Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
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.