WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Each TPG has their own criteria for what is considered minimum size and depending on who sends the card in, that can result in different outcomes too.

They appear to be the same card and both TPG feel the card is 100% unaltered. Might be the scans but I do not love the appearance of the edges but would really need to see in hand and not make concrete opinions based on scans.

The SGC auction description reads as follows:
SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The SGC auction description reads as follows:
SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim.

I have always assumed not meeting min size was their way of saying it is trimmed but we can't tell what side(s). The one thing I have noticed with cards is the side to side is never different unless it has been altered and top to bottom is the way cards can be short or tall and still be factory cut.

[oldjudge]

So let me get this straight—Goldin ran the A card and is now running the numerically graded card but is not now disclosing that SGC would not give it a numerical grade. Am I missing anything? If this is true, I believe this is wrong. I believe this should be disclosed in the lot description and all people who have bid already should have the right to rescind their bids.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

So let me get this straight—Goldin ran the A card and is now running the numerically graded card but is not now disclosing that SGC would not give it a numerical grade. Am I missing anything? If this is true, I believe this is wrong. I believe this should be disclosed in the lot description and all people who have bid already should have the right to rescind their bids.

One card is in a SGC slab and one(maybe the same) card is in a PSA slab. How would Goldin or any other AH know they are the same card.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

if it's changed hands and was sent by a consignor who wasn't the buyer last time, I could understand how it never crossed anyone's mind to even check. When you're dealing with the volume of cards that a company like Goldin is and have a number of people writing descriptions it could simply slip through pretty easily.

I am no Goldin apologist, and philosophically I agree with you, but I understand how something like this could easily be missed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

if it's changed hands and was sent by a consignor who wasn't the buyer last time, I could understand how it never crossed anyone's mind to even check. When you're dealing with the volume of cards that a company like Goldin is and have a number of people writing descriptions it could simply slip through pretty easily.

I am no Goldin apologist, and philosophically I agree with you, but I understand how something like this could easily be missed.

That said, the first sale was only three months ago. And it's not exactly a 56T Mantle commodity type card.

But to me, the biggest concern is if the card really is trimmed, why did PSA miss it?

[oldjudge]

I obviously have never seen the card in person. However, I think minimum size is a synonym for evidence of trimming, so SGC saw, or thought they saw, something that PSA did not. I don’t know if it is trimmed or not. What I do know is that since the auction is not over Goldin has the chance to do what I believe is the right thing and disclose all available information about the card. The question is, will they do this?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I obviously have never seen the card in person. However, I think minimum size is a synonym for evidence of trimming, so SGC saw, or thought they saw, something that PSA did not. I don’t know if it is trimmed or not. What I do know is that since the auction is not over Goldin has the chance to do what I believe is the right thing and disclose all available information about the card. The question is, will they do this?

Does the consignor have any say in that? At least potentially, such a disclosure could significantly affect the sale price, although the cynic in me says the flip would trump it.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I obviously have never seen the card in person. However, I think minimum size is a synonym for evidence of trimming, so SGC saw, or thought they saw, something that PSA did not. I don’t know if it is trimmed or not. What I do know is that since the auction is not over Goldin has the chance to do what I believe is the right thing and disclose all available information about the card. The question is, will they do this?

Call/email them as it could be you. Just start with a thread on the internet thinks this card was sold in a SGC Authentic slab recently. Please let us know how it goes if you care enough to contact them.

[Rhotchkiss]

Looking at the pictures, I believe it is the same card. I know very little about the 1936 WWG set and I cant opine whether the card has been trimmed/altered. That said, looking at the scans, it appears its the exact same card, meaning I dont think anything was done to the card between the cross over from SGC to PSA. So SGC says its A and PSA says its a 6.5... opinions are like assholes, even the opinions of TPGs, and I think PSA is an asshole. Nevertheless, it resides in a PSA 6.5 flip, meaning the card is a PSA 6.5 and kudos to whoever had the balls (or foresight) to cross it.

As far as Goldin's responsibility here, I think they have none in this case; and that is true of Heritage, Mile High, REA, LOTG, Memory Lane etc etc. They are selling a PSA 6.5 WWG DiMaggio. That's what it is, plain and simple. There is no actual evidence of alteration (which should be disclosed if known), rather different opinions from two of the hobby's most respected TPGs; and its hardly the first time these two have disagreed.

An AH should not misrepresent a card (tell a falsehood). Nor should they omit a malfeasance, like when BODA shows determinative evidence that a card has been altered. But that is not the case here - again, there is no evidence that the card has been altered, only different opinions on the matter. Its a PSA 6.5 and that is what is being offered.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The SGC auction description reads as follows:
SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim.

I had edited my post to add the following while you were replying to me.

Added: From the SGC Min Size listing it states, "SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim." The lot writer knows very little about grading and should be reassigned. Min Size does not at all imply trimming. There is no premise of trimming in SGC's assessment. In fact it implies the opposite. It means the card has 100% legit factory cuts but the card is cut smaller than published specifications.

Both SGC and PSA feel the card is not an altered card. I do not like the way the card looks in the holder based on the scan, as I stated in my first post.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's a bit of an odd write up otherwise, with so much discussion of the Zeenut DiMaggio.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a bit of an odd write up otherwise, with so much discussion of the Zeenut DiMaggio.

I did not read the full description on either listing but the person who did the one for the SGC card, honestly, should be fired. Fully demonstrated no understanding of basic TP grading, which is hard to comprehend at this level.

[Lorewalker]

SGC recently had explained their Auth grade designations but I cannot find it now. PSA explains the Min Size designation as:

N6 Minimum Size Requirement - When a card is significantly undersized according to factory specifications. You will not be charged the grading fee in this instance. Note that this designation can qualify for encapsulation as "Authentic" only at the grader's discretion and if "Auth" is listed on the submission form as the desired minimum grade. You will be charged the applicable grading fee in the latter case.

[oldjudge]

Since the auctions were only four months apart and the card is both scarce and high priced, I find it odd that even if the consignor did not disclose that the card was previously in an SGC A holder that Goldin didn’t notice it. It’s not like these cards pop up every day.
Second, I am mystified as to why some people are against requiring auction houses to fully disclose all they know about a card that they believe a potential bidder would want to know. How is transparency a bad thing for the hobby?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Since the auctions were only four months apart and the card is both scarce and high priced, I find it odd that even if the consignor did not disclose that the card was previously in an SGC A holder that Goldin didn’t notice it. It’s not like these cards pop up every day.
Second, I am mystified as to why some people are against requiring auction houses to fully disclose all they know about a card that they believe a potential bidder would want to know. How is transparency a bad thing for the hobby?

I agree it is a valuable and rare enough card to warrant that but I don't think it is realistic to expect a house to start looking at cards that closely and then grading the graders. Either take the card in because you feel it is graded right and it is not altered and if you feel otherwise, reject the consignment and let another less ethical house list it.

I think auction houses defer to the TPG and that is because the public does not expect or want more. Most people are buying the label on the holder.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Since the auctions were only four months apart and the card is both scarce and high priced, I find it odd that even if the consignor did not disclose that the card was previously in an SGC A holder that Goldin didn’t notice it. It’s not like these cards pop up every day.
Second, I am mystified as to why some people are against requiring auction houses to fully disclose all they know about a card that they believe a potential bidder would want to know. How is transparency a bad thing for the hobby?

Because people want to defend the auction houses they deal with, and because consignors don't want disclosures that might keep down prices.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Second, I am mystified as to why some people are against requiring auction houses to fully disclose all they know about a card that they believe a potential bidder would want to know. How is transparency a bad thing for the hobby?

Because that might not help prices go higher. It's always the real reason people are against taking the 1-5 seconds it takes to add a disclosure. It takes basically zero time to disclose, and if it doesn't matter, then it wouldn't hurt the price at all and there's no reason to not disclose. The only reason to not disclose facts that could hurt a cards price (notice there is never an argument made by anyone to hide facts that help a cards price) is because they might hurt the price. Telling the full and complete truth doesn't always help financial interests.