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

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

"With both SGC and PSA Minimum size always meant the card was factory cut but smaller than their size requirements."

Pat: Thanks for clarifying this. But doesn't that boil down to a distinction without a difference? It's pretty well established that the TPGs can't tell whether most cards are factory cut or trimmed. It seems to me that what the TPG is saying is that we don't see "evidence of trimming" but the card measures short against a standard that we believe encompasses the vast majority of all cards of that type. Given that many many cards where the TPG didn't see evidence of trimming have been shown to be trimmed, it seems like the sensible conclusion is that it is very likely that a "minimum size not met" was trimmed. Am I still missing something?

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

You absolutely do not understand third party grading. The Min Size designation has been explained numerous times by several of us in the two threads. If you want to go out and create your own narrative about it, great, but know it is not based on facts.

One clarification I would add is that while yes, it is true that a "MIN SIZE" determination means that they did not detect any evidence of trimming, and if they had they would have instead graded it as "Evidence of Trimming" or "Authentic Altered", that isn't quite the same thing as them saying it is definitively not trimmed. They are simply stating that they do not see any evidence of trimming. They are not making a claim to the contrary. And in this case, that is a distinction with a difference. It's like in hypothesis testing when you fail to reject the null hypothesis, it does not imply that the alternative hypothesis is true (a concept that even most graduate-level statistics students struggle with).

That said, the fact that a card is in a "Min Size" holder does not mean it is likely to be trimmed but that they just couldn't prove it. And to say that it is "more likely" to be trimmed than a card in a numeric holder isn't particularly helpful. For example, a 1.25% chance of something is "more likely" than a 1.00% chance, but both are still extremely unlikely events.

You really have to look at the card holistically and make your own best judgment. And with this particular card, I would be extremely confident that it has in fact NOT been trimmed. Because if a trimmer skilled enough to fool both SGC and PSA had gotten his hands on it, he certainly would have trimmed that giant left edge, as the card measures wide without question.