosi 9 (pop goes to 5)
382 Baylor 2x 9 (pop goes to 10)
407 Washington 3x 9!! (dang - pop goes to 10 and one other cut is currently on ebay)
410 Cueller 9
440 Messersmith 2x 9
481 McEnany 2x 9!! (pop goes to 2)
489 Cooper 9
513 Pole 9
526 Hisle 3x 9 (pop goes to 9)
551 Christenson 9
EDIT: So if anyone has #407 Washington in an 8 or 9 I'll meet your price!
EDIT2: I'll pay 150.00 for any C. Johnson full-sized 8, you should auction it on ebay with that as a starting price and see what the demand is, I bet there are less than 20 legit 8s in existence.
1975 mini's
1954 Wilson Franks
1975 mini's
1954 Wilson Franks
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
<< <i>Henry, considering the stock you are decommissioning, what is the threshold you have set for t/b measure? >80 mm stays? 80 mm and < goes? 80 mm seems to be the standard we are often accepting, but lately there is disagreement on this. >>
I fully agree with the 80mm threshold. When the card gets to 79.5 or 79 it becomes plainly obvious that it is short. Of course, for most of the color combos that is tantamount to a smoking gun (other than the red/yellow and green/yellow which we are debating). Those cards never come short like that naturally; never.
Now for some good news. After the destruction of 1500 cards last time and the cards I have this time - actually, the quality of the population of minis has improved greatly in this regard. What we must understand is that the problem is finite, the mistake by PSA is totally understandable because of the confusion about correct size as indicated in old Beckett guides, and we can correct most of this internally as a group. Anyone can have my spreadsheet if they wish that shows all the key card cert numbers etc. The remaining issue will be mostly with Star cards - many of these are bad (i.e. PSA 9s of Jackson and Winfield among others are probably around 40% obvious cut cards - and there are a good number of really ugly Yount and Brett rookies still floating around) and peeps have been holding them unaware. Also, a larger portion of the 10s (many of the old ones) are still held in collections.
It is also easy to determine when/where the trouble began and ended. Most of the bad cards have the old flips with the grade on the top line (as Nick stated). Also, you should always beware of any cert beginning with the dreaded 6004...
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.
<< <i>What do you do with them when they are cracked out? >>
This is actually a VERY interesting comment - and something that has received almost no real discussion. When the card is destroyed I send the flip to PSA so that they can reduce the population - they do so. However, I know that most people have never sent in the old flip. Therefore, the pops for cards have always been inflated. However; the interesting thing is that the inflation occurs almost exclusively on star cards. That is why those pops are always so high compared to commons.
With minis there have been some historic crack-heads
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.
<< <i>
<< <i>What do you do with them when they are cracked out? >>
This is actually a VERY interesting comment - and something that has received almost no real discussion. When the card is destroyed I send the flip to PSA so that they can reduce the population - they do so. However, I know that most people have never sent in the old flip. Therefore, the pops for cards have always been inflated. However; the interesting thing is that the inflation occurs almost exclusively on star cards. That is why those pops are always so high compared to commons.
With minis there have been some historic crack-heads
The pop report for most cards of value during the 1970s between PSA 8-9 is inflated for this reason, particularly PSA 8, imho, that have big jumps in value between the 8 and 9 grade, as most people will try the review route to bump the PSA 9 to a 10 rather than risk cracking out the card. I have had moderate success using that method, and in the case of a review, the pop report is automatically corrected if the card bumps.
It's funny to hear a story about MattyC cracking out a card over and over again looking for a bump as he is now a staunch advocate now of buying the card and not the number on the flip, or what he terms "label collecting."
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.
<< <i>Henry, what I want to know is when you are going to make another pact with God so ebay prices can retreat on minis again, LOL..
However, just watch - we'll be seeing some really ugly examples start showing up on ebay which will reduce the VCP back down until another nice one pops up