What if SGC was right? Provide the info to potential buyers and let them decide.

Ask Joe why he didn't. Why you are at is ask him why he suggested the card might be trimmed in his description on the SGC example.

I do not think Goldin dropped the ball not disclosing. Both companies see the card as legit. One felt it was too small, the other did not. At that point any interested buyer could just use their eyes...and they should.

Missed this...Yes. Qualify the card as being small but assign a grade. Being cut small, to me, is no different than a card being printed off center.

Bottom border looks suspicious.

+1

Would anyone agree that if SGC graded that card 10 times (with a fresh look each time, not knowing they had graded it before) you would probably come out with trimmed, min size, VG-3, VG-EX-4, and EX-5 included in those results?

Everyone knows and complains that there is no consistency or reliability in grading and that's why previous grades are not relevant (in my opinion) in selling a graded card.

And "min size" is the most irrelevant assessment since no TPG specifies what constitutes "significantly undersized" and they all are known to have numerically graded a card they had previously min sized. It's so ludicrous, that it just can't be considered relevant.

You guys are hilarious.

For the record, "Minimum Size Not Met" means the card DOES NOT bear evidence of trimming. If it did, they would put "Evidence of Trimming" on the label.

I have a NM+ card that I've submitted 5 times and it has gotten 5 different grades: 6.5, 4.5, Authentic, 6, 5. What a card was graded previously is completely irrelevant. Graders get it wrong far too often for that to matter. The idea that a card's previous holder/opinion should be forever attached to it is pretty hilarious. Good luck with that.

Zero chance Goldin takes this down and zero chance PSA decertifies it.

Maybe instead of spending all that energy into crying about someone else profiting from a card you should learn how to grade yourself and then spend that time finding cards that have been assaulted by some new inexperienced grader that had no clue what he was doing when he graded it.

Old Judge would expect disclosure on all those results too. Imagine auction write ups if that ever happens.

I agree to a certain point. Certainly in the case of this card the previous grade by SGC is not remotely relevant. If I consigned the card in the SGC holder I would be more than upset...with myself.

This is 100% correct. And it is a moving target at both PSA and SGC. I would not call 1/32 of an inch significantly undersized for a baseball card until we get to possibly cards the size of T206s.

Ah yes, let's add another non-altered card to the "Altered Card Database". Well done. Great work Nick Dragovich!

We need to start adding your cards to it. They're likely all altered. Then again that would probably be a badge of honor to you.

Cute attack. I don't alter cards. But have fun with that. Let me know how it goes!

Considering your definition of altered. And your constant defense of altered cards, I'd take that with a grain of Mt. Everest.

To drop my 2 cents in I favor transparency. And Given card is over 100k with juice now. If I was a bidder I would want to know. 2 TPG's ( both owned by same company) disagreed so significantly. Because down the road it could come up when up for sale next time. If this was a case of one TPG or same TPG saying 5 vs 6.5 that's one thing, but A vs 6.5...I would tell and I would want to know

That it would be important to at least some people is the very reason things like this don't get disclosed, despite all the justifications people offer.

Things like this do not get disclosed because in this case it seems they were not aware there was anything to disclose. They inaccurately disclosed in the first sale that the Min Size assessment might have suggested the card was trimmed. Nobody here seems to have an issue with that because it favored bidders. The house did not see the same card coming through again in another company's graded holder, who has different grading standards, and now they want disclosure. Convenient.

I know literally dozens of collectors and dealers who will submit the same card over and over until they feel it gets graded accurately. I get the desire to do this but what a gimmick when you reward someone for doing a bad job. :confused:

I am sure I have many of those cards in my collection and I cannot say I care. When I look at the cards in my collection and to my eye they do not appear to be altered and they appear to be graded right, not sure I care if a grading company got it wrong 3 times before one got it right.

Exactly. Say a border was a bit yellowed, and somebody cleans it to pearl white with kurts. I would absolutely want that to be known. And I wouldn't buy it because of that.

What if PSA made an informed determination that the card was "gradable" after consideration of the previous involvement of SGC? Does Goldin have a duty to respect the "expert opinion" purchased by the consignor if that opinion discredits the previous minimum size determination of SGC? Would there be an obligation to disclose the SGC "opinion" if PSA determined that either the size measurement performed by SGC or the "minimum size standard" applied by SGC was wrong or inappropriate?

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

I would guess that the card was broken out of the SGC holder before it was sent to PSA.

The problem is a lack of education or experience in the hobby with people grading cards. This idea that the number on a slab should be treated as gospel is just flat out ignorant, and could only be held by someone who doesn't submit cards for grading themselves. Anyone who has ever submitted the same card more than once would know that the graders are clueless.

How clueless are they? Here's a fun statistic for you from my grading results database. If you were to take 100 recently graded vintage cards and crack them out and resubmit them, then crack them out and resubmit again, so each card being graded a total of 3 times, you would only have 5 of those 100 cards receive the same grade all 3 times. And if you were to do this experiment with 100 older cert vintage cards, you would have ZERO having received the same grade all 3 times. Yes, zero.

The number of times I've submitted the same card 3 times and gotten 3 different grades is wild. Nobody has an obligation to disclose what some random grader assigned a card in its previous holder because it's completely irrelevant. The seller isn't selling Billy Bob's opinion of the card, he's selling Mikey's opinion. And it's not his job to educate you on the fact that Billy Bob, Mikey, Tayshaun, and Lydia all disagree on how a card should be graded.

If you don't want cards in your collection that were cracked out and regraded, then have fun wasting your life digging through prior sales trying to find cards in their previous holders. Because nobody owes you a disclosure and you're never going to get one.

Fortunately for you, the number of cards that had yellowed borders turned pearl white with Kurt's Card Spray is zero.

Not the point. Of course grading is all over the place but that's a straw man. We are talking about a very specific case here. Not just a different grade, but the difference between a strong grade that will command well into 6 figures and an assessment that the card was not worthy of a number grade at all.
If a seller KNOWS that a 6 figure card was previously adjudged to be unworthy of a number grade at all, and indeed the seller sold that very card, to me that's material. What's the reason NOT to disclose it, other than it will hold down price? And if it would hold down price, QED.

As to your assertion that it's "completely irrelevant," many people here have said that to them, it isn't. So there. Your circular argument (no need to disclose because there's nothing to disclose) may work for you but not for me. Again, name a legitimate reason for GA not to disclose other than to avoid a price effect.

LOL. You're hilarious. In one breath you admit that the grading companies' assessments are unreliable and all over the place, yet in the next breath you want to pretend that they're meaningful. You can't have it both ways.

Also, LMAO at the usage of "adjudged" in this case. That's pretty funny in the context of the grade on a slab.

The only person getting screwed in this scenario is the guy who sent the card to SGC and sold it in that AUTHENTIC holder before getting a second opinion.

Numerous examples, here's one I found in about 2 minutes. Yellow to white, pretty severe change. No harsh chemicals at all luckily. Kurt is using all natural ingredients and 100% studied mixtures on card stock. You are hilarious.

https://youtu.be/6WGmI2uY9Mg

I don't think it's inconsistent. MIN SIZE is supposed to be an objective determination. So that distinguishes it from just an opinion on whether it's a 4, or a 5. Knowing the prior grade, in this specific case, would raise some questions about the PSA grade beyond the usual ones.

And we'll see where the poll I posted comes out, though I would guess at least a significant minority will be in favor of disclosure.

100 percent.

That card went from being dirty with beige/toned borders to clean with still beige/toned borders. There is nothing in Kurt's Card Spray that will bleach out or whiten cards. Nice try.

That is the rub. Min Size is not assessed objectively AND each co has their own threshold they use when they are assigning that assessment.

I have 30 cards sitting here that were rejected for Min Size. Each of them measures exactly to factory specifications or is 1/128th short. None are trimmed.

Here again lies the problem. The same problem I mentioned above, which is that your ignorance about the grading process is on display again. You can think whatever you like about card sizing being objective, but as anyone who owns a ruler that submits cards for grading can tell you, it is still very much subjective. I even got one sent back to me recently as "min size" which measures 1/16" LARGE. A card which had been graded twice before. Rulers may be objective, but someone's ability to use one correctly is not.

I haven't seen your poll, but as someone whose job it is to analyze the validity of such things, I can assure you its results are meaningless in its intended purpose.

Yep. I have had the exact same experience. I can't tell you how many times I've had a card rejected as "min size" which was previously graded and/or graded numerically upon resubmission. Probably at least 100 times if I were to guess. The level of incompetency in grading is difficult to exaggerate. The meme about them throwing darts at a grading dart board isn't far off.

I was with you until the throwing darts at grading dart board, that Sir is complete BS! I have an inside source that assures me it is a crew of monkeys spinning grading wheels.;)

Is your ego seriously this large? Impressive.

It's not a straw man argument, Peter. You are making a claim that carries with it an implication. When you say that a seller has an obligation to disclose a prior assessment of a card, then that implies that prior assessments are reliable, meaningful, and objective.

If you're having car problems and you ask your drunken neighbor with dimensia to take a look at it for you, and he tells you it's the water pump today, then tomorrow you repeat the experiment and he tells you it's the oxygen sensor, then on Wed he looks at it again and says it's the timing belt, then on Thursday he says it's a leaking head gasket, and on Friday he says it's your car's rotator cuff, you might begin to wonder if he actually knows anything about cars at all to begin with. But if you don't, and you still trust that he's an expert, just be sure to take a video of yourself disclosing to the buyer that you have reason to believe your car has a torn rotator cuff when you go to sell it because you had an expert look at it for you. Then post the video here, because I'd like to see it.

It has nothing to do with ego. If you're posting a poll here on these forums, you will end up with a poll that represents the response bias of the members on this board who choose to engage. And while you may believe that is a representative sample of the hobby, I assure you, it is not.

Not sure this is good for either of us since we tend to be on opposite sides of things but I feel we see this exactly the same way.

Nobody here is upset for the consignor of the SGC card who likely got less for the card because an amateur at Goldin's suggested the card was trimmed.

The Min Size designation has to be the most subjective assessment handed out and the most variance from among the grading companies. And it is also a secret. Neither SGC nor PSA will tell you how much tolerance they allow for. So that disqualifies it as being an objective determination. What is objective is centering criteria and that is no secret.

Nice Dodge. Knew this would get another made up excuse. Surprised you even replied, usually when you're wrong you just ignore and keep the troll posts going.

Straw man du hour. I never remotely suggested this Board was representative of the hobby. At the same time, I hardly think you speak for the hobby.

WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?
 

If you sub a card and it comes back much lower than expected or even just authentic, then do you sell that card or resub it? Based on the numerous comments it seems that many people would continue to resub the card until it gets the grade they believe is correct.

If that is true, then why would the original submitter sell the card in the SGC authentic? Why would the auction house misrepresent the card as being manual trimmed? Why would the seller allow their card to be misrepresented in any way as being manually trimmed? By selling it as SGC Authentic and being represented as manually trimmed they know that it would obviously bring in a lower price. Which is not what the seller or the auction house wants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This forum sure is lucky that you created another account (after your first account was banned). I'm not sure what we'd do without our resident Sherlock Holmes solving these exacting riddles.

Perhaps when Goldin corrects this typo "princess cardboard heirloom" they can disclose the card's history.

Because at least the 2 original sellers (while in the SGC slab) were either hobby uneducated or given bad advice. Graders can’t even measure cards anymore and when it's a very close call, seems they flip a coin. I told auburn on twitter pretty much the same last week or so as I thought the card looked legit back in Oct enough to bid on it. I Lost. Ugh.

This entire ordeal reminds me of the AGA graded 1935 National Chcle Bronko N card from last spring ( PSA would only grade it altered so it sold on eBay for $8k) and new owner sold 6-7 months later for est. $65K in a shiny new PSA 5.5 or 6.5 holder . The eBay seller also should have tried to resubmit outside of the then current holder.

As a person who sends cards to get graded (mainly star basketball cards purchased in a collection & whatever modern cards my son wants), the grading inconsistency is grown even more frustrating…. I dislike the grading game but what can we do other than help educate each other & ourselves by adapting.

investinrookies sold it that quickly ?? I thought he was going to keep it long-term ??

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...1&postcount=64