|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
1933 Delong Mini??
I recently won a Delong Lefty Grove that PSA classified as a minisize. I am working on the set and thought it was a neat changeup. I just got it and I can't tell any difference. Thoughts??
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I believe that means it is trimmed not minisized.
MINSIZERQ=minimum size requirement Last edited by bnorth; 06-14-2015 at 04:10 PM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My guess is the OP is joking, but not sure. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
I was hoping that too but you never know. Just hope they didn't pay a premium for a minisize one.
That very honest company PWCC had it listed as a mini card it the title. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-DeLong-...p2047675.l2557 Last edited by bnorth; 06-14-2015 at 05:04 PM. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
My experience, albeit limited, is that the grading companies will reject for "minimum size requirement" a card that does not measure to spec, but that if they truly believe it has been trimmed it will either receive a reject as trimmed or "A" designation. The problem I have is that the rejected card looks every bit the size as the graded example posted, maybe even with a slightly larger top border, so I am puzzled it would receive this kind of rejection.
I had this card rejected as not meeting minimum size. I do not believe it is trimmed, nor was it rejected as trimmed. [IMG][/IMG]
__________________
“Hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue” - Francois de La Rochefoucauld. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other. - Ulysses S. Grant, military commander, 18th US President. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I really don't understand what the deal is with the card. I submit cards to SGC if I submit them. Holding the card over my graded one it does appear slightly larger. If that is PSA designation for a trim then PWCC absolutely misrepresented the card. I will be sending it back if that's the case (but it doesn't look trimmed).
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
1933 Delong Mini??
Never mind.
Last edited by 4815162342; 06-15-2015 at 06:05 AM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Not the most experienced person here with TPGs, but I think they are scared to give a number to any card which is even a little bit short in either direction. If a card is small and has clearly been trimmed they slab it as A and sometimes list trimming. If it doesn't appear to be trimmed then I think you might get this situation, which is pretty much them saying "we are terrified to slab this with a number and trust our judgement that the factory cut this card a little too small but that it has not been altered." This latter situation is total bunk coming from a paid "expert" but might be what this is here.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I'm going to take a different view here and say I wish PSA (I don't have much experience with other TPG) would be more consistent on "minimum size requirement". For mainstream sets, PSA has holders customized to fit cards in that set. When a card is small, usually there is extra room in the holder. Sometimes they use a mylar to hold the card in place. Even if most experts say the card is fine, there is often at least one collector willing to call "trimmed" when they see a card "swimming" in the holder. Makes me a little less enthusiastic about having those cards in my collection - I'd rather see them slabbed as Authentic-minsizereq which apparently they don't do.
Seeing "Mini" in the listing is interesting. Last edited by TanksAndSpartans; 06-15-2015 at 08:33 AM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
There's a certain bit of allowance they make for sizes outside the "standard size" In the beginning it was a pretty large allowance 1/32 of an inch? I don't recall exactly. But I think that how common very slight trims became has made them all tighten it up.
SGC also rejects for minimum size, but not entirely consistently. For example T206s can be narrow but not short. That's probably to allow for the ABs but gets applied to other backs too. I had one rejected for min size that was as short as another that graded 40 was narrow. They also reject for odd factory cuts, another I had was unslabbed with the note "miscut top and bottom" Factory but very rough cuts. And I believe the reason is exactly as DezHood said. Even if the card is fine but factory undersize, many if not most collectors will call it out as trimmed if it's unusually undersize. And while they should be entirely about the technical stuff the company reputation is all about the perception of them by potential customers. Steve B |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
I once pulled a perfect-looking Nolan Ryan card from an old cello pack and sent it to PSA thinking they'd give it a 10. They rejected it for the same "MINSIZERQ" reason.
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I have a factory undersized graded example link to a recent eBay auction on the football board that a collector who really knows the set (35 Chicle, same time period as the Delongs, interestingly) thought was fine and I trust his opinion, but I'd be lying if I said the room in the holder doesn't bother me..... Link: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=206979
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1933 Delong - PSA vs SGC | jg8422 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 08-22-2014 10:23 PM |
Wanted: 1933 Uncle Jacks HOF Type & 1933 DeLong's | Orioles1954 | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 03-04-2010 09:51 AM |
1933 Tattoo Orbit vs. 1933 Delong: Which Do You Like More? | Orioles1954 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 20 | 06-24-2009 09:17 AM |
WTB: 1933 Tattoo Orbit and 1933 DeLong (List Inside) | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 05-22-2008 06:04 AM |
WTB/WTTF: 1933 Tattoo Orbit or 1933 DeLong | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 02-21-2008 09:34 AM |