[OhioLawyerF5]

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.