Success with resubmission of "trimmed" cards?

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

A couple years ago, I had about 30 beautiful '55 Topps cards that I submitted to PSA. One card in particular (Stan Hack) looked like it should get a '9', but instead came back 'evidence of trim', while the majority of the rest of them came back 8's and 8.5's. I knew it wasn't trimmed because I bought the cards from the original guy that opened the packs himself as a kid in 1955. So, I resubmitted a short time later and it graded a 9.

It has to be real tough sometimes as graders, especially when it comes to high grade examples. IMO, it would seem that when they get a very sharp looking vintage card, that is when they really look close and dissect for any possible indication of alteration. It seems for every good TPG story, there is a horror story to go with it.

[the 'stache]

I agree with you, Mike.

In my very humble opinion, a grader's job is to critically assess the piece of cardboard before them, and absolutely nothing else should factor in their assessment. If you believe PSA's video of the on-site grading process, the grader never knows who submitted the card. Well, the name of the player on the card, also, should not matter. Mickey Mantle's baseball cards should receive the same treatment as Mickey Tettleton's cards. Do they? I would assume most, if not all of PSA's graders are hobbyists. If they're holding a 1952 Mickey Mantle, can they be objective? They may stick to their protocols throughout the entire process, but who knows how any personal feelings about the card might affect their judgement?

Going back to what you said, Mike:

IMO, it would seem that when they get a very sharp looking vintage card, that is when they really look close and dissect for any possible indication of alteration.

Absolutely, and that is what they should be doing. Getting a high grade on a card should be hard. A 9.5 card is near perfection. You should need a loupe to see a flaw. A 10 should be absolute perfection. And, if you ask me, there are too many 10s and 9.5s out there.

It is my humble opinion, again, that there should be one flat grading scale that applies to all cards. There should not be any adjustments made to a grade, or grading scale, because a card was printed 60 years ago. If a card is rough cut, well, then it should be adjusted downward accordingly. It doesn't mean the card isn't beautiful. It just means it won't be a 10, or a 9. A 10 gem mint card is a 10 gem mint card. Perfect centering, razor sharp corners, pristine edges, and a remarkable surface. No blemishes, no scratches. No print flaws, no registration issues. If that means there are no 10s from cards printed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, so be it. Realize that the printing technology employed at that time was incapable of printing 10 condition baseball cards. I just think the whole idea of bumping a card up because it was printed on an ancient machine is ridiculous. Grading, though there are guidelines, is a subjective process. When you ask graders to start making allowances for cards that are old, you creating more room for error.

Originally Posted by freakhappy

It has to be real tough sometimes as graders, especially when it comes to high grade examples. IMO, it would seem that when they get a very sharp looking vintage card, that is when they really look close and dissect for any possible indication of alteration. It seems for every good TPG story, there is a horror story to go with it.

[Jetsfan]

It seems to me that the bigger issue may be on the buyer side. There is often a tremendous premium from a 9 to a 10, when I believe each of us knows that on any given day, a 9 might be graded a 10 and vice versa. You're really paying a huge premium for a label. At least, for the most part, I can tell a 3 from a 4.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I agree with you, Mike.
Realize that the printing technology employed at that time was incapable of printing 10 condition baseball cards. I just think the whole idea of bumping a card up because it was printed on an ancient machine is ridiculous.

The technology of the time- especially by the 70's was entirely capable of printing things perfectly. The registration issues and print flaws are result of cutting corners to make the job cheaper.

Topps did a few things in design that made it easier, especially on the backs.

My first job I ran on the press was registered almost perfectly - Probably within a .005-.007 of an inch. The second was a bit better, maybe one color off by that much the others closer. The guy who ran the 24" press was almost always exactly registered. The little targets on the margins looked almost black before he ran the black layer, and no hints of the individual colors.

But if we'd been trying to make cardboard freebies as cheaply as possible, it would have been quicker and less accurate.

We had a calendar from a paper company that had the slogan "Want it good, fast and cheap? Pick two and call me back"

Steve B