‘54 Jackie - Trimmed?

[jchcollins]

Got this back in the mail today. SGC is calling Jackie trimmed, but not sure I agree. It's definitely diamond cut vertically, with those borders showing some slant in comparison to the angle on the top. But unless I'm just incompetent, I've measured it multiple times on all sides and it checks out. There may be some micro discrepancy at the top related to the diamond cut? If so it's less than 1/32 of an inch. Obviously I don't work for SGC - what do you guys think? To me the telling pic is at the bottom comparing it height-wise to the '54 Face - that I'm 99% sure is not trimmed.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Hard to eyeball diamond cuts from afar, but the top looks like it might be trimmed.

Still a really nice looking copy.

[jchcollins]

Opposite side on the ‘54 Face. I mean I'll agree the cut is wonky, but it's a difficult argument that the card overall is small...(?)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Trimmed does not mean small. Even today, if you take a stack of 2022 Topps cards, and look very, very closely one will see they are not the same sizes. It was even more true in the 1950's, there are tons of trimmed cards that don't measure short. As the slab positions the bottom for us, to my eyes, the top does not seem to slant quite as one would expect with the bottom the card has.

[JollyElm]

Do the wear patterns on all four edges match each other, or does the edge of the side in question match the other three? That's what I would examine under high magnification. SGC uses that 'magic box' machine (have no idea what it's actually called) that immediately spells out various things that aren't readily seen by the human eye. Perhaps it showed them evidence of a slash job?

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Do the wear patterns on all four edges match each other, or does the edge of the side in question match the other three? That's what I would examine under high magnification. SGC uses that 'magic box' machine (have no idea what it's actually called) that immediately spells out various things that aren't readily seen by the human eye. Perhaps it showed them evidence of a slash job?

What does this magic box machine do exactly? I haven't heard about this. Are they using some partial machine grading?

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

What does this magic box machine do exactly? I haven't heard about this. Are they using some partial machine grading?

There was a video walkthrough of SGC awhile back, and the basics of it were (not sure how specific or accurate my memory is) that they put the card in this microwave oven looking thing (that's an exaggeration) and BOOM!! it immediately showed surface wear, wrinkles, etc., that you wouldn't readily know was there. It was shocking to me, and reminded me of some type of LIDAR that archaeologists use to cut through the foliage from the air.

[irv]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

What does this magic box machine do exactly? I haven't heard about this. Are they using some partial machine grading?

Originally Posted by JollyElm

There was a video walkthrough of SGC awhile back, and the basics of it were (not sure how specific or accurate my memory is) that they put the card in this microwave oven looking thing (that's an exaggeration) and BOOM!! it immediately showed surface wear, wrinkles, etc., that you wouldn't readily know was there. It was shocking to me, and reminded me of some type of LIDAR that archaeologists use to cut through the foliage from the air.

Skip to the 16:05 spot to see the machine Jolly is talking about.
https://youtu.be/_YNOs6Xu80w

[BobC]

Here's something else to try. Instead of comparing your raw '54 Jackie side-by-side with just one other raw '54 card, get several other raw '54 cards (assuming you have some more) and stack them up with Jackie buried somewhere in the middle of the stack, and snug all the cards up so they stack evenly on all sides. Now take a look at the cards in the stack from all sides and see if you can readily pick the Jackie card out by it not quite measuring up to all your other raw '54s. Not perfect, but may show the Jackie doesn't quite measure up after all.

Forget what I said, didn't realize right away the card in question was encapsulated. Can only do what suggested with raw cards. My bad.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

Trimmed does not mean small. Even today, if you take a stack of 2022 Topps cards, and look very, very closely one will see they are not the same sizes. It was even more true in the 1950's, there are tons of trimmed cards that don't measure short. As the slab positions the bottom for us, to my eyes, the top does not seem to slant quite as one would expect with the bottom the card has.

Good point. Who knows. I’m not going to let it bother me too much. I may sell the card (w/ full disclosure) at some point later on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

Forget what I said, didn't realize right away the card in question was encapsulated. Can only do what suggested with raw cards. My bad.

It’s not encapsulated anymore, LOL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kutcher55]

Beautiful card. Trimmed or not it’s definitely a no brainer to crack it out of that crummy holder. Who the hell would want a card with the headline “trimmed.” Beginning to think more and more SGC is out to lunch with some of their business decisions.

[Kutcher55]

This card is real but we have Evidence that it has been involved in the hobby crime of trimming. Enjoy proudly displaying your card in this tuxedo and be reminded each time that the card is trimmed. I mean what % of cards in these holders don’t get cracked out of there? Waste of plastic.

[spartygw]

Originally Posted by irv

Skip to the 16:05 spot to see the machine Jolly is talking about.

https://youtu.be/_YNOs6Xu80w

Interesting!

Whoever sent thet 53 Mantle in is going to be really disappointed when they get it back as a 3.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

I have a new name for that machine. Call it 'The Dream Killer.'

[jchcollins]

Card in question (the “trimmed” Jackie) is no longer wearing the scarlet A. Would you guys keep it if you were me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Card in question (the “trimmed” Jackie) is no longer wearing the scarlet A. Would you guys keep it if you were me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely. It's a great looking copy with clean printing and registration (All the 54 Jackie's have what looks like bad registration above his shoulders for some reason), and bold color. Just because someone may have shaved the top border doesn't ruin it, it's still a nice looking copy of a cool card of a great and historic player. I'd be happy with that example and slot it into my set.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Card in question (the “trimmed” Jackie) is no longer wearing the scarlet A. Would you guys keep it if you were me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would, looks gorgeous. Unless maybe you have another one as nice, or nicer.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

I would keep it, no doubt. Very nice image and color.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[jchcollins]

I spent about half an hour with this card out of it's holder and several other '54 and '56 Topps commons last night. My observations, in no particular order:

1. No arguing that the cut is wonky if nothing else. When the bottom border is made level, the two vertical borders slant slightly to the right, both of them at the same angle. Thus the corners are not true right angles.

2. Yes, when held and especially when viewed in the SGC image, the top border looks as if it slants down to the right. This is an optical illusion. If you look at the SGC holder, the bottom border is not straight in that take either. When I put the Jackie in it's vintage OT, and ensure the bottom edge is totally flush with the rail - the top edge is flush with the small gap too. It's the vertical edges on both sides which then throw things off, and are not straight.

3. Respect to those of you that can look at an edge and "just tell" if it's trimmed regardless of size. I'm not one of those people. I did again look at all edges of the card carefully. Nowhere is there any type of jagged anomaly from a home scissor or exacto knife job gone wrong. The top and bottom edges display as slightly different (tighter) pattern in the cardboard than the edges on the sides do, but they basically match. If something is just smoking gun wrong here, I can't find it.

4. Maybe most importantly at least to me - size. I put this card with the deck of other commons, and made a stack the way a kid might have done 60 years ago. The exceptions to the "squareness" aside, this card is not small. It simply isn't. It's the same size as my '54 Ed Mathews vertically, and if anything it's a hair taller than my recently acquired '54 Gil Hodges. The '56 Topps cards were a bit more difficult to compare to because they were printed on thicker cardboard stock. But in the comparisons I did, my observations on size were similar.

To conclude - the card is now back in a vintage One Touch and sleeve, and will be staying in my collection. I'm looking at it this way: Is it trimmed? Maybe. But if we treated cards the way we do other things in this world, there is certainly not an obvious flaw or "definite" evidence that it is trimmed. It wouldn't be convicted in a court of law. To me that's going to have to be good enough. The truth of the matter is that many vintage cards left the factory miscut, and were not 100% perfectly square going into the packs. My own guess is that it's just easier for some TPG who is not going to spend even 2 minutes on my card to look at the overall appearance - which yes, I'll give you is strange - and say that it's trimmed.

On a day at least where SGC said that about one of my cards, and sent the other one home slabbed with a pube in the holder - you'll understand if I'm not just over the moon confident on their overall professionalism and judgement right now. I'm going to give my card the benefit of the doubt...

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Beautiful card. Trimmed or not it’s definitely a no brainer to crack it out of that crummy holder. Who the hell would want a card with the headline “trimmed.” Beginning to think more and more SGC is out to lunch with some of their business decisions.

The same people who complained for years about a card being simply labeled as "A" with no explanation.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I spent about half an hour with this card out of it's holder and several other '54 and '56 Topps commons last night. My observations, in no particular order:

1. No arguing that the cut is wonky if nothing else. When the bottom border is made level, the two vertical borders slant slightly to the right, both of them at the same angle. Thus the corners are not true right angles.

2. Yes, when held and especially when viewed in the SGC image, the top border looks as if it slants down to the right. This is an optical illusion. If you look at the SGC holder, the bottom border is not straight in that take either. When I put the Jackie in it's vintage OT, and ensure the bottom edge is totally flush with the rail - the top edge is flush with the small gap too. It's the vertical edges on both sides which then throw things off, and are not straight.

3. Respect to those of you that can look at an edge and "just tell" if it's trimmed regardless of size. I'm not one of those people. I did again look at all edges of the card carefully. Nowhere is there any type of jagged anomaly from a home scissor or exacto knife job gone wrong. The top and bottom edges display as slightly different (tighter) pattern in the cardboard than the edges on the sides do, but they basically match. If something is just smoking gun wrong here, I can't find it.

4. Maybe most importantly at least to me - size. I put this card with the deck of other commons, and made a stack the way a kid might have done 60 years ago. The exceptions to the "squareness" aside, this card is not small. It simply isn't. It's the same size as my '54 Ed Mathews vertically, and if anything it's a hair taller than my recently acquired '54 Gil Hodges. The '56 Topps cards were a bit more difficult to compare to because they were printed on thicker cardboard stock. But in the comparisons I did, my observations on size were similar.

To conclude - the card is now back in a vintage One Touch and sleeve, and will be staying in my collection. I'm looking at it this way: Is it trimmed? Maybe. But if we treated cards the way we do other things in this world, there is certainly not an obvious flaw or "definite" evidence that it is trimmed. It wouldn't be convicted in a court of law. To me that's going to have to be good enough. The truth of the matter is that many vintage cards left the factory miscut, and were not 100% perfectly square going into the packs. My own guess is that it's just easier for some TPG who is not going to spend even 2 minutes on my card to look at the overall appearance - which yes, I'll give you is strange - and say that it's trimmed.

On a day at least where SGC said that about one of my cards, and sent the other one home slabbed with a pube in the holder - you'll understand if I'm not just over the moon confident on their overall professionalism and judgement right now. I'm going to give my card the benefit of the doubt...

All that is stuff that's typical for a diamond cut card. And also stuff most trimmers wouldn't get right.
It can be difficult to tell without having it in hand, but I'm not seeing anything that I'd think of as trimmed.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Card in question (the “trimmed” Jackie) is no longer wearing the scarlet A. Would you guys keep it if you were me?

What a great card to have laying around in a toploader. KEEP!

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by steve B

The same people who complained for years about a card being simply labeled as "A" with no explanation.

A few years back when I decided I wanted my '56 Mantle with an erasure / paper loss slabbed, I specifically chose SGC because I knew I would get the A with no explanation. Just an "A" to the uninitiated doesn't look bad at all, but the explanation does. I knew very well my card was altered; I was the one who being younger and dumber once upon a time altered it.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by G1911

Hard to eyeball diamond cuts from afar, but the top looks like it might be trimmed.

Still a really nice looking copy.

I’m with Greg, looks like the top has telltale ears although minuscule. Still a great looker and I would have left it in the holder. I don’t mind an authentic if it presents well.