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

[Leon]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

But for every shorter card, there is not (no longer) a larger one.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But for every shorter card, there is not (no longer) a larger one.

Ok, that's true. Also, not every shorter card is trimmed. How about that?

.

[conor912]

Every single grade on every single card ever slabbed is an opinion, and nothing more.

[Lorewalker]

It feels to me on both of the threads that pertain to this card that a majority of people are not really understanding the Min Size assessment and what a moving target it is with the grading services. Good news is that you are still qualified to work for Goldin Auctions to do description write ups.

That aside, it is nice to see at least two people who have acknowledged the potential harm on the final price paid due to the write up that suggested the card was possibly trimmed.

I decided to look up what an Auth example should sell for and found this:

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...50062-05112023 At least Heritage understands the world of grading and the terminology.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The Heritage one sold for LESS than the Goldin one.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The Heritage one sold for LESS than the Goldin one.

Yes. My posts about the consignor possibly getting less for the card due to the flagrant error of the description writer was prior to my looking in VCP for other sales of Auth examples. And it just so happened that this one has a prior sale. The write up did not have an impact at all because the person who bought it knows what Min Size means and the implications. And that person is having a pay day.

As for whether the card is trimmed or not...once again...hard to know for sure based on the scans. Something looks off but does not mean it is trimmed.

[ullmandds]

i stand by the "opinion" that this dimaggio was trimmed. just look at the top and bottom edges/corners as compared to other 36 goudeys...I mean WWG's!!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i stand by the "opinion" that this dimaggio was trimmed. just look at the top and bottom edges/corners as compared to other 36 goudeys...I mean WWG's!!!!

The PSA flip may mean as little as the SGC one.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i stand by the "opinion" that this dimaggio was trimmed. just look at the top and bottom edges/corners as compared to other 36 goudeys...I mean WWG's!!!!

So you are of the opinion that someone who was willing to trim this card, and who possessed the skills necessary to fool both SGC and PSA into believing it had not been trimmed would also choose to leave that giant left border in tact? Really?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by conor912

Every single grade on every single card ever slabbed is an opinion, and nothing more.

I disagree in part. If a card has been altered, it has been altered. That is a fact. If a grader says so he is either correct or incorrect-- about a fact. He can explain why he makes that statement of fact, but the bottom line is he is right or wrong. This is different than assigning a subjective overall numeric grade based on ostensibly objective criteria that tends to vary over time.
So if a card is slabbed authentic/altered, that is a statement of fact, correct or erroneous. If you knew you were buying a card that had been rejected previously as altered or graded as such, would you want to know that and/or do you think the market places any importance on that fact? I believe those are rhetorical questions. You can discount or disregard altogether the prior grader's determination of alteration, but you should be made aware of it nonetheless.

IMO, a similar argument follows this notion of minimum size not met, although as I stated earlier, the whole concept of such a grade should require a clear set of parameters as to what minimum size is allowed. The card is measured, and you can disagree that the measurement was done correctly or that the finding of the stated size is not outside what you believe to be the "minimum" size. Argue all you want that the graders get measurements wrong-- it measures what it measures, and you can measure it yourself once its yours. You can also cling to some notion that the card should be allowed a greater variance than what the grading company allows so that the measurement is fine by you, and in doing so, form your own beliefs on how and when you are willing to rely on that grading company. However, these are not opinions that a card should be graded a 3, 5 or 7 because of various attributes or defects that might be of different importance to different people. Rather they are simply statements that the card measures X, and the minimum size in our professional experience is Y. Disregard or qualify it as you wish, but know that someone made a statement of objective fact, whether right or wrong, and not opinion.

[Fred]

Yes, for every larger card there's a shorter card, however if I were to guess, there's more shorter cards slabbed with a high grade than larger cards.

[Pat R]

The problem with the poll is that based on several posts in this thread a lot of people don't understand the diffrence between minimum size not met and trimmed (as long as SGC didn't change their definition since I last submitted with them). That's why if you send a card to SGC or PSA and it's minimum size you get the grading fee back but if you send a trimmed card and they don't grade it you're still charged a fee.

With both SGC and PSA Minimum size always meant the card was factory cut but smaller than their size requirements. I don't remeber ever seeing either company post the actual size on any card sets but it's possible that it's just under SGC requirements but within PSA requirements.

[gregndodgers]

Some here are way too sensitive about this (and similar) issues. As long as there is no real threat of future harm, disclosure of the card’s grading history should neither be required nor recommended.

Also, grading is only an opinion. It’s not fact. And with the amount of stupidity happening in grading these days, disclosure of an opinion is akin to someone relying on a witch doctor for a serious medical problem.

[oldjudge]

Greg-I’d agree with you on a card getting an SGC4 and then a PSA5. However, this card was deemed unsuitable for a numerical grade three months earlier. Maybe SGC measured it and PSA didn’t. Maybe SGC inspected the sides and saw evidence of trimming and PSA didn’t. All I’m saying is that someone spending six figures for a card that three months earlier sold for twenty something thousand and whose write-up, by the exact same auction house, alluded to the possibility of trimming may wish to know the history. They may decide it is meaningless and choose to ignore it, or they might think it is relevant. I strongly believe that they should have the information and be able to make that choice for themselves.

[G1911]

I am selling a collectible. That collectibles value is heavily dependent on the appeal to authority that comes with it, stating what it is and what condition it is in. The top 2 experts in the field both examined it and gave very, very different analyses.

Is it more ethical for me to take 3 seconds to disclose both analyses, to tell the full truth, or to only disclose the one that helps the sale price the most?


While many people would not/do not state inconvenient things when selling in any hobby, this is the only hobby I have seen where ~50% won't even pay lip service to telling the full truth and pretend that not telling the truth is equally or more ethical.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Maybe SGC inspected the sides and saw evidence of trimming and PSA didn’t.

This shows you STILL do not understand what Min Size means. Until you do and until you incorporate that into your reasoning your conclusions will be influenced by the oversight.

[oldjudge]

Then I guess that Goldin didn't either. Does min size absolutely say that the reason a card is smaller than normal is that it was factory cut small or is it possible that the grading company is unsure whether a card was trimmed or not and to be safe just use a catch all phrase like minimum size? Regardless, why are you against a potential buyer having the information and letting him decide for himself? What are you afraid of?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Then I guess that Goldin didn't either. Does min size absolutely say that the reason a card is smaller than normal is that it was factory cut small or is it possible that the grading company is unsure whether a card was trimmed or not and to be safe just use a catch all phrase like minimum size? Regardless, why are you against a potential buyer having the information and letting him decide for himself? What are you afraid of?

Min Size by any of the TPG is a card that they find has a 100% legit factory cut but measures smaller than factory specifications. The exact term is significantly smaller but none tell us what the allowance is.

There is no gray area for a card being trimmed or not. It is either trimmed or it is not. If they are not sure, which I am pretty sure has never happened, then they have to err on the side of rejecting the card and stating Evidence of Trimming and a card can meet or exceed factory size specifications even if it is trimmed.

I am not afraid. I think the card speaks for itself. As do all cards in holders and many of which have had more than one opinion before they are bought by collectors. The lack of disclosing might turn away 50% of Net54 voters (many of whom do not understand what Min Size actually means, still) but my stance is that GA should not HAVE to disclose the prior opinion.

If we all want to believe that the cards we have in our collections in graded holders have been given an opinion that will stand the test of time, we are sadly fooling ourselves. If we all want to believe all the cards in our collections have only been submitted once, we are again fooling ourselves.

[Leon]

"If they are not sure, which I am pretty sure has never happened," LOL ...I am seriously sitting here laughing my ass off....thank you, thank you...

But we do agree on not disclosing the prior, potentially errant grade.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Min Size by any of the TPG is a card that they find has a 100% legit factory cut but measures smaller than factory specifications. The exact term is significantly smaller but none tell us what the allowance is.

There is no gray area for a card being trimmed or not. It is either trimmed or it is not. If they are not sure, which I am pretty sure has never happened, then they have to err on the side of rejecting the card and stating Evidence of Trimming and a card can meet or exceed factory size specifications even if it is trimmed.

I am not afraid. I think the card speaks for itself. As do all cards in holders and many of which have had more than one opinion before they are bought by collectors. The lack of disclosing might turn away 50% of Net54 voters (many of whom do not understand what Min Size actually means, still) but my stance is that GA should not HAVE to disclose the prior opinion.

If we all want to believe that the cards we have in our collections in graded holders have been given an opinion that will stand the test of time, we are sadly fooling ourselves. If we all want to believe all the cards in our collections have only been submitted once, we are again fooling ourselves.