View Single Post
  #13  
Old 07-31-2010, 10:48 AM
Chris Counts's Avatar
Chris Counts Chris Counts is offline
Chris Counts
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 1,679
Default

When I got back in the hobby 10 years ago after a 20-year break, I quickly discovered eBay. The first card I bought was a 1953 Bowman common. When I showed it to my brother, who never stopped collecting, he quickly pointed out that it was trimmed. This was my introduction to the graded card era. At least it wasn't a Mantle ...

Over the past decade, I have slowly come around to the idea that trimmed cards are okay. As a result, I am able to obtain sharp-looking examples of cards I'd never own under normal circumstances since my budget for old cards is much smaller than my ambition for collecting them. Perhaps equally important to me, though, is the fact that I worry a lot less about what is trimmed in my collection and what isn't. Let's face it, the are countless trimmed cards encased in slabs.

I generally search for cards in the 4-5 range that have exceptional eye appeal. Tape stains, pinholes and just about any type of damage to the back are okay to me. Trimmed is just another flaw in a card that I can live with.

Last weekend, I came across this stunning but trimmed 1915 Cracker Jack of Chick Gandil. I quickly checked the prices of other examples on eBay. I found three examples: an 8 for $3,000, a 5.5 for $935 and a particularly unattractive 2 at $400. I figured the price on the 5.5 was fair because the seller was one of my favorite dealers, Shoebox Cards. So I paid less than half the price of the 2 for a card that has the appearance of a 7 or an 8. Needless to say, I'm thrilled with the purchase.

Perhaps one day baseball cards will be looked upon like art or antiques and enhancements or alterations will be considered just another part of an item's history and will be factored into its value accordingly ...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg gandil.jpg (74.3 KB, 269 views)
File Type: jpg 34ruth2.jpg (70.9 KB, 264 views)
Reply With Quote