WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?

[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.

[samosa4u]

It's crazy that this card sold only a few months ago. Whoever bought it obviously knew what he was doing.

The most expensive card that I bought from Goldin was 10K. And before I placed my bid, I researched the hell outta' it. It's the bidder's job to do that. Hopefully those bidders did the same.

[CardPadre]

Whoever did the write-up for the October listing did the consignor no favor by implying a trimming when the SGC flip makes no accusation of that and everyone knows they have specific labeling they use when they are of that opinion. Completely unnecessary and likely harmful to throw that in the description.

[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?

[Rhotchkiss]

Peter, I think that’s up to the AH and I don’t think either is wrong (or right). In my opinion, it’s not the AH’s job to disclose that competing companies had different opinions. What Al did with Jay’s helmet is admirable, but I don’t feel required.

I have no interest in going back and forth. I have said my peace and we will just disagree on this one.

On a personal note, I once had a t227 Cobb that sat in a PSA 3 (or something) flip. BODA posted that it used to be in an SGC A flip but stated they saw no evidence of alteration. When I consigned it a few years later, I did mention to the AH that according to BODA it was once in an SGC A flip and the AH did not mention that on that listing; they described the lot as a PSA 3, which is what it was. I feel very fine about that. So so many cards used to have different grades or designations in other TPG flips (or same TPG flips).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Peter, I think that’s up to the AH and I don’t think either is wrong (or right). In my opinion, it’s not the AH’s job to disclose that competing companies had different opinions. What Al did with Jay’s helmet is admirable, but I don’t feel required.

I have no interest in going back and forth. I have said my peace and we will just disagree on this one.

On a personal note, I once had a t227 Cobb that sat in a PSA 3 (or something) flip. BODA posted that it used to be in an SGC A flip but stated they saw no evidence of alteration. When I consigned it a few years later, I did mention to the AH that according to BODA it was once in an SGC A flip and the AH did not mention that on that listing; they described the lot as a PSA 3, which is what it was. I feel very fine about that. So so many cards used to have different grades or designations in other TPG flips (or same TPG flips).

Ryan, respect your opinion, just disagree at least on these facts. Obviously a question which people can assess differently.

[oldjudge]

If I were thinking of bidding on a potential 6 figure card I would certainly want to know if a major grading service, one that many people believe is the most accurate grading service, thought it was undeserving of a numerical grade. I believe that GA didn't know about the card's history when they wrote it up. However, they do now and I continue to believe that they need to disclose this. Like Ryan did, I think the onus was on the consignor of this card to disclose it's history

[tjisonline]

Well said Ryan. Who is to say SGC got it right?

So many cards have been regraded since 3rd party card grading companies were created plus nothing suggests this ‘36 WWG Joe D card has ever been altered. Ever since SGC was acquired by PSA, their min size not met requirements is as inconsistent as PSA’s. I wonder if SGC is using that Collector’s purchased software company’s tech for sizing during the grading process.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Peter, I think that’s up to the AH and I don’t think either is wrong (or right). In my opinion, it’s not the AH’s job to disclose that competing companies had different opinions. What Al did with Jay’s helmet is admirable, but I don’t feel required.

I have no interest in going back and forth. I have said my peace and we will just disagree on this one.

On a personal note, I once had a t227 Cobb that sat in a PSA 3 (or something) flip. BODA posted that it used to be in an SGC A flip but stated they saw no evidence of alteration. When I consigned it a few years later, I did mention to the AH that according to BODA it was once in an SGC A flip and the AH did not mention that on that listing; they described the lot as a PSA 3, which is what it was. I feel very fine about that. So so many cards used to have different grades or designations in other TPG flips (or same TPG flips).

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tjisonline

Well said Ryan. Who is to say SGC got it right?

So many cards have been regraded since 3rd party card grading companies were created plus nothing suggests this ‘36 WWG Joe D card has ever been altered. Ever since SGC was acquired by PSA, their min size not met requirements is as inconsistent as PSA’s. I wonder if SGC is using that Collector’s purchased software company’s tech for sizing during the grading process.

I agree. If we play the slab game, if it's in one that's all that matters. And i have several instances of SGC not knowing what they were doing. Today's 8 is tomorrow's AUT.
And, I also don't think saying it was rejected is necessary. Sgc probably got it wrong.

[Vintagedeputy]

There’s no question that the cards are the same card. I have never known the “minimum size not met” to mean that the card was trimmed. It simply means that the card was cut (from the factory) shorter than what it should be. I think PSA got this horribly wrong.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Leon

I agree. If we play the slab game, if it's in one that's all that matters. And i have several instances of SGC not knowing what they were doing. Today's 8 is tomorrow's AUT.
And, I also don't think saying it was rejected is necessary. Sgc probably got it wrong.

None of us know which grading service got it wrong. My point is that if I was throwing down six figures for a card I would want to know what its history was, especially if a major grading company gave it an A. If you are saying that you wouldn’t care then I think you are in the minority.