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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I know this poll pertains to the DiMaggio, but honestly, this happens all the time in big auctions. Sells in one flips, then sells with a different grade in another flip. Par for the course.

Difference in my mind between two grades, and one grade and a determination a card cannot be graded.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Difference in my mind between two grades, and one grade and a determination a card cannot be graded.

True, but what about a card that was in a flip that said 5, then was graded for a 7?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

True, but what about a card that was in a flip that said 5, then was graded for a 7?

I don't think that needs to be disclosed.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think that needs to be disclosed.

Can’t speak for everyone, but I would love to hear your reasoning.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

Can’t speak for everyone, but I would love to hear your reasoning.

I think most buyers understand that some cards have a grading history and, so long as the cards weren't rejected, wouldn't view that as important. Also, as a practical point, auction houses probably aren't going to know that history in most cases. But when a card has been deemed not worthy of even a grade (a HUGE blow to its value, as we can see already from the current price already sitting at multiples of the AUTH/MS), and the seller KNOWS that, that feels disclosable to me. Could you do a Socratic method on this reasoning? Probably.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think most buyers understand that some cards have a grading history and, so long as the cards weren't rejected, wouldn't view that as important. Also, as a practical point, auction houses probably aren't going to know that history in most cases. But when a card has been deemed not worthy of even a grade (a HUGE blow to its value, as we can see already from the current price already sitting at multiples of the AUTH/MS), and the seller KNOWS that, that feels disclosable to me. Could you do a Socratic method on this reasoning? Probably.

I think most on here would have an issue bidding, buying or owning a card that underwent a 2 grade bump. Their not knowing does not make it unimportant. A 2 grade bumps implies card doctoring. I think most of us, if we were presented with the before pic would want to dispose of the card.

I honestly do not think that Goldin realized the 6.5 they took in was the same card as the one in the Min Size holder. I don't think they need to disclose at this point but if they did I doubt it would have much impact on the sale, other than the fact that some newb to grading suggested the card was trimmed because it was in the Min Size holder.

Might be semantics but I do not feel the SGC version of the WWG Joe D was rejected. It was not eligible at one grading company for a numerical grade.

[DeanH3]

If I were a bidder, which I'm not, I would want to know the cards history. I get that cards can go up or down a full grade. But in this case I would want to know since it's a very significant difference in grade and dollar amount.

I'm not 100% sure where I fall on what GA is or isn't obligated to disclose. However, I would be surprised if GA didn't remember handling this card since it's such a rare/major card and not a lot of time passed in between. Plus, it would be interesting to know if the same person who won the card is now the consignor. That should ring some bells at GA. Interesting topic to debate.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think most buyers understand that some cards have a grading history and, so long as the cards weren't rejected, wouldn't view that as important. Also, as a practical point, auction houses probably aren't going to know that history in most cases. But when a card has been deemed not worthy of even a grade (a HUGE blow to its value, as we can see already from the current price already sitting at multiples of the AUTH/MS), and the seller KNOWS that, that feels disclosable to me. Could you do a Socratic method on this reasoning? Probably.

Definitely seems like we’re talking about degrees here. It’s okay to not disclose that the card went from a 3 to a 5 or a 7 to a 9, but from A to a number grade is more meaningful.

And I don’t dispute your logic.

But it does seem like there are a number of situations where going up a couple of grades at the top of the scale could be more valuable even than going from A to 6. But I suppose in some ways it’s less about the value swing and more about the qualitative elements.

Although it’s awful hard to suggest that the money isn’t a big piece of the puzzle, as always.

[Snowman]

And what if a card was deemed altered by a grader who showed up to work drunk (or at least dumb) that day? Then the owner cracked it out and resubmitted it 5 times just to be pentuply sure it wasn't in fact altered? And what if it then received 5 different grades across those 5 different submissions? What obligations to disclose would we have then? Asking for a friend.

Oh, and the correct grade for this card is a 7.5.