t206 size/trim question...

[shaunsteig]

The printing process of the T206s one-hundred years ago was imprecise enough to allow for variations in card size, particularly in height. The quality-control mechanisms in place then weren't as sophisticated as cards made nowadays. So there do exist variations in card size. And similarly, there's variation in the centering of the card. Your Young is centered lower than the Cobb, and the Cobb is taller. Neither of which indicates that it's been trimmed.

One point is that you can't rely on the card measuring as "regulation" size as proof that it wasn't trimmed -- you might be looking at a card that was originally slightly oversized and is now trimmed to enhance its corners and now is merely "normal" size.

I've never heard that the variability in card size, as cut at the factory, was related to the back, or the scarcity of the back. The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering.

The principal tasks of the third-party graders are to verify the authenticity of a card (ie it's not a fake or reprint), confirm that it hasn't been altered (most commonly is the question of trimming), and then if the first two criteria are passed to then grade the card numerically according to their standards. I consider both SGC and PSA as highly reliable, and so would consider any numerically graded card from them as untrimmed, which is why I generally stay away from raw cards of any significant value. That's not to say that either couldn't make a mistake. But on the surface, the fact that both cards received a numeric grade should provide reassurance that they weren't trimmed.

Hope that helps,
--S

[cfc1909]

"The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering."

Can you prove this? How do you know this?

[shaunsteig]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

"The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering."

Can you prove this? How do you know this?

Not sure if you're referring to my first sentence there or the second.

As to the first -- the AB backs -- that's something that I've known for a little while, although can't quite recall where I gained that knowledge from. So I did a little search, and came across this passage from Scot Reader's "Inside T206":

• Manufacturing tolerances make exacting specification of a “standard” size for a T206 card difficult. A typical size is roughly 1 7/16” x 2 5/8”. T206 specimens exhibiting the American Beauty reverse are an exception. They were cut thinner to enable them to fit within narrower American Beauty cigarette packs.

My search, though, also discovered a prior thread on this board disputing that reason for the thinner ABs: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...=122216&page=2. Regardless, the original point remains -- the ABs were deliberately of a different size, from the factory and not from trimming, than the other backs.

As to the second, since a given factory printed several different backs, it stands to reason that their technical variances were no different among the backs. The above quote could also apply. My experience is similar, at least among the "less-common" backs, although I have little knowledge of the truly rare ones. So I don't have "proof" for that statement, perhaps another board member can enlighten.

Thanks,
--S

[cfc1909]

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

[fkw]

Not all AB cards are narrower, but most are. Ive had a few that were full width.

That Young sure looks short, but I guess its the original cut, SGC is good at IDing trimmed cards.

[KNH]

Bilko,
I sent about 5 or 6 cards into BGS about 3 years ago that were never trimmed but had some variation in size which is common with T206's. BGS sent a couple back ungraded saying there was evidence of trimming. There was no way these cards were ever trimmed as they had 1 owner for decades up until a friend of mine who is not a collector inherited them. He did not trim them either. I called SGC and they explained to me that those cards varied in size from the factory and that they would grade them even if they were 1/32" short as long as there wasn't evidence of trimming. We cut those 2 cards out of the BGS slabs, sent them in and they received a grade of I think 3 or 4 as SGC could see what we already knew. They were never trimmed. BGS also tried to say the one card was pressed to smoothen a crease which was not true. It just seemed like they weren't as knowledgable on grading the T206's as what SGC or PSA would have been. That was just my experience though.

[Section103]

While not expansive, I've collected 15-20 HOF T206s and sent them all to BVG without a hitch in grading. My Bender was notably longer than any other T206 Ive ever had. You could tell it was longer just by looking at it. That said, it's a lot less "risky" to grade a longer card than a shorter card and I would rather any grading service error on the side of caution than slam a slab on anything. I think BVG does fine (my experience only), but I also have little doubt that SGC is the consensus favorite for Pre-War cards.

[steve B]

Any chance you have a scan of one of the normal sized ones? I've been considering posting about a non AB card I have that's nearly AB narrow. I have a theory about the why, and regualr width ABs would go a long way toward making it plausible.

Steve B

Originally Posted by fkw

Not all AB cards are narrower, but most are. Ive had a few that were full width.

That Young sure looks short, but I guess its the original cut, SGC is good at IDing trimmed cards.

[cfc1909]

McQuillian is pretty close to full size if not full size-from what I have seen the majority of the full size cards are 350 no frames.

McQuillan.jpg

McQuillanb.jpg

McGraw.jpg

Mcgrawb.jpg

[shaunsteig]

Originally Posted by cfc1909

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

Nothing to it -- thanks for asking / challenging me. In the process I came to realize that something which I had considered fact (namely, the reason that ABs are thinner is due to a thinner pack size) may not be universally accepted. I'm still fairly new at collecting T206s, so I'm hardly an expert. Just trying to learn something new every day.

--S

[cfc1909]

you need to check out this site-I am not saying Scot is wrong but I don't think AB packs are thinner. I am pretty sure they are the same size as other 206 packs.The AB cards are thinner or at least 98% of them are or at least the 80 or so ABs I own are that way.
I don't think we have found the exact reason the AB cards are cut different than other 206 cards.

I am always looking for answers and trying to learn

http://www.baseballandtobacco.com/

[kllrbee]

Originally Posted by shaunsteig

The printing process of the T206s one-hundred years ago was imprecise enough to allow for variations in card size, particularly in height. The quality-control mechanisms in place then weren't as sophisticated as cards made nowadays. So there do exist variations in card size. And similarly, there's variation in the centering of the card. Your Young is centered lower than the Cobb, and the Cobb is taller. Neither of which indicates that it's been trimmed.

One point is that you can't rely on the card measuring as "regulation" size as proof that it wasn't trimmed -- you might be looking at a card that was originally slightly oversized and is now trimmed to enhance its corners and now is merely "normal" size.

I've never heard that the variability in card size, as cut at the factory, was related to the back, or the scarcity of the back. The only exception would be the American Beauty cards, which were uniformly cut thinner because the tobacco packs for that brand were thinner than the other brands. Otherwise, all the brands should have been subject to the same issues for card size and centering.

The principal tasks of the third-party graders are to verify the authenticity of a card (ie it's not a fake or reprint), confirm that it hasn't been altered (most commonly is the question of trimming), and then if the first two criteria are passed to then grade the card numerically according to their standards. I consider both SGC and PSA as highly reliable, and so would consider any numerically graded card from them as untrimmed, which is why I generally stay away from raw cards of any significant value. That's not to say that either couldn't make a mistake. But on the surface, the fact that both cards received a numeric grade should provide reassurance that they weren't trimmed.

Hope that helps,
--S

Thanks shaun,
I think a response like that is what I needed to hear in order to set my mind at ease. Pretty much spelled out like you would explain it to a 6 year old. LOL.
I appreciate the help guys, I will keep the card.