An opinion seller redefines "trimmed"
 

"Hand cut" sounds so much better, I suppose.

No comment on them evidently being unaware, or not caring, of the m114 designation.

The one on the bottom is what they look like when they aren't trimmed, cough, I mean, hand cut.

Doug

I like the data range too.

I think they’re too big to fit into the PSA jumbo holder unless they’re trimmed down.

Sort of surprising/disappointing that they’d even slab them in a hand cut variety, since they weren’t intended to be cut out if anything…

I don't think they're trying to redefine trimmed, I think the grader and all the stages of QA don't realize that these were never intended to be cut. Before anyone else says it....

I don’t see why anyone would expect PSA to be even vaguely competent at grading or even correctly identifying the items they claim to be the leading experts in.

Technically that's the range of the m113/m114 which are referenced as "1910-57 Baseball Magazine Player Posters" in the Standard catalog (which also doesn't mention the m113 or m114 designations).



What a pleasant coincidence, and pretty cool that it managed to get a number grade.

But the issue is that they don't have a trimmed variety that could get a number grade, so hand cut is better!



But isn't it nice that while they were able to read the title of the Standard Catalog listing, and use it for the label, they evidently missed the entire description.

It's certainly better for the opinion seller's bottom line if people are aware that trimming, cough, I mean hand cutting something can make it available for a paid opinion.

My favorite hand cut card is this one...

Doug, I know it's the range of the magazine, but obviously this piece can be dated with a bit more precision than that. :) As I understand it a range is given when the piece can't be more specifically dated.

Good point Peter. And obviously this one can be narrowed down pretty close...

As a matter of fact the 1951 Yankees Team (and also the Giants) were first advertised in the December 1951 issue of Baseball Magazine.

Doug

Zero issue with the dating they go by the catalogue designations on issues and that’s what it’s designated. As for grading it. They screwed the pooch there. This should never have received a numerical grade.

They did the same thing on a few others being sold by the same seller on ebay for amounts that are best described as slightly on the high side.

Am I seeing things, or has Honus taken on some severe blushing over all the controversy these past few years?

I hardly defend any TPG much, and though they should have caught the trim, humans are still doing the grading. Graders should be checking references on things they don't know.
.

There is no excuse for the opinion sellers (who rake in huge profits spending minimal time looking at items) to not be running everything by you and Ted Z to confirm what it is.