Trimmed Card Crossover
 

I had a question for some more experienced collectors. Awhile back, I bought a 19th Century HOF in a GAI holder. When I received the card, it measured 1/8" short and the bottom of the card looked trimmed to me upon close inspection. I based this on the bottom edge of card having a different age look than the other three sides. I returned the card figuring it would just be a waste of time and money to attempt a crossover.

I now see the same card is in a numerical slab from SGC (lower grade). I'm not losing any sleep over returning the card. However, my question is how rare is it for SGC or PSA to slab a trimmed card? It is very likely the card wasn't trimmed as I'm certainly not an expert. However, it got me thinking. Thanks.

To answer your question, it happens with both companies. If the card was that short, I am guessing they examined it pretty carefully to determine if it was cut short or had been trimmed.

I am working on a 53 Bowman color set and the cards are all over the place. There is probably a 5/16" to 3/8" difference in the shortest card to the tallest card. I've just learned to look at the cut under a lighted loop and I can usually tell if it was just cut short or was trimmed.

I've seen many egregious PSA errors where they have slabbed a badly trimmed card with a numerical grade; per my observation, definitely more then SGC.

BOTH companies have made their share of mistakes. If PSA has made more mistakes than SGC, it is mainly because they grade more cards than SGC. One company is not more apt to grade trimmed cards than the other (sorry SGC lovers!)......

I disagree; PSA has made embarrasing mistakes with trimmed cards - an OJ comes to mind where the whole ad bottom was trimmed and they gave it a 5. And, on topic, just browsing newly listed on eBay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1921-E220-PS...item336c023d58

I can post several pics of SGC mistakes that THEY have made. And I can promise that they grade less cards. It wouldn't surprised me that the percentage of goofs to cards graded is actually HIGHER with SGC!

No need to post several. Just post one. Let's see it (and I'm not talking about Bobby Jones).

I thought these two images he posted awhile back were interesting.

Ahh, there it is. I said Bobby Jones, but I meant Walter Hagen. That doesn't prove anything. It could have been microtrimmed after it was removed from the SGC holder. Show a card that resides in an SGC holder that has been significantly overgraded. Bet you can't do it.

Some might say that card I posted was significantly undergraded. (if it wasn't trimmed) Anyway, it isn't my argument and personally I like SGC better because I really can't stand PSA's holders.

You got me David. I microtrimmed a SGC 3 that looked like a 5.....PSA said it was trimmed, then SGC said it was trimmed.....SGC made NO mistake....they are 100% PERFECT (note the heavy sarcasm)......

Any more dirt on this card, and I'm gonna douse it with Woolite!!!

http://img2.sellersourcebook.com/use...1311637902.jpg

Bobby, do you comprehend the English language? I asked you to post a scan of a card that was overgraded, not a card with a flaw. Stevie Wonder can see that the card is dirty, however the grade reflects it. In other words, the card looks like it would have graded a 5 or 5.5 w/o the stain, so SGC knocked off a couple of points for the stain. What's the problem?

Bobby, let me break it down so even you can understand it. Show me a SGC card with a significant flaw that they missed (e.g paper loss, major crease, a card that does not fall within their standards for centering, etc).

You are such a hater. Why don't you just grow up and realize SGC is NOT perfect. PSA would NEVER grade that card a 3! Horrible....the back looked worse than the front! You are so closed minded with hatred. I refuse to answer any more of your posts.

Bobby, you're absolutely right - SGC is not perfect. I don't believe that and I've never said that. All I'm saying is that for the amount of cards they grade, PSA makes far more mistakes than SGC. It's not even close.

Bobby, be honest with yourself, me and the rest of the board. If not for the dirt, what do you think the card would have graded?

Speaking purely as to prewar stuff, I've seen more PSA mistakes than SGC mistakes. A rejection by either company is meaningless, though, as far as proving that the card is good or bad. it is all subjective. A friend of mine busted some packs from a sealed box at the National and some of the cards were rejected by PSA as trimmed. If anything, my experience with SGC in the vintage field has been that they are more likely to reject good cards and make you resubmit than they are to grade bad cards.

That said, everyone makes mistakes. I've made a few myself over the years in card acquisitions and I consider myself to be as experienced and as talented as any grader out there. The key is how mistakes are handled. SGC has made good on them as far as I know. I once bought a T206 Waddell portrait on Ebay that was an SGC 80 but on closer inspection I felt it was trimmed. I took it to the National, showed it to Dave F., he agreed, and they bought it back. No nonsense, no debates. I feel that they have an earnest intent not to leave bad cards out there in their holders, whereas I feel sometimes that PSA doesn't care one way or the other.

http://img2.sellersourcebook.com/use...1311637902.jpg



Yeah, but they would grade this card a 5. Please explain to me the difference, Bobby.

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1952-TOPPS-VI...ITu!~~60_3.JPG

Bobby, Davids got a point. I never thought we would ever Kill Osama Bin Laden but we did.......just sayin bro...

Both companies make mistakes and everyone knows that PSA grades more cards........but then again....grading more don't make em better.......may make em rush a bit. Both companies have up's and downs.........I see too much and I quote "haters" on both sides but its up to the collector right. No one tells you how to spend your money. Thank God we live in a democracy........

Never Give Up

Blackie

PSA would grade that card a 6, you're right.

Not hardly. All you PSA bashers kill me! BOTH card companies make mistakes! SGC is not infallible, nor are they far from perfect. Neither is PSA. But I have had PSA catch several SGC mistakes that SGC later said was a mistake as well (it was SGC's mistake to begin with!)....never the other way around.

So, you've had PSA catch SGC's mistakes, but never the other way around? Could that be because you don't submit to SGC? Nice spin there, Bobby. Sounds good though.

You sit there and run SGC into the ground, but the fact of the matter is you've probably never submitted more than half a dozen cards to SGC in your life. Other than Walter Hagan (which you only sent in to "test" SGC), how many cards have you ever sent them? Show us your invoices. Go ahead and post them and prove me wrong.

Yes, I bash PSA, but when I do it, it's because I know what I'm talking about. I've sent them hundreds of cards to grade, as well as SGC. SGC is now my grader of choice because I believe they're more consistent. So, when I bash PSA, I have something to compare them to unlike you that have absolutely no valid reason to bash SGC.

I've got a bet for you, little girl. You post your SGC submissions and I'll post my PSA submissions. I'll bet you $100 that I've submitted 10X the cards to PSA that you have submitted to SGC. What's it going to be Bobby? You got the cohones to take my bet?

Wow...can anyone say..."cat fight!"

David James is a bored little man who has nothing better to do than start crud with me every time he turns around. I REFUSE to stoop to his level.
SGC only saves the most recent invoices, unlike PSA that saves every single one. I have submitted cards to SGC since 2007/2008. If they would save every invoice I would have no problem. I refuse to post just the last 6 invoices. By your constant name calling and belittling, you are showing what calibre of man you really are.

Bobby, that's simply not true. I can view all my invoices back to 2009. I can't go back any further becasue I submitted under a different customer number and I can't remember that username and password for that account, but I can go back at least two years. I KNEW you didn't have cohones!

I've had a few cards that were viewed trimmed by PSA and then were slabbed by SGC, all but one were diamond stars.

On an off-topic, not saving all invoices is a pretty annoying thing at SGC. Saying that I've sorta found a way around it if you remember your old invoice #'s. And again, if you don't quite remember them, SGC uses the invoice numbers on the flip before the dash, so if you have a card from that invoice (or a scan of the card), you can get the invoice number from there. So if your flip is 123456789-987, then your invoice # for that flip is 123456789.

What you do is to log into SGC, and then click the "Track Invoice" tab at the top. From there, you enter your old invoice # that is no longer appearing, and search for it, and it will appear. I've attached screenshots of the Track Invoice tab, and an old invoice I searched for which you can see is no longer a part of the Recent Invoices.

Again, among my pet peeves for SGC is for them to fix this and show all invoices. Another peeve is for them to fix their Population Reports. PSA shows every year for each sport that they have a graded set in. For SGC, you have to search for the year. You would think that this is normally pretty easy, but SGC uses circa years a lot (e.g., things like c.1915 or c.1930s) so it's tough to get the search criteria exactly right if you're not completely sure what you're looking for. In addition, when you do a player search in the pop report, it doesn't default show the results by year. You can still sort by year by clicking on the Year in the column header in the pop report. You can see my 3rd picture for that. However, SGC still doesn't show the circa years sorted correctly. If you go to the last page, you can see some of the circa years, but not all of them. (Another pet peeve is that SGC should allow you to see all of the pop report for a player or set on one page instead of having to go through 9 pages.) In the last picture, I show a c.1915 Ruth that doesn't appear on the pop report when I search for all cards for Ruth, but if I enter the c.1915 for the year, then the card appears.

Anyway, I'm sure the argument will be that SGC spends its resources on what really counts, i.e., the grading, which is fine. Still it'd be nice if they make a few things easier to use.

David,

What Bobby says is true. I don't know how you're able to view your old invoices unless you know those invoices #'s like I said in my last post. If you see my attached screenshot, I can only see my Recent Invoices to the beginning of 2011.

I see all of mine.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x...untitled-1.jpg

Getting back to the topic. In your opinion, who was correct? If one grading company states a card is trimmed, but another slabs it, in most cases, who is correct? Or is there that much of a gray area?

Basically, my question would be is it more likely for a TPG to determine a clean card is trimmed, or is it more likely that a TPG slab a trimmed card as clean? In my particular case, I was almost positive a card I returned was trimmed. Thanks.

David,

I see in your screenshot, you still have the scrollbar at approximately the same size as mine. It could be that SGC only shows the last 5 invoices regardless of year. That is, I only see my most 5 recent invoices. Do you have more than 5?

I'm going to give an un-PC answer, but what is my personal belief. I think it is more likely that either TPG (SGC or PSA) will slab a trimmed card if the value isn't worth much (i.e., submitted at a lower service level). I personally think at lower service levels, graders zip through the cards faster, and therefore some cards get missed. At higher service levels, graders are a lot more cautious, and will move the benefit of the doubt to trimmed. For example, for the attached Cracker Jack Joe Jackson, why is this card Authentic with the Unaltered comment? If a card isn't altered, if if it doesn't meet Minimum Size Requirements, shouldn't it get a number grade, a la diamond cut cards. More to the point, have you ever seen an Unaltered comment on the flip for a card with a value under $500? Again, I think PSA would slab this card as Authentic also because of minimum size requirement even if they didn't detect any trimming.

mike...I don't think your question can be answered...as has been displayed...it's not that cut and dry! I have seen instances of both SGC and PSA misgrading cards...and I can't see any pattern...or rhyme or reason to certain sets...or types of cards this occurs with!

I HAVE seen many more errors from PSA...but this is most likely due to the fact that they have graded so many more cards than SGC.

Personally...I trust SGC much much more than PSA when it comes to accurate...consistent grading of my vintage cards...but as stated...they both make mistakes...and if you don't like the decision...resubmit!

I don't know if they'd have added unaltered, but my two rejected cards from SGC could both have qualified - One min size, the other "miscut" very rough cut, but still factory and within the size. I checked off to have rejects not slabbed since I know none were trimmed or altered.

I haven't sent any in to PSA, and only about 15 to SGC. I do see a lot of variance in the mid grades, even in my small sampling. One I think was given a grade too high, another 3-4 I thought were undergraded, one by quite a bit.

Steve B