WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

LOL. You're hilarious. In one breath you admit that the grading companies' assessments are unreliable and all over the place, yet in the next breath you want to pretend that they're meaningful. You can't have it both ways.

Also, LMAO at the usage of "adjudged" in this case. That's pretty funny in the context of the grade on a slab.

The only person getting screwed in this scenario is the guy who sent the card to SGC and sold it in that AUTHENTIC holder before getting a second opinion.

I don't think it's inconsistent. MIN SIZE is supposed to be an objective determination. So that distinguishes it from just an opinion on whether it's a 4, or a 5. Knowing the prior grade, in this specific case, would raise some questions about the PSA grade beyond the usual ones.

And we'll see where the poll I posted comes out, though I would guess at least a significant minority will be in favor of disclosure.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think it's inconsistent. MIN SIZE is supposed to be an objective determination. So that distinguishes it from just an opinion on whether it's a 4, or a 5. Knowing the prior grade, in this specific case, would raise some questions about the PSA grade beyond the usual ones.

And we'll see where the poll I posted comes out, though I would guess at least a significant minority will be in favor of disclosure.

That is the rub. Min Size is not assessed objectively AND each co has their own threshold they use when they are assigning that assessment.

I have 30 cards sitting here that were rejected for Min Size. Each of them measures exactly to factory specifications or is 1/128th short. None are trimmed.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

That is the rub. Min Size is not assessed objectively AND each co has their own threshold they use when they are assigning that assessment.

I have 30 cards sitting here that were rejected for Min Size. Each of them measures exactly to factory specifications or is 1/128th short. None are trimmed.

Yep. I have had the exact same experience. I can't tell you how many times I've had a card rejected as "min size" which was previously graded and/or graded numerically upon resubmission. Probably at least 100 times if I were to guess. The level of incompetency in grading is difficult to exaggerate. The meme about them throwing darts at a grading dart board isn't far off.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yep. I have had the exact same experience. I can't tell you how many times I've had a card rejected as "min size" which was previously graded and/or graded numerically upon resubmission. Probably at least 100 times if I were to guess. The level of incompetency in grading is difficult to exaggerate. The meme about them throwing darts at a grading dart board isn't far off.

I was with you until the throwing darts at grading dart board, that Sir is complete BS! I have an inside source that assures me it is a crew of monkeys spinning grading wheels.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yep. I have had the exact same experience. I can't tell you how many times I've had a card rejected as "min size" which was previously graded and/or graded numerically upon resubmission. Probably at least 100 times if I were to guess. The level of incompetency in grading is difficult to exaggerate. The meme about them throwing darts at a grading dart board isn't far off.

Not sure this is good for either of us since we tend to be on opposite sides of things but I feel we see this exactly the same way.

Nobody here is upset for the consignor of the SGC card who likely got less for the card because an amateur at Goldin's suggested the card was trimmed.

The Min Size designation has to be the most subjective assessment handed out and the most variance from among the grading companies. And it is also a secret. Neither SGC nor PSA will tell you how much tolerance they allow for. So that disqualifies it as being an objective determination. What is objective is centering criteria and that is no secret.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think it's inconsistent. MIN SIZE is supposed to be an objective determination. So that distinguishes it from just an opinion on whether it's a 4, or a 5. Knowing the prior grade, in this specific case, would raise some questions about the PSA grade beyond the usual ones.

Here again lies the problem. The same problem I mentioned above, which is that your ignorance about the grading process is on display again. You can think whatever you like about card sizing being objective, but as anyone who owns a ruler that submits cards for grading can tell you, it is still very much subjective. I even got one sent back to me recently as "min size" which measures 1/16" LARGE. A card which had been graded twice before. Rulers may be objective, but someone's ability to use one correctly is not.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And we'll see where the poll I posted comes out, though I would guess at least a significant minority will be in favor of disclosure.

I haven't seen your poll, but as someone whose job it is to analyze the validity of such things, I can assure you its results are meaningless in its intended purpose.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I haven't seen your poll, but as someone whose job it is to analyze the validity of such things, I can assure you its results are meaningless in its intended purpose.

Is your ego seriously this large? Impressive.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is your ego seriously this large? Impressive.

It has nothing to do with ego. If you're posting a poll here on these forums, you will end up with a poll that represents the response bias of the members on this board who choose to engage. And while you may believe that is a representative sample of the hobby, I assure you, it is not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It has nothing to do with ego. If you're posting a poll here on these forums, you will end up with a poll that represents the response bias of the members on this board who choose to engage. And while you may believe that is a representative sample of the hobby, I assure you, it is not.

Straw man du hour. I never remotely suggested this Board was representative of the hobby. At the same time, I hardly think you speak for the hobby.