$117K SGC 8.5 DiMaggio WWG trimmed heavily, previously an SGC 6

[jbsports33]

I have a feeling with the DiMaggio card, SGC just had some non-experience grader and sense it was already in an older holder - issues and problems with just getting this evaluated again could have been avoided with better eyes.
Not defending them, just saying things are happening with non-experienced graders more often now. This discussion is good to have either way and enjoyed the comments.
Also, this issue could be hard to identify the way these cards had been cut - really, we only have the standard catalog to tell us the size. Would be interesting to look more into these WWG cards - do we really know 100% it was the same card

Jimmy

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jbsports33

I have a feeling with the DiMaggio card, SGC just had some non-experience grader and sense it was already in an older holder - issues and problems with just getting this evaluated again could have been avoided with better eyes.
Not defending them, just saying things are happening with non-experienced graders more often now. This discussion is good to have either way and enjoyed the comments.
Also, this issue could be hard to identify the way these cards had been cut - really, we only have the standard catalog to tell us the size. Would be interesting to look more into these WWG cards - do we really know 100% it was the same card

Jimmy

No way an inexperienced grader was given a card of this magnitude without someone reviewing it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No way an inexperienced grader was given a card of this magnitude without someone reviewing it.

again...so much for random, anonymous grading.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

again...so much for random, anonymous grading.

Huh? Knowing a value has nothing to do with knowing who submitted it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by glynparson

Huh? Knowing a value has nothing to do with knowing who submitted it.

my point was "is a very high value" card treated the same as a $2 card when it's sent to be graded?

My understanding was that all cards are treated equally. Obviously this isn't the case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

my point was "is a very high value" card treated the same as a $2 card when it's sent to be graded?

My understanding was that all cards are treated equally. Obviously this isn't the case.

All things equal I would want more experienced graders looking at higher end cards, no?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

All things equal I would want more experienced graders looking at higher end cards, no?

maybe?????? more experienced graders would be more likely to detect alterations, no? Whereas an inexperienced grader may not...so as someone sending my card in...maybe I want the inexperienced one?

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

my point was "is a very high value" card treated the same as a $2 card when it's sent to be graded?

My understanding was that all cards are treated equally. Obviously this isn't the case.

Of course that’s not the case. It would be foolish to treat them equally and it’s foolish to expect them to receive absolute equal treatment. It’s like the old Parcells saying that all players will be treated fairly doesn’t mean they’ll be treated equally. Same thing but with cards. Some are more important than others.

[JeremyW]

Once a card gets into a PSA, SGC, BVG, etc. holder, most don't give a damn. That's a well-known fact.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No way an inexperienced grader was given a card of this magnitude without someone reviewing it.

Come on Peter, you know that as much as you want to believe what you wrote, it's not guaranteed to be true.

Either an experienced or an inexperienced opinion giver, maybe the janitor, no matter how you 'slice it' (pun intended) the opinion selling company f'd up (I'm trying to cuss less) on that opinion.

Doug

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by jbsports33

I have a feeling with the DiMaggio card, SGC just had some non-experience grader and sense it was already in an older holder - issues and problems with just getting this evaluated again could have been avoided with better eyes.
Not defending them, just saying things are happening with non-experienced graders more often now. This discussion is good to have either way and enjoyed the comments.
Also, this issue could be hard to identify the way these cards had been cut - really, we only have the standard catalog to tell us the size. Would be interesting to look more into these WWG cards - do we really know 100% it was the same card

Jimmy

The DiMaggio card was graded in 2013 as an SGC 92 (8.5). The team of graders in 2013 was very small and very experienced. This alteration on this issue could not have slipped past any of those graders. And once again...the size of the card does not determine if it is trimmed or not. Detecting trimming is much more sophisticated than pulling out your plastic ruler.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

The DiMaggio card was graded in 2013 as an SGC 92 (8.5). The team of graders in 2013 was very small and very experienced. This alteration on this issue could not have slipped past any of those graders. And once again...the size of the card does not determine if it is trimmed or not. Detecting trimming is much more sophisticated than pulling out your plastic ruler.

Agreed. Some claim this is so obvious and easy to see. It is not. Out of millions of submissions it seems nearly impossible to do. If this had been psa so many would be saying they’re done with it and will only do sgc.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

The DiMaggio card was graded in 2013 as an SGC 92 (8.5). The team of graders in 2013 was very small and very experienced. This alteration on this issue could not have slipped past any of those graders. And once again...the size of the card does not determine if it is trimmed or not. Detecting trimming is much more sophisticated than pulling out your plastic ruler.

I would disagree somewhat. Size is definitely one factor in determining trimming. It's not the only one though.
.

[Johnny630]

Have Their Chickens Come home to Roost? One would think so but many could care less at this point. For the Investor, not Collector, and let’s face it the people who can afford this caliber and price of a card are Mostly Investors. They have spoken, and they do not care once the card is in a holder with a number grade.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Have Their Chickens Come home to Roost? One would think so but many could care less at this point. For the Investor, not Collector, and let’s face it the people who can afford this caliber and price of a card are Mostly Investors. They have spoken, and they do not care once the card is in a holder with a number grade.

I suspect they will care if they can't find a buyer for it when they go to sell. Of course, that assumes that potential buyers realize that the opinion on the flip is spurious, and refuse to buy it in spite of the slab.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Leon

I would disagree somewhat. Size is definitely one factor in determining trimming. It's not the only one though.
.

My point was that you cannot simply go by the size of the card to determine if it has been trimmed. If only it were that easy.

[Fred]

Hobby reference material will provide the "standard" size of cards for the different card issues.

Would it be a surprise to anyone if the number of vintage cards in high grade with razor sharp corners did not meet the "standard" size criteria?

And if the above is the case, what could be deduced from that information?

You simply can't go by the size of the card, but it's not a bad starting point to wonder if the card is trimmed.

I collect T206s but I'm not an aficionado. However I can see the huge variance in sizes for the T206 offerings (for example - AB back cards are more narrow than other backs). I would still have to believe that if a majority of high grade (razor sharp corners) T206 cards are smaller than the standard size card, then it's going to be difficult to convince me the card wasn't doctored.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Fred

Hobby reference material will provide the "standard" size of cards for the different card issues.

Would it be a surprise to anyone if the number of vintage cards in high grade with razor sharp corners did not meet the "standard" size criteria?

And if the above is the case, what could be deduced from that information?

You simply can't go by the size of the card, but it's not a bad starting point to wonder if the card is trimmed.

I collect T206s but I'm not an aficionado. However I can see the huge variance in sizes for the T206 offerings (for example - AB back cards are more narrow than other backs). I would still have to believe that if a majority of high grade (razor sharp corners) T206 cards are smaller than the standard size card, then it's going to be difficult to convince me the card wasn't doctored.

I agree but a small devils advocate argument is the smaller ones are also nicer because they were protected by the larger size cards in a stack above and below it. Don’t believe me look how beat oversized cards end up compared to non oversized in a stack of vintage cards. But in all honesty one of the biggest reasons they are smaller is they are trimmed it’s just not the only reason.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Leon

I would disagree somewhat. Size is definitely one factor in determining trimming. It's not the only one though.
.

My wife says size doesn't matter.



Thanks, you've been a great audience; enjoy Whitesnake.