WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

I would have to presume Ken and Joe T. will be aware of this thread and consider what to do.

[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.

[oldjudge]

Ryan--I disagree. I think GA should disclose that it previously resided in an SGC A holder. I have a somewhat similar story which illustrates how another auction house handled an analogous situation. In the 1990s I sometimes hosted customer dinners with famous athletes in attendance as paid guests. They would mingle with the clients and sign autographs. One such dinner had Jim Brown in attendance. We had Browns mini helmets available for people to get signed. I had a few extra signed helmets from that evening and consigned one to LOTG. Al sent it to PSA and it came back that they thought the signature was bad(I hope they are more accurate in general). I sat next to Jim when he signed each helmet so I knew they were wrong. I suggested to Al that he submit it to JSA since it was 100% OK. He said that wouldn't make sense since even if they authenticated it he would still have to disclose in the write-up that PSA would not authenticate it. As much as that annoyed me I knew he was right. This case is even more obvious since I don't believe that there is certainty as to whether the card is trimmed or not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you're right, nobody should care that SGC gave it an AUTH, in which case why not disclose it and be completely candid? People defending nondisclosure always run into the same pretzel logic, it seems to me. This is a card likely to reach what, 200K? But it's fine to conceal that SGC gave it an AUTH and in fact it's the same card sold in the same auction three months ago? My initial reaction is that this is a material fact. If SGC had just graded it differently, I might have a different view. Also, as I mentioned, the first Goldin description does suggest it may be trimmed.

Put another way: if you're not disclosing something because you're worried it will keep the price down, then that's pretty good evidence the something is in fact material and should be disclosed. NOT implying anything about this particular auction where it may be Ken/Joe were unaware of the circumstances to begin with. Conversely, if you truly think it's immaterial, then what's the reason to conceal it and not fully inform people, unless it's completely trivial?