I don't know the original intent, although i suppose the Wagner might be a clue.

But I would guess that fairly quickly it became clear there just were not enough high grade completely unaltered vintage cards to sustain the type of growth they had in mind, and they began making certain compromises with certain people. Pure speculation of course.

I think it was luck. At least the effect that the registry has had on market prices component anyhow. I think they just wanted to create a useful way for collectors to organize their sets and give them checklists to chase. Leading to more submissions. I think that was their goal initially. Getting people to want to submit their commons in addition to their high value cards so that they could have full sets in slabs. But I don't think they envisioned it giving them a massive edge over the competition in the long run by having this upward pricing pressure from the registry a decade later.

You may be right, although it would not surprise me if Steve Rocchi understood the potential for the registry to spur male ego driven competition among well to do collectors.

There are quite a lot of people in the hobby who are overly reliant on a third party's opinion. So of course they are going to err on the side of wanting disclosure on the entire history of a card from the time it was pulled from the pack.

If people understood better the almost randomness to which these graders assign grades and had the skills to actually determine the condition of a card and determine its authenticity for themselves, they might not be as rigid in their requirements for what needs to be disclosed.

I used to think that as well. But I've changed my mind after seeing some of my results even at the highest grading tiers. I'd say it's more likely that an experienced grader gets these submissions but it's far from a guarantee. The variance is lower than it is for bulk level submissions, but it still very much feels like the Wild West.

As someone who often bids on these cards, I can tell you that they do typically sell for more than cards in authentic/altered holders. Sometimes they'll even sell for the price of a 4 or 5 because I'll be in a bidding war against someone else who knows what I know. Although that's rare. But it's quite common to have to pay the price of a 3 for them. Savvy bidders know that they're not altered, and if you are confident that it is full size and the graders got it wrong, they can do well at auction.

Buy the card not the opinion.

And if you do want an opinion get Dmitri Young to submit your cards.

Another thread where (generally the same) 4-5 people monopolize the airtime, argue in circles, and kill the thread making reading it unbearable for everyone other than the 4-5 monopolizers.

Bottom line is that 150 people have voted and the majority feel that GA should not (or need not) disclose the situation. End of story. If you are in the minority, get over it.

Yeah, 78- 74, a real mandate. Issue resolved--clear as mud.

We gotta talk about something, my friend!

Otherwise, the chat room would just be an empty room.

SGC says minimum size not met and doesn't label the flip as altered.
PSA gives it a number grade.

Goldin needs to do only one thing and that is ship the card.
Carry on.

How about a poll to see if your first paragraph has any merit?

Speaking only for myself.
I get to sit back with my snacks and read two (I think ) good lawyers debate what's material. It does drag a bit in places, but it's fun for a while.
Yeah, I'm a bit weird like that.

I said my bit above, and it's mostly ignored. That's ok too.

It's a bit of a downer to see how little even advanced collectors care about getting things right. But the hobby is what it is.

+1. It would, of course, have been completely inappropriate to use this logic last night when it was 69 for disclosure and 68 against disclosure, but now that it is a tiny win the other way around of 74 in favor and 78 against, all discussion should immediately cease. This makes perfect sense.

Agreed. There is no need to restate your opinion twenty-five times! And what's up with the essay posts? Introduction ... first body ... second body ... third body ... conclusion.

This snippet from a YouTube interview that Leighton Sheldon had with Derek Grady seems relevant to this thread:

https://youtu.be/n0BMlEoeEN8?si=c1gsftN7JGkg6eYy

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...daeef6f905.jpg

Well, when we look at a card of that magnitude (pack fresh 52T Mantle), then yes, everything needs to be disclosed. But does HA feel the same way about, let's say, a card worth 100K ??

Now 78- 79 lol. Get over it. Oops, I mean it's tied.

And now 79-79! I believe this means people can post on a message board again, until more votes are cast and the tie is broken.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a compelling argument that relied on demanding discussion stop. That's usually done by the weak argument.

If people don't like threads debating controversial topics, and I get that, then skip them, how effing hard is that? Why read them and then bitch about them and put people down?

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...light=nagurski

The above thread is also very relevant.

A quick summary: A 1935 National Chicle Nagurski ASA 8 was sent to PSA and rejected for being ALTERED. A member on this forum (investinrookies) then bought it, cracked it out, and got a PSA 5.5. Now, this is a very expensive card. Of course, people were disgusted with PSA afterwards (except for investinrookies!), and before the thread ended up getting 600 angry posts, Leon shut it down.

Anyhow, whenever he decides to sell it, is this something that should be disclosed ??

The answer should be the same for a $10 million or $100,000 card. Glad to see that HA is another company who would do the right thing.

Because active discussion means that some posts will not support their agenda, and of course a contrary opinion should never be stated. It is an outrage to encounter an opinion besides ones own. The important thing is that nothing that might not help price values be stated.

Obviously, trying to stop a poll that has been a dead heat 50/50 back and forth at a randomly chosen time when ones view is slightly ahead is the reasonable thing to do, and surely shows the strength of the argument in favor of not disclosing facts.

80-79 now.

End of story. If you are in the minority, get over it.

I haven't voted yet. If anyone in the minority view is unable to get over it and would like to voice his/her opinion, I can be bought.

How many bids did the card get since this thread was started?

Apparently it is pretty damn hard and it is hilarious. Seems to be the same offenders each time too.

It was at 77k when Peter was starting these threads and now it's at 97k (with seventeen days remaining ...)

Taylor had a thing for football players even back then.

Go Birds !!!

Yes, for every larger card there's a shorter card, however if I were to guess, there's more shorter cards slabbed with a high grade than larger cards.

The problem with the poll is that based on several posts in this thread a lot of people don't understand the diffrence between minimum size not met and trimmed (as long as SGC didn't change their definition since I last submitted with them). That's why if you send a card to SGC or PSA and it's minimum size you get the grading fee back but if you send a trimmed card and they don't grade it you're still charged a fee.

With both SGC and PSA Minimum size always meant the card was factory cut but smaller than their size requirements. I don't remeber ever seeing either company post the actual size on any card sets but it's possible that it's just under SGC requirements but within PSA requirements.

It's not quite the same thing though with respect to what he was saying about the SGC 9.5 Mantle. He's saying that he can't lie about having graded the card at PSA first and them only giving it a 9 (or a 7) if someone directly asked him. And with a card like that, he knows that numerous buyers would definitely ask, and that word would get out from within PSA that they had graded it too. That's quite different though from opting to disclose prior grades of a card in the description of a listing. I'd wager good money that if Heritage had sent that card to PSA first and some clown there had given it a 7 (or even a 9) that they wouldn't disclose it in the auction itself but rather they'd just answer honestly if a potential buyer were to ask them directly.

Heritage regrades cards all the time. They have graders in house who know what they're looking at. If a high end card gets a bullshit grade, they're going to regrade it. And I've never once seen them disclose that a card listed in their auction was regraded. Come to think of it, I've never once seen any card listed at any auction house that mentioned a card used to be in a lower graded holder.

Yeah, I would love to see anyone find a single example of an auction house disclosing a regrade. That would obviously drive away their consigners. It just doesn't happen.

"With both SGC and PSA Minimum size always meant the card was factory cut but smaller than their size requirements."

Pat: Thanks for clarifying this. But doesn't that boil down to a distinction without a difference? It's pretty well established that the TPGs can't tell whether most cards are factory cut or trimmed. It seems to me that what the TPG is saying is that we don't see "evidence of trimming" but the card measures short against a standard that we believe encompasses the vast majority of all cards of that type. Given that many many cards where the TPG didn't see evidence of trimming have been shown to be trimmed, it seems like the sensible conclusion is that it is very likely that a "minimum size not met" was trimmed. Am I still missing something?

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

Nor do they disclose the countless cards they accept from known card doctors.

Nor do they focus on the flaws, even for unmodified cards.

Instead the marketing is focused on: "pack fresh", "looks nicer than the grade", "creamy white borders", "shiny gloss", "razor sharp corners", etc.

And that's the way it should be. Whether we as buyers pay attention to the puffery or not is entirely up to us. But representing the seller, they're going to do their level best to whip up interest from bidders.

Or as Leon likes to say: caveat emptor.

It's not just Leon.

And PT Barnum said things too, but he forgot his password so he can't post.

People who buy f'd up cards based on a puffy auction descriptions or a slabbed opinion, get exactly what they deserve.

I have no sympathy for any of them, it actually kind of makes me chuckle.

Doug

Caveat emptor ain't the law though. The law says you can't conceal known material facts. Caveat emptor feels like yet another variation of the endless efforts people make to excuse fraud.

Good point.

I guess the question then will always boil down to who knows what, and whether that thing is material.

In the context of a bump in grade, is that material? It seems like you don't think it is if you're moving from one number grade to another higher grade.

Generally, I would say no. In the specific context we've been discussing, I think yes, I would err on the side of disclosing. I mean if you were selling the PSA 6.5 to a close friend, and knew it had been MIN SIZED by SGC, would you really not tell him? Hard to believe. To be clear, I view this as a judgment call in light of all the points made here and in the other thread. I think it should be disclosed, not that it must be. Thus the framing of the question.

But you wouldn't tell him if it got bumped from a 6 to an 8?

I probably would, but that's a personal choice to be completely transparent. I would feel obligated on the MIN SIZE.

You absolutely do not understand third party grading. The Min Size designation has been explained numerous times by several of us in the two threads. If you want to go out and create your own narrative about it, great, but know it is not based on facts.

A bump from a 6 to an 8 is not material but a Min Size to a grade at another TPG is? The difference in value from a 6 to 8 is significant on cards from all eras.

I have already explained why I think these are different in terms of disclosure. I am sure you disagree, but I am not going to repeat it yet again.

My general observation is that isn't always true:
Collector Connection does the best job of pointing out flaws and zero puffery.
Brockelman is great at pointing out flaws, minimal puffery (a sentence or two)
LOTG also does well pointing out flaws, though it is mixed in with maybe a paragraph of puffery.

Some larger houses are on the other end of the spectrum, like Goldin - if they give a description, it's 95% puffery.

Exactly. My thoughts as well. If you can't be bothered to spend even just a few minutes educating yourself on how grading works and why it is that some PSA "9" doesn't actually look any better than a PSA 7, or how a card from 1910 could have razor-sharp corners and pearl white borders, then you mostly deserve whatever you get.

Don't buy stupid cards.

And don't compete on the registry because that is a surefire way to end up with stupid cards.

Lorewalker: Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it.

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