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

[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.

[bnorth]

I am curious how many of those that voted yes care enough to have contacted the AH. I would think that would be the first thing I done if I really cared. Then report on a forum what happened when they contacted the AH with such important information. I guess posting about it on the net and voting yes on a poll is a darn close second.

[ullmandds]

This card is one of those cards that is pretty well known in the hobby if you have been around for a little while and pay attention to this kind of thing. Personally, I think this whole grading game is a crock of shit, but seeing as it's not going anywhere... cards like this need to be permanently marked somehow with some type of invisible indicator so they can always be detected as alltered.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

This card is one of those cards that is pretty well known in the hobby if you have been around for a little while and pay attention to this kind of thing. Personally, I think this whole grading game is a crock of shit, but seeing as it's not going anywhere... cards like this need to be permanently marked somehow with some type of invisible indicator so they can always be detected as alltered.

Altered? It is not altered.

I do agree grading is for shit. I submit as little as possible for this exact reason. One person's 9 is another person's Evidence of Trimming.

[Fred]

Just think if you were the person that sold that card when it was in the SGC holder. Yuck...

[DeanH3]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I am curious how many of those that voted yes care enough to have contacted the AH. I would think that would be the first thing I done if I really cared. Then report on a forum what happened when they contacted the AH with such important information. I guess posting about it on the net and voting yes on a poll is a darn close second.

I voted yes, but I have no interest in contacting the AH. I don't expect anything to change. I just voiced my opinion. That's all. I don't plan on burning any bra's or dying a hill for this cause.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by 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.

Goldin is doing a few hundred million a year in sales. From what I know of them they are forward thinking/looking people. Now I am really going to sound like Travis but I would wager that they had no clue they took in the same 36 WWG card. After all, they thought it was trimmed when it was int he 6.5 holder. Being in a PSA 6.5 holder is likely the last thing that they thought would happen.

[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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by 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.

That is one of the wildest examples of the absurdity and random nature of grading I’ve ever seen. Thanks for sharing!

[Stampsfan]

Trimed / Altered <> Min. Size

When I was a kid, I pulled from a pack a 1969 OPC Bobby Orr #24.

Fast forward to about 10 years ago where I submitted both to PSA. Once came back PSA 5, and the other came back Min Size.

Let me be 100% clear... I pulled both cards from 10 cent packs.

I put the PSA 5 into my set, and I stored the Min Size, as it wasn't holdered.

About a year ago I submitted the Min Size card again in another order with PSA and it came back as a PSA 7.

I replaced the PSA 5 with the PSA 7 in my set. I have zero guilt in doing so. And it does nothing to affect the enjoyment I get from looking at that set.

[ClementeFanOh]

I voted yes. Truly surprised the nays have it so far. Caveat emptor indeed!

Trent King

[Johnny630]

This has happened so many times it's just a difference of paid opinions. I vote no..so many times the grading companies get it wrong. I can't vote yes on this one sorry.