Poll Should GA disclose that the PSA 6.5 and SGC MIN SIZE Dimaggios are same card?
 

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=357497

Referring to this thread. Yes, should disclose. No, should not disclose.

I know this poll pertains to the DiMaggio, but honestly, this happens all the time in big auctions. Sells in one flips, then sells with a different grade in another flip. Par for the course.

I often to go back to one of my favorite books, Animal Farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Truer words have never been spoken about this hobby.

Difference in my mind between two grades, and one grade and a determination a card cannot be graded.

Yeap. Used that one many times. Animal Farm grading lol. Very true.

True, but what about a card that was in a flip that said 5, then was graded for a 7?

I don't think that needs to be disclosed.

Can’t speak for everyone, but I would love to hear your reasoning.

I think most buyers understand that some cards have a grading history and, so long as the cards weren't rejected, wouldn't view that as important. Also, as a practical point, auction houses probably aren't going to know that history in most cases. But when a card has been deemed not worthy of even a grade (a HUGE blow to its value, as we can see already from the current price already sitting at multiples of the AUTH/MS), and the seller KNOWS that, that feels disclosable to me. Could you do a Socratic method on this reasoning? Probably.

I think most on here would have an issue bidding, buying or owning a card that underwent a 2 grade bump. Their not knowing does not make it unimportant. A 2 grade bumps implies card doctoring. I think most of us, if we were presented with the before pic would want to dispose of the card.

I honestly do not think that Goldin realized the 6.5 they took in was the same card as the one in the Min Size holder. I don't think they need to disclose at this point but if they did I doubt it would have much impact on the sale, other than the fact that some newb to grading suggested the card was trimmed because it was in the Min Size holder.

Might be semantics but I do not feel the SGC version of the WWG Joe D was rejected. It was not eligible at one grading company for a numerical grade.

If I were a bidder, which I'm not, I would want to know the cards history. I get that cards can go up or down a full grade. But in this case I would want to know since it's a very significant difference in grade and dollar amount.

I'm not 100% sure where I fall on what GA is or isn't obligated to disclose. However, I would be surprised if GA didn't remember handling this card since it's such a rare/major card and not a lot of time passed in between. Plus, it would be interesting to know if the same person who won the card is now the consignor. That should ring some bells at GA. Interesting topic to debate.

I am curious how many of those that voted yes care enough to have contacted the AH. I would think that would be the first thing I done if I really cared. Then report on a forum what happened when they contacted the AH with such important information. I guess posting about it on the net and voting yes on a poll is a darn close second.:rolleyes::D:D:D

Goldin is doing a few hundred million a year in sales. From what I know of them they are forward thinking/looking people. Now I am really going to sound like Travis but I would wager that they had no clue they took in the same 36 WWG card. After all, they thought it was trimmed when it was int he 6.5 holder. Being in a PSA 6.5 holder is likely the last thing that they thought would happen.

This card is one of those cards that is pretty well known in the hobby if you have been around for a little while and pay attention to this kind of thing. Personally, I think this whole grading game is a crock of shit, but seeing as it's not going anywhere... cards like this need to be permanently marked somehow with some type of invisible indicator so they can always be detected as alltered.

I voted yes, but I have no interest in contacting the AH. I don't expect anything to change. I just voiced my opinion. That's all. I don't plan on burning any bra's or dying a hill for this cause.

Altered? It is not altered.

I do agree grading is for shit. I submit as little as possible for this exact reason. One person's 9 is another person's Evidence of Trimming.

Just think if you were the person that sold that card when it was in the SGC holder. Yuck...

Definitely seems like we’re talking about degrees here. It’s okay to not disclose that the card went from a 3 to a 5 or a 7 to a 9, but from A to a number grade is more meaningful.

And I don’t dispute your logic.

But it does seem like there are a number of situations where going up a couple of grades at the top of the scale could be more valuable even than going from A to 6. But I suppose in some ways it’s less about the value swing and more about the qualitative elements.

Although it’s awful hard to suggest that the money isn’t a big piece of the puzzle, as always.

And what if a card was deemed altered by a grader who showed up to work drunk (or at least dumb) that day? Then the owner cracked it out and resubmitted it 5 times just to be pentuply sure it wasn't in fact altered? And what if it then received 5 different grades across those 5 different submissions? What obligations to disclose would we have then? Asking for a friend.

Oh, and the correct grade for this card is a 7.5.

That is one of the wildest examples of the absurdity and random nature of grading I’ve ever seen. Thanks for sharing!

Trimed / Altered <> Min. Size

When I was a kid, I pulled from a pack a 1969 OPC Bobby Orr #24.

Fast forward to about 10 years ago where I submitted both to PSA. Once came back PSA 5, and the other came back Min Size.

Let me be 100% clear... I pulled both cards from 10 cent packs.

I put the PSA 5 into my set, and I stored the Min Size, as it wasn't holdered.

About a year ago I submitted the Min Size card again in another order with PSA and it came back as a PSA 7.

I replaced the PSA 5 with the PSA 7 in my set. I have zero guilt in doing so. And it does nothing to affect the enjoyment I get from looking at that set.

Poll
 

I voted yes. Truly surprised the nays have it so far. Caveat emptor indeed!

Trent King

This has happened so many times it's just a difference of paid opinions. I vote no..so many times the grading companies get it wrong. I can't vote yes on this one sorry.

This times 100!
.

To me, after reading both threads, this entire issue is based on a significant misunderstanding of grading. Min size does not mean evidence of trimming (the opposite, in fact), and min size is NOT an objective standard. Once you understand those two points, disclosing the SGC grade becomes irrelevant. It was clear from the first thread that Peter was under the mistaken impression (based on an incorrect auction description) that min size meant there could be evidence of trimming. Then later in the thread, he specifically alluded to his belief that min size was objective. Neither of those is true, and resulted in two threads based on the same misunderstandings.

I get the point about Min Size vs trimmed.
I've had three cards rejected by grading, well before they started putting the reason in the slab. At the time the only way to get it that I know of was to specify "don't slab as A" One miscut - very rough cuts top and bottom but factory. One min size which was strange to me as another in the same batch was graded and was narrow by more than the rejected one was short. (and not an AB) The third was trimmed all around, obviously so. Shouldn't have even sent it in.

I don't get how size isn't objective. Sure size can vary, but there's a known normal size that most cards match and after seeing enough cards you can get an idea of the manufacturing tolerance for that set or even individual card for some sets.
A card that's far enough away from those established numbers is too small (or is oversized) Size to me is one of the few things on cards that is objective.
Not at all to imply a small card can't be that way from the factory.

I voted yes.

But with some thoughts that the answer isn't 100% clear.

In my other hobby, major auction items are sometimes researched for months. The auction prep - writeups research etc can take a long time.
And even then most auction houses will miss things that are specialized, like plate varieties.
The items that are the best usually come with provenance of having been in major collections and auctions going back a very long time, sometimes into the late 1800's. If there are old certificates that came with the item, they're usually included, along with a new one if it has it.
Occasionally the auction house will disagree with the certificate, like if it mentions a tiny tear but the auction describer can't find it. and that sort of thing is usually mentioned for better or worse.

So it's odd to me that card auctions seem rushed (just like grading) even on fairly expensive items. And there's almost never any of the cards history.

I think that lack of research and history has become the standard in our hobby.

Should that be the standard? I don't think so, even though I'm not in the target audience for the more valuable cards.
The auction house could easily generate an internal census (what a list of existing copies is called in stamps) and generally know most of the history of most higher end cards. The nature of them makes identifying individual copies fairly easy in most cases.

Curious whether your other hobby has the same population of stuff floating around, and whether it has the same volume of ownership churn.

That level of provenance seems like it would be possible with a smaller universe of stuff that didn't change hands very often, particularly if the universe of stuff stopped being produced 100 years ago, so there is a finite (and even shrinking) overall population.

But with our population of stuff, trying to organize such a task outside of really special stuff, like the T206 Wagner, seems like a task for some combination of Hercules and Sisyphus. Plus it's hard to imagine how anyone could ever hope to get compensated for tracking all of it.

MIN SIZE may not be APPLIED consistently, but surely in conception it is not subjective -- that is, the grader THINKS it looks small. It's an objective standard, albeit not applied consistently apparently. And I continue to think where a change of flip has brought about a 6 figure difference in market value, the prior assessment is material. And if it isn't, it can be disclosed and people can disregard it. I would almost always err on the side of disclosure, and I don't understand why people are working so hard to justify non-disclosure.

It's not objective because what consitutes too far a variance from the standard varies based on who (or what company) is doing the evaluation. Yes, looking at a ruler provides an objective number. Determining whether that number is too small to warrant a number grade is a subjective endeavor.

That said, I am on the side that MIN SIZE shouldn't be a thing. If a card is trimmed, it's altered. If a card came from the factory a particular size, it should be graded with a number grade. I'm fine if you believe it should be considered a defect or flaw, and the grade affected accordingly, but an unaltered card should get a number grade.

Which is why I don't see it any different than cracking a 5 and getting a 7. If that doesn't need disclosed because it's just two opinions, than an unaltered card that goes from MIN SIZE to a number shouldn't either. The card is simply sold as it currently sits, with whatever third party's opinion it has attached to it.

I think we would agree that the grading companies need to do a better explanation of MIN SIZE, and that whoever wrote up the Goldin description the first time really hurt the consignor.

"If a card is trimmed, it's altered. If a card came from the factory a particular size, it should be graded with a number grade."

I thought the whole point of "minimum size not met" was the assumption that any card below that size couldn't have "come from the factory" that size and therefore was surely trimmed after it left the factory. What am I missing?

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

No, cards come cut short from the factory all the time. If the card was trimmed they would grade it "Evidence of Trimming."

100%. Whoever wrote that description not only has no clue, but definitely hurt the consignor.

If the card was trimmed they would grade it "Evidence of Trimming."

I thought the problem was trimming performed carefully by experienced people with proper tools didn't leave enough direct evidence of trimming to be detected by routine (affordable) inspection. Minimum size not met is indirect evidence of trimming.

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

It would be nice and in my view helpful for a TPG to identify right on the slab (or rejection) label the precise measurements down to 1/64" inch or so whenever it determines that a card fails to meet "minimum size requirements". Similarly, there could be a link to their website where every set they grade has an identification of what minimum size is required to qualify for a numerical grade and/or the "standard size" typically found for the issue, possibly with a notation for those sets known to have frequent slight variations (such as M101-4/5).
As for the disclosure issue at topic here, I am in the camp that full disclosure should be required if known, although the degree of investigation or due diligence is subject to debate.

Cards cut short from the factory are prevalent enough that you can't assume trimming based on size alone. In fact, I'd speculate that the majority of trimmed cards don't measure short because they were either cut long from the factory and trimmed to standard size, or pressed large and trimmed. There was far too much variance in sizes from the factory to make labeling a card MIN SIZE useful at all. That's why I say unless there is evidence of trimming, the card should get a number grade.

I certainly agree size above the "minimum" doesn't guarantee a card wasn't trimmed. Below the "minimum" doesn't guarantee it was trimmed either, but it is the point where you start to assume that it was no matter how it looks.

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

I've seen far too many factory short cards to assume that.

This times 1000. Anyone who voted 'Yes' obviously doesn't grade cards with any sort of regularity. Would be hilarious to see a crosstab of voter results by card grading status.

For the common items yes, sometimes a decent churn. Collections get made and sold and broken up pretty regularly. Nobody tracks those.
The number of unique items is probably higher.

On those, the churn is almost not there on many items. Serious collectors pretty much buy and hold the very best things.
A lot of that is competitive displays where you explain and show off those great items. All to win a prize that's fairly small compared to the cost of creating a top quality display.
I own an item that I wrote an article about in 2012. The last time it was described in any article was 1932.
I also have an item that was probably last auctioned in the 1930's and turned up a few years ago on ebay.
Neither was pictured in an article, since it was illegal in the 30's to show actual pictures of US stamps.

I've also seen some pretty big ticket items get passed around with some regularity.

One of the major auction houses does track a number of items on a census page.
https://resources.siegelauctions.com/census.php
It's worth it to the auction house to be able to say if a particular example is typical or one of the better copies available. And just how many are known.
That can be done with searching the big expertizing company databases, but having the pictures all laid out is much easier. And would be very valuable if my time was worth a lot.

The 36WWG DiMaggio has about 50 copies between SGC and PSA, that's right in the range of some stuff in Siegels census. And if I recall it right there are about that many Wagners in T206 resources gallery.

The provenance from major collections is sort of handled differently. And usually applies to the rarest things. Al though some rarities were marked by their owners, a typical thing over a century ago. And if the collector is a big enough celebrity even the common things get at least a not saying whose collection it came from. I have a couple christmas seal proofs that are a sub $20 item even if they were once owned by FDR.

I think you just stated the why without knowing it.

If the card is very undersized but with factory cuts many people will see it short in the slab and assume that it's trimmed. And worse, that the grading company was at best incompetent.


Of my three rejects, two could have gotten a number grade, but might be seen by others who didn't see if in hand as trimming that SGC missed.

Some of you guys aren't thinking this through.

Take a card and a ruler and hand them to your 19-year-old son or daughter. Ask them to measure it within 1/64" and to write down what they get. Then take that same card and ruler and hand them to 5 of their friends and ask them to do the same. If even two of them come back to you with the exact same measurements in both directions to 1/64", you'd be lucky.

Next, take a card that is just slightly bent (not warped, but just bent ever so slightly like half of your collections probably are) and then scan it raw on a flatbed scanner. Then measure the card with a ruler and compare the dimensions. You'll discover that the dimensions you get from the scanned card are smaller than the card itself because it wasn't flat when it got scanned. And smaller by enough to matter too.

And yet, even if it should not care given all that has been pointed out about the MIN SIZE designation, the market DOES care -- as evidenced by the disparity between the two auction prices. Sure, the GA description knocked down the price even more perhaps, but there is no way in hell a card designated MIN SIZE is going to sell for anything close to a PSA 6.5. So even if it's due to the market's own stupidity, it is clearly material IMO. People think it's meaningful. Disclose it -- it would take one sentence -- and let the market judge. Why are we working so hard to justify non-disclosure?

Poll is dead even, btw. Yes, Travis, I know, it doesn't mean anything.

Don't you think the lower value is at least significantly based on the fact that a MIN SIZE slab doesn't designate a grade? The value of vintage cards is heavily dependent on the grade. It's the main reason why a PSA 5 will sell for more than a similarly conditioned raw card. So a card in a MIN SIZE slab won't get the premium that a graded card will.

I do agree that there is at least a part of the equation that people value MIN SIZE cards less out of ignorance of what it means. But I don't agree that we should consider something material just because someone mistakes that fact for a material fact.

But how else can you define materiality other than by what buyers consider important? I mean sure, maybe they shouldn't, but if they do, they do.

We all know why ;)

You are making assumptions about what they find important based solely on sales of two items. Is it not possible that the reason buyers pay more for graded cards over MIN SIZE is because they find grades to be material, and they find non-altered cards to be material? If a card is graded MIN SIZE, neither of those material facts are present. The fact that the buyer misunderstands what MIN SIZE means doesn't make the size of the card the fact that is material to the buyer. It is the alteration that is material. And if there is no alteration, what difference does it make? Since the card is currently in a PSA slab with a number grade, the buyer is assured (theoretically) that the card is both unaltered, and in the condition on the slab. Which satisfies both of the material facts.

This is EXACTLY like SGC grading a card a 5 and cracking it and PSA saying it's a 7. If you don't believe you have to disclose the SGC grade, then you shouldn't believe you have to disclose the MIN SIZE grade. Both are nothing more than opinions of two different companies. Neither is saying the card is altered. By your logic, people pay less for an SGC 5 than a PSA 7. Therefore, the fact that the card was once determined by SGC to be a 5 is material. Right?

I am SURE that if we tracked the sales of all MINSIZE cards, the data would show that the market significantly devalues them. And my analysis does not really care if that's right, or wrong, or based on misunderstandings, or stupid, or anything else. I don't disagree with what you are saying about what MINSIZE should be taken to mean, or that it probably should be abolished altogether. But the market believes what it believes, and therefore -- especially on a hugely important and pricey card -- the prior grade should have been disclosed.

Absolutely.
For every larger card, somewhere, there is a shorter card.