WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?
 

And if so, who got it right, SGC or PSA?

Are these the same card?

https://goldin.co/item/1936-world-wi...JkSW5kZXgiOjB9

https://goldin.co/item/1936-world-wi...JkSW5kZXgiOjB9

Both show up as lot not found so I would say they are the same and SGC got it right.;):D

Try now. They worked before, and now seem to be working?

Yes worked for me this time and I still have the same opinion on what grader got it correct if it is the same card.

Each TPG has their own criteria for what is considered minimum size and depending on who sends the card in, that can result in different outcomes too.

They appear to be the same card and both TPG feel the card is 100% unaltered. Might be the scans but I do not love the appearance of the edges but would really need to see in hand and not make concrete opinions based on scans.



Added: From the SGC Min Size listing it states, "SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim." The lot writer knows very little about grading and should be reassigned. Min Size does not at all imply trimming. There is no premise of trimming in SGC's assessment. In fact it implies the opposite. It means the card has 100% legit factory cuts but the card is cut smaller than published specifications.

The SGC auction description reads as follows:
SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim.

I have always assumed not meeting min size was their way of saying it is trimmed but we can't tell what side(s). The one thing I have noticed with cards is the side to side is never different unless it has been altered and top to bottom is the way cards can be short or tall and still be factory cut.

I think even min size was generous that bottom edge looks trimmed to me. just too pristine especially compared with the other edges, plus a minor bat ear in the lower left.

So let me get this straight—Goldin ran the A card and is now running the numerically graded card but is not now disclosing that SGC would not give it a numerical grade. Am I missing anything? If this is true, I believe this is wrong. I believe this should be disclosed in the lot description and all people who have bid already should have the right to rescind their bids.

One card is in a SGC slab and one(maybe the same) card is in a PSA slab. How would Goldin or any other AH know they are the same card.:confused:

if it's changed hands and was sent by a consignor who wasn't the buyer last time, I could understand how it never crossed anyone's mind to even check. When you're dealing with the volume of cards that a company like Goldin is and have a number of people writing descriptions it could simply slip through pretty easily.

I am no Goldin apologist, and philosophically I agree with you, but I understand how something like this could easily be missed.

That said, the first sale was only three months ago. And it's not exactly a 56T Mantle commodity type card.

But to me, the biggest concern is if the card really is trimmed, why did PSA miss it?

I obviously have never seen the card in person. However, I think minimum size is a synonym for evidence of trimming, so SGC saw, or thought they saw, something that PSA did not. I don’t know if it is trimmed or not. What I do know is that since the auction is not over Goldin has the chance to do what I believe is the right thing and disclose all available information about the card. The question is, will they do this?

Does the consignor have any say in that? At least potentially, such a disclosure could significantly affect the sale price, although the cynic in me says the flip would trump it.

Call/email them as it could be you.:) Just start with a thread on the internet thinks this card was sold in a SGC Authentic slab recently. Please let us know how it goes if you care enough to contact them.

I would have to presume Ken and Joe T. will be aware of this thread and consider what to do.

Looking at the pictures, I believe it is the same card. I know very little about the 1936 WWG set and I cant opine whether the card has been trimmed/altered. That said, looking at the scans, it appears its the exact same card, meaning I dont think anything was done to the card between the cross over from SGC to PSA. So SGC says its A and PSA says its a 6.5... opinions are like assholes, even the opinions of TPGs, and I think PSA is an asshole. Nevertheless, it resides in a PSA 6.5 flip, meaning the card is a PSA 6.5 and kudos to whoever had the balls (or foresight) to cross it.

As far as Goldin's responsibility here, I think they have none in this case; and that is true of Heritage, Mile High, REA, LOTG, Memory Lane etc etc. They are selling a PSA 6.5 WWG DiMaggio. That's what it is, plain and simple. There is no actual evidence of alteration (which should be disclosed if known), rather different opinions from two of the hobby's most respected TPGs; and its hardly the first time these two have disagreed.

An AH should not misrepresent a card (tell a falsehood). Nor should they omit a malfeasance, like when BODA shows determinative evidence that a card has been altered. But that is not the case here - again, there is no evidence that the card has been altered, only different opinions on the matter. Its a PSA 6.5 and that is what is being offered.

It's crazy that this card sold only a few months ago. Whoever bought it obviously knew what he was doing.

The most expensive card that I bought from Goldin was 10K. And before I placed my bid, I researched the hell outta' it. It's the bidder's job to do that. Hopefully those bidders did the same.

Ryan--I disagree. I think GA should disclose that it previously resided in an SGC A holder. I have a somewhat similar story which illustrates how another auction house handled an analogous situation. In the 1990s I sometimes hosted customer dinners with famous athletes in attendance as paid guests. They would mingle with the clients and sign autographs. One such dinner had Jim Brown in attendance. We had Browns mini helmets available for people to get signed. I had a few extra signed helmets from that evening and consigned one to LOTG. Al sent it to PSA and it came back that they thought the signature was bad(I hope they are more accurate in general). I sat next to Jim when he signed each helmet so I knew they were wrong. I suggested to Al that he submit it to JSA since it was 100% OK. He said that wouldn't make sense since even if they authenticated it he would still have to disclose in the write-up that PSA would not authenticate it. As much as that annoyed me I knew he was right. This case is even more obvious since I don't believe that there is certainty as to whether the card is trimmed or not.

Whoever did the write-up for the October listing did the consignor no favor by implying a trimming when the SGC flip makes no accusation of that and everyone knows they have specific labeling they use when they are of that opinion. Completely unnecessary and likely harmful to throw that in the description.

If you're right, nobody should care that SGC gave it an AUTH, in which case why not disclose it and be completely candid? People defending nondisclosure always run into the same pretzel logic, it seems to me. This is a card likely to reach what, 200K? But it's fine to conceal that SGC gave it an AUTH and in fact it's the same card sold in the same auction three months ago? My initial reaction is that this is a material fact. If SGC had just graded it differently, I might have a different view. Also, as I mentioned, the first Goldin description does suggest it may be trimmed.

Put another way: if you're not disclosing something because you're worried it will keep the price down, then that's pretty good evidence the something is in fact material and should be disclosed. NOT implying anything about this particular auction where it may be Ken/Joe were unaware of the circumstances to begin with. Conversely, if you truly think it's immaterial, then what's the reason to conceal it and not fully inform people, unless it's completely trivial?

Because i had nothing better to do, here they are side-by-side (sort of):


Attachment 648780

Peter, I think that’s up to the AH and I don’t think either is wrong (or right). In my opinion, it’s not the AH’s job to disclose that competing companies had different opinions. What Al did with Jay’s helmet is admirable, but I don’t feel required.

I have no interest in going back and forth. I have said my peace and we will just disagree on this one.

On a personal note, I once had a t227 Cobb that sat in a PSA 3 (or something) flip. BODA posted that it used to be in an SGC A flip but stated they saw no evidence of alteration. When I consigned it a few years later, I did mention to the AH that according to BODA it was once in an SGC A flip and the AH did not mention that on that listing; they described the lot as a PSA 3, which is what it was. I feel very fine about that. So so many cards used to have different grades or designations in other TPG flips (or same TPG flips).

Ryan, respect your opinion, just disagree at least on these facts. Obviously a question which people can assess differently.

If I were thinking of bidding on a potential 6 figure card I would certainly want to know if a major grading service, one that many people believe is the most accurate grading service, thought it was undeserving of a numerical grade. I believe that GA didn't know about the card's history when they wrote it up. However, they do now and I continue to believe that they need to disclose this. Like Ryan did, I think the onus was on the consignor of this card to disclose it's history

Let’s remember these are all just opinions, not factual results of an assessment (although they are valued as factual determinations by nearly everyone).

Should we view TPGs as similar to expert witnesses? You consult with a couple/few to see what they have to say, but when it comes to the one you call on to support your case, you’re probably not going to (nor do you need to) mention the opinion of any that didn’t have a supporting position.

*disclaimer, I don’t know anything about expert witnesses.

I had edited my post to add the following while you were replying to me.

Added: From the SGC Min Size listing it states, "SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim." The lot writer knows very little about grading and should be reassigned. Min Size does not at all imply trimming. There is no premise of trimming in SGC's assessment. In fact it implies the opposite. It means the card has 100% legit factory cuts but the card is cut smaller than published specifications.

Both SGC and PSA feel the card is not an altered card. I do not like the way the card looks in the holder based on the scan, as I stated in my first post.

It's a bit of an odd write up otherwise, with so much discussion of the Zeenut DiMaggio.

I did not read the full description on either listing but the person who did the one for the SGC card, honestly, should be fired. Fully demonstrated no understanding of basic TP grading, which is hard to comprehend at this level.

SGC recently had explained their Auth grade designations but I cannot find it now. PSA explains the Min Size designation as:

N6 Minimum Size Requirement - When a card is significantly undersized according to factory specifications. You will not be charged the grading fee in this instance. Note that this designation can qualify for encapsulation as "Authentic" only at the grader's discretion and if "Auth" is listed on the submission form as the desired minimum grade. You will be charged the applicable grading fee in the latter case.

Since the auctions were only four months apart and the card is both scarce and high priced, I find it odd that even if the consignor did not disclose that the card was previously in an SGC A holder that Goldin didn’t notice it. It’s not like these cards pop up every day.
Second, I am mystified as to why some people are against requiring auction houses to fully disclose all they know about a card that they believe a potential bidder would want to know. How is transparency a bad thing for the hobby?

I agree it is a valuable and rare enough card to warrant that but I don't think it is realistic to expect a house to start looking at cards that closely and then grading the graders. Either take the card in because you feel it is graded right and it is not altered and if you feel otherwise, reject the consignment and let another less ethical house list it.

I think auction houses defer to the TPG and that is because the public does not expect or want more. Most people are buying the label on the holder.

Because people want to defend the auction houses they deal with, and because consignors don't want disclosures that might keep down prices.

Because that might not help prices go higher. It's always the real reason people are against taking the 1-5 seconds it takes to add a disclosure. It takes basically zero time to disclose, and if it doesn't matter, then it wouldn't hurt the price at all and there's no reason to not disclose. The only reason to not disclose facts that could hurt a cards price (notice there is never an argument made by anyone to hide facts that help a cards price) is because they might hurt the price. Telling the full and complete truth doesn't always help financial interests.

As I said above,

Well said Ryan. Who is to say SGC got it right?

So many cards have been regraded since 3rd party card grading companies were created plus nothing suggests this ‘36 WWG Joe D card has ever been altered. Ever since SGC was acquired by PSA, their min size not met requirements is as inconsistent as PSA’s. I wonder if SGC is using that Collector’s purchased software company’s tech for sizing during the grading process.

Added to the Altered Card Database as a Grade Bump:

1936 Joe DiMaggio #51 World Wide Gum Company

SGC Authentic (Min Size) cert# 1281523

PSA 6.5 cert# 100133549https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GiOUQB1W...pg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GiOUTHlX...pg&name=medium

I agree. If we play the slab game, if it's in one that's all that matters. And i have several instances of SGC not knowing what they were doing. Today's 8 is tomorrow's AUT.
And, I also don't think saying it was rejected is necessary. Sgc probably got it wrong.

There’s no question that the cards are the same card. I have never known the “minimum size not met” to mean that the card was trimmed. It simply means that the card was cut (from the factory) shorter than what it should be. I think PSA got this horribly wrong.

None of us know which grading service got it wrong. My point is that if I was throwing down six figures for a card I would want to know what its history was, especially if a major grading company gave it an A. If you are saying that you wouldn’t care then I think you are in the minority.

If SGC got it wrong, the owner, or Goldin, had a HUGE incentive to get another opinion before auctioning it the first time. Just measure the card.

Measuring the card only tells you the size. It will not tell you if the card is trimmed. Plenty of full sized cards that are trimmed and many small cards that are not.

If the card had been in a Auth Trimmed or Auth Altered SGC holder and then PSA graded it a 6.5, we would have something to discuss. There is nothing here to disclose or to discuss.

SGC saw the card as being 100% authentic and not altered but too small to give a numeric grade. PSA saw the size of the card to be acceptable and assigned a grade. If the card is smaller than 1/32 of an inch PSA should not have assigned a grade to it.

The description writer should be fired for suggesting the card was trimmed, thereby hurting the sale price for the consignor. The buyer hit is out the park.

Based on the scan I think both companies got it wrong because the scan gives the appearance of a trimmed card but I cannot see the edges.

My point is simply the owner or Goldin could have measured the card to make a judgment if SGC had the min size right or not, given the huge upside if there was a reasonable chance it could regrade with a number grade. And if they concluded it was within spec, send it in again, don't sell it for a fraction of value. Not commenting on trimmed or not.

At least 1 employee of Goldin's does not know what Auth Min Size means so to think they might take the next step and measure the card is a huge stretch.

It is possible the consignor agreed with SGC's call or lacked the interest or sophistication to question SGC's conclusion. Most in the hobby who buy into the slab concept defer entirely to what the TPG concludes.

What cards end up as Min Size varies from grader to grader and grading company to grading company.

I do not like the Min Size "grade". At this point the grading companies have graded so many trimmed and altered cards why not just slap a number grade on a card that is small but has 100% legit cuts from the factory? As I understand it, the entire reason the graders do not do this is to eliminate the perception that they might have slabbed a trimmed card because the card is small. Sort of funny at this point.

Maybe the best thing would be a number grade with a qualifier for size?

One would hope their pre war/graded card expert would be the one to write up a card that significant, but I don't know how the business works. Anyhow, at least with hindsight, the prior consignor appears to have left a lot of money on the table. And it sure would be interesting to know who won and submitted it to PSA.

Lots of questions here...

Did PSA assign a grade to a card that was truly smaller than 1/32 of an inch? Most of us will get cards kicked back for Min Size (assuming card is not trimmed), if they are between 1/64 and 1/32 short.

Who at Goldin wrote the auction description the first time the card was offered to be described as possibly being trimmed?

Was this the same person who wrote the description 3 months later for the card in the 6.5 holder and did not notice they were the same card and should they have noticed?

Is this card actually trimmed and that is why it is small? Harder to answer with the card in the holder but not impossible.

I'm pretty sure that Joe T did the second description. I wonder who did the first and if it wasn't Joe then why not? I doubt that anyone at Goldin knows anywhere near as much about vintage cards as Joe.
As to disclosure of the A, if I won the card in the current auction and found out after the fact that it had previously been in an A holder, that Goldin knew this before the auction ended and still failed to disclose this, I am beyond pissed. That would be a great way to potentially lose a deep pocketed bidder. Is there a law that Goldin has to do this--no. The hobby is the Wild West. However, should they disclose this information --I think the clear answer is yes.

There are often more questions than answers in this hobby.

If Joe T, who is apparently admired here by everyone, did the PSA 6.5 write up then he had to have done the SGC Min Size write up. He has been there for more than 6 months. If he called this card trimmed based on SGC assessment, not sure he is the guy I would go to for advice in the realm of grading. You are less forgiving than I would be but if he also missed that he took in the SGC version of this card 3 months earlier, you might want to reconsider relying on him.

As rare as this card might be I don't think someone dropped the ball not connecting the two cards to one another and I just do not see this as a failure to disclose based on the info we have... which is next to nothing.

What if PSA is entirely right and this card is EXMT+ and it meets the size requirement and SGC was entirely wrong? Is disclosure needed? The only difference in opinion the two companies have is that one says it did not meet their size requirement and the other, who has another set of standards for size, says it does meet the requirements?