TREMENDOUS suggestion on determining trim.

[BlackShotzy-migration]

No doubt, you've heard posts on the beliefs of Forum members regarding their ability, and how they determine if a book is trimmed. The methods suggested have range with the same diversity as if you went to the race track and asked bettors how they pick a winner, ranging from old-wives tales that ALL books are the same size to the scientific explanation that comes from hands on knowledge of a few posters that actually are familiar with the Sparta press methods!

 

Here's what I suggest to determine trim. Since no two books are folded esxactly in the same place at the same angle AND cut the same way, get a ruler, get a CGC Universal slabbed book and measure it. Note the measurements. Now here's the simple part to eliminate conjecture and paranoia: DON'T buy anything smaller than THAT in either direction. It's trimmed!! OK? There's the most simple of the simple way to tell and probably as equally as accurate as all the other methods I've read on here.

 

Baseball card people have been doing that for years. If it's NOT a certain size...just pass. What size? Pick it yourself. Your own preference. There ARE no factory tolerances, but I'll tell you this...I've seen countless cards in PSA holders that are measureably SHORT by the ruler and observably short by the eye, but NEVER in SGC holders. Ask MW about this, I'm SURE he'll agree on this card-size issue.

 

As far as comics, how are these numbers for silver age Marvels: AT LEAST 6 and 5/8th inches wide (the narrowest CGC blue tops I've pulled at random from a stack of CGC books, though I DID own a Spiderman 1 CGC 6.5 Universal that was no wider than 6 and 1/2 inches), by AT LEAST 10 and 1/8th inches long (the shortest CGC Silver age pulled at random).

 

I think that the average size of SA Marvels I logged one day after measuring about 100 CGC and 100 raw books with obviously rounded corners was approx 6 and 3/4 " wide by approx. 10 and 3/16ths inches long, so those figures I gave in the above paragraph should be enough to allow for minor variation in factory cutting tolerances.

 

What do you guys think?

[aardvark88]

Fair enough for silver Marvels. Have seen some gold DCs with a lopsided factory production trim on the right edge.

How about silver DCs? Are most of them 7 inches wide with less variation than silver Marvels?

[BlackShotzy-migration]

The Silver age DC superhero books incorporate a longer time span than Marvels (Marvels from 1961, and DCs from 1955). Some of those 1955 to 1957 DCs are HUGE, left to right, more like a downsized Golden age book than a newly designed size Marvel.

 

I think that you would need at least 2, possibly 3 different sets of allowable measurements sectioning off the DC SIlver age span of books published between 1955 and 1969, for instance, an allowable rulered size for 1)1955 to and including 1957, 2) 1958 to and including 1960, 3) 1961 to and including 1969.

[BachelorOfComix]

[Aman619]

give me a break...is anyone seriously willing to discuss comic book trim dimensions on this thread?

[BachelorOfComix]

[BlackShotzy-migration]

Why not Aman? I'm trying to approach it the same way that card people have been approaching baseball cards for years. For instance, in each card catalog the same STANDARD card size for each year, each company's issue is given. There are people that for DECADES, even after grading companies came in, STILL would not buy a raw OR slabbed card without MEASURING it first and making sure that it sized at least what the standard catalog given card size indicated, REGARDLESS of it being slabbed or not.

 

Intelligently, these "ruler addicts" philosophy was, "AT LEAST standard size or I pass", even if NOT trimmed, I don't want cards in my collection that are shorter than catalog specs", and you know what? Alot of people who didn't care any longer because PSA slabbed cards of ALL sizes, cards that looked BIG and cards that looked miniscule, found to their chagrin that when they tried submitting their previously PSAed SHORT card to SGC for a better grade, it WOULD NOT cross over and would be returned as trimmed. SGC is NO JOKE. Just ask MW.

 

Now I'm not saying that a Silver age book can't be as narrow as 6 and 1/2 and NOT be trimmed, and I'm not saying that it is. Every book will be different and to absolutely determine trim, should be examined by an expert in those matters BUT if some reasonable guidelines of size pertaining to comic tolerances, what is the least allowable size to be considered "untrimmed", should possibly be considered.

 

Like long time, size sensitive card collectors viewing short cards in graded slabs with disdain, maybe it's time to consider what the smallest allowable dimensions allowable for a book should be for it to be considered untrimmed.

[DiceX]

Because cards are cut differently than comics are.

Cards start out as a stack of uncut sheets on heavy stock.

The stack is slid into a flatbed cutter that has the exact length of the card dialed into the machine.

The stack bottoms out against the preset guide.

Then a clamp comes down to smash the stack tight against the bed of the cutter, so the cards can't slide around as the large blade comes down to slice the cards into strips.

 

Once the cards have all been cut in one dimension, the cutter changes to fit the other dimension and the strips are fed into the cutter in the same manner as before.

 

The flatbed cutter is near perfect and can cut very very precisely, and makes one cut about every 15 seconds.

 

The cutter used on comics is inline with the binder and cuts one single comic at a time. It has absolutely nothing to keep it from moving except gravity.

Gravity doesn't do much since it's moving across a conveyer that cuts about 10,000 books per hour. That's roughly 166 books per minute, or 2.8 books per second.

Not much time to make a correction and make perfetly trimmed books.

 

Believe me. There's a lot of varience in the trim size of a comic.

[BlackShotzy-migration]

I don't disagree with your synopsis of how modern cards, let's say 1981 and up are produced, but I'm thinking more along the lines of VINTAGE baseball cards. 19th century cards that were scissor cut by hand, T,E, and Goudey cards that even in horde VG collections have extremely large variations in size, Topps and Bowman cards that I've heard right form the mouth of someone that designed the cutting mechanism (a tool and die maker) for the machinery that cut those cards from 1948 to 1956 that they were cut with a VIBRATING WIRE, much like a cheese slicer. That's why the long edges of Topps and Bowman cards are so consistantly serrated in a wave like pattern.

 

I've seen an unopened brick of 1956 Topps Vending cards that had highs and lows, almost like stairsteps, from card to card right in the stack, still sitting undisturbed in the box! It's in these 1886 to 1956 that the tolerances seem at times to be non-existant.

 

A cardboard sportscard is MUCH easier to determine trim on anyway. The absence of ANY serration on a "paper" card's edge, before the advent of all the slick, plastic coated 1981 alternate company cards to Topps (Fleer, Donruss, UpperDeck, etc.) is a prime indicator of an aftermarket trim, BUT some card "mechanics" (and there are PLENTY out there that can smoke them by PSA all day) claim that they can put a "factory edge" on ANY card that they shave.