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

[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.

[steve B]

I voted yes.

But with some thoughts that the answer isn't 100% clear.

In my other hobby, major auction items are sometimes researched for months. The auction prep - writeups research etc can take a long time.
And even then most auction houses will miss things that are specialized, like plate varieties.
The items that are the best usually come with provenance of having been in major collections and auctions going back a very long time, sometimes into the late 1800's. If there are old certificates that came with the item, they're usually included, along with a new one if it has it.
Occasionally the auction house will disagree with the certificate, like if it mentions a tiny tear but the auction describer can't find it. and that sort of thing is usually mentioned for better or worse.

So it's odd to me that card auctions seem rushed (just like grading) even on fairly expensive items. And there's almost never any of the cards history.

I think that lack of research and history has become the standard in our hobby.

Should that be the standard? I don't think so, even though I'm not in the target audience for the more valuable cards.
The auction house could easily generate an internal census (what a list of existing copies is called in stamps) and generally know most of the history of most higher end cards. The nature of them makes identifying individual copies fairly easy in most cases.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by steve B

I voted yes.

But with some thoughts that the answer isn't 100% clear.

In my other hobby, major auction items are sometimes researched for months. The auction prep - writeups research etc can take a long time.
And even then most auction houses will miss things that are specialized, like plate varieties.
The items that are the best usually come with provenance of having been in major collections and auctions going back a very long time, sometimes into the late 1800's. If there are old certificates that came with the item, they're usually included, along with a new one if it has it.
Occasionally the auction house will disagree with the certificate, like if it mentions a tiny tear but the auction describer can't find it. and that sort of thing is usually mentioned for better or worse.

So it's odd to me that card auctions seem rushed (just like grading) even on fairly expensive items. And there's almost never any of the cards history.

I think that lack of research and history has become the standard in our hobby.

Should that be the standard? I don't think so, even though I'm not in the target audience for the more valuable cards.
The auction house could easily generate an internal census (what a list of existing copies is called in stamps) and generally know most of the history of most higher end cards. The nature of them makes identifying individual copies fairly easy in most cases.

Curious whether your other hobby has the same population of stuff floating around, and whether it has the same volume of ownership churn.

That level of provenance seems like it would be possible with a smaller universe of stuff that didn't change hands very often, particularly if the universe of stuff stopped being produced 100 years ago, so there is a finite (and even shrinking) overall population.

But with our population of stuff, trying to organize such a task outside of really special stuff, like the T206 Wagner, seems like a task for some combination of Hercules and Sisyphus. Plus it's hard to imagine how anyone could ever hope to get compensated for tracking all of it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by raulus

Curious whether your other hobby has the same population of stuff floating around, and whether it has the same volume of ownership churn.

That level of provenance seems like it would be possible with a smaller universe of stuff that didn't change hands very often, particularly if the universe of stuff stopped being produced 100 years ago, so there is a finite (and even shrinking) overall population.

But with our population of stuff, trying to organize such a task outside of really special stuff, like the T206 Wagner, seems like a task for some combination of Hercules and Sisyphus. Plus it's hard to imagine how anyone could ever hope to get compensated for tracking all of it.

For the common items yes, sometimes a decent churn. Collections get made and sold and broken up pretty regularly. Nobody tracks those.
The number of unique items is probably higher.

On those, the churn is almost not there on many items. Serious collectors pretty much buy and hold the very best things.
A lot of that is competitive displays where you explain and show off those great items. All to win a prize that's fairly small compared to the cost of creating a top quality display.
I own an item that I wrote an article about in 2012. The last time it was described in any article was 1932.
I also have an item that was probably last auctioned in the 1930's and turned up a few years ago on ebay.
Neither was pictured in an article, since it was illegal in the 30's to show actual pictures of US stamps.

I've also seen some pretty big ticket items get passed around with some regularity.

One of the major auction houses does track a number of items on a census page.
https://resources.siegelauctions.com/census.php
It's worth it to the auction house to be able to say if a particular example is typical or one of the better copies available. And just how many are known.
That can be done with searching the big expertizing company databases, but having the pictures all laid out is much easier. And would be very valuable if my time was worth a lot.

The 36WWG DiMaggio has about 50 copies between SGC and PSA, that's right in the range of some stuff in Siegels census. And if I recall it right there are about that many Wagners in T206 resources gallery.

The provenance from major collections is sort of handled differently. And usually applies to the rarest things. Al though some rarities were marked by their owners, a typical thing over a century ago. And if the collector is a big enough celebrity even the common things get at least a not saying whose collection it came from. I have a couple christmas seal proofs that are a sub $20 item even if they were once owned by FDR.

[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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

It's not objective because what consitutes too far a variance from the standard varies based on who (or what company) is doing the evaluation. Yes, looking at a ruler provides an objective number. Determining whether that number is too small to warrant a number grade is a subjective endeavor.

That said, I am on the side that MIN SIZE shouldn't be a thing. If a card is trimmed, it's altered. If a card came from the factory a particular size, it should be graded with a number grade. I'm fine if you believe it should be considered a defect or flaw, and the grade affected accordingly, but an unaltered card should get a number grade.

Which is why I don't see it any different than cracking a 5 and getting a 7. If that doesn't need disclosed because it's just two opinions, than an unaltered card that goes from MIN SIZE to a number shouldn't either. The card is simply sold as it currently sits, with whatever third party's opinion it has attached to it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think we would agree that the grading companies need to do a better explanation of MIN SIZE, and that whoever wrote up the Goldin description the first time really hurt the consignor.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think we would agree that the grading companies need to do a better explanation of MIN SIZE, and that whoever wrote up the Goldin description the first time really hurt the consignor.

100%. Whoever wrote that description not only has no clue, but definitely hurt the consignor.