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?

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.;)