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

[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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by 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.

This times 100!
.

[OhioLawyerF5]

To me, after reading both threads, this entire issue is based on a significant misunderstanding of grading. Min size does not mean evidence of trimming (the opposite, in fact), and min size is NOT an objective standard. Once you understand those two points, disclosing the SGC grade becomes irrelevant. It was clear from the first thread that Peter was under the mistaken impression (based on an incorrect auction description) that min size meant there could be evidence of trimming. Then later in the thread, he specifically alluded to his belief that min size was objective. Neither of those is true, and resulted in two threads based on the same misunderstandings.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

To me, after reading both threads, this entire issue is based on a significant misunderstanding of grading. Min size does not mean evidence of trimming (the opposite, in fact), and min size is NOT an objective standard. Once you understand those two points, disclosing the SGC grade becomes irrelevant. It was clear from the first thread that Peter was under the mistaken impression (based on an incorrect auction description) that min size meant there could be evidence of trimming. Then later in the thread, he specifically alluded to his belief that min size was objective. Neither of those is true, and resulted in two threads based on the same misunderstandings.

I get the point about Min Size vs trimmed.
I've had three cards rejected by grading, well before they started putting the reason in the slab. At the time the only way to get it that I know of was to specify "don't slab as A" One miscut - very rough cuts top and bottom but factory. One min size which was strange to me as another in the same batch was graded and was narrow by more than the rejected one was short. (and not an AB) The third was trimmed all around, obviously so. Shouldn't have even sent it in.

I don't get how size isn't objective. Sure size can vary, but there's a known normal size that most cards match and after seeing enough cards you can get an idea of the manufacturing tolerance for that set or even individual card for some sets.
A card that's far enough away from those established numbers is too small (or is oversized) Size to me is one of the few things on cards that is objective.
Not at all to imply a small card can't be that way from the factory.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

To me, after reading both threads, this entire issue is based on a significant misunderstanding of grading. Min size does not mean evidence of trimming (the opposite, in fact), and min size is NOT an objective standard. Once you understand those two points, disclosing the SGC grade becomes irrelevant. It was clear from the first thread that Peter was under the mistaken impression (based on an incorrect auction description) that min size meant there could be evidence of trimming. Then later in the thread, he specifically alluded to his belief that min size was objective. Neither of those is true, and resulted in two threads based on the same misunderstandings.

MIN SIZE may not be APPLIED consistently, but surely in conception it is not subjective -- that is, the grader THINKS it looks small. It's an objective standard, albeit not applied consistently apparently. And I continue to think where a change of flip has brought about a 6 figure difference in market value, the prior assessment is material. And if it isn't, it can be disclosed and people can disregard it. I would almost always err on the side of disclosure, and I don't understand why people are working so hard to justify non-disclosure.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by 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.

This times 1000. Anyone who voted 'Yes' obviously doesn't grade cards with any sort of regularity. Would be hilarious to see a crosstab of voter results by card grading status.

[Snowman]

Some of you guys aren't thinking this through.

Take a card and a ruler and hand them to your 19-year-old son or daughter. Ask them to measure it within 1/64" and to write down what they get. Then take that same card and ruler and hand them to 5 of their friends and ask them to do the same. If even two of them come back to you with the exact same measurements in both directions to 1/64", you'd be lucky.

Next, take a card that is just slightly bent (not warped, but just bent ever so slightly like half of your collections probably are) and then scan it raw on a flatbed scanner. Then measure the card with a ruler and compare the dimensions. You'll discover that the dimensions you get from the scanned card are smaller than the card itself because it wasn't flat when it got scanned. And smaller by enough to matter too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And yet, even if it should not care given all that has been pointed out about the MIN SIZE designation, the market DOES care -- as evidenced by the disparity between the two auction prices. Sure, the GA description knocked down the price even more perhaps, but there is no way in hell a card designated MIN SIZE is going to sell for anything close to a PSA 6.5. So even if it's due to the market's own stupidity, it is clearly material IMO. People think it's meaningful. Disclose it -- it would take one sentence -- and let the market judge. Why are we working so hard to justify non-disclosure?

Poll is dead even, btw. Yes, Travis, I know, it doesn't mean anything.