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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

You are making assumptions about what they find important based solely on sales of two items. Is it not possible that the reason buyers pay more for graded cards over MIN SIZE is because they find grades to be material, and they find non-altered cards to be material? If a card is graded MIN SIZE, neither of those material facts are present. The fact that the buyer misunderstands what MIN SIZE means doesn't make the size of the card the fact that is material to the buyer. It is the alteration that is material. And if there is no alteration, what difference does it make? Since the card is currently in a PSA slab with a number grade, the buyer is assured (theoretically) that the card is both unaltered, and in the condition on the slab. Which satisfies both of the material facts.

This is EXACTLY like SGC grading a card a 5 and cracking it and PSA saying it's a 7. If you don't believe you have to disclose the SGC grade, then you shouldn't believe you have to disclose the MIN SIZE grade. Both are nothing more than opinions of two different companies. Neither is saying the card is altered.

I am SURE that if we tracked the sales of all MINSIZE cards, the data would show that the market significantly devalues them. And my analysis does not really care if that's right, or wrong, or based on misunderstandings, or stupid, or anything else. I don't disagree with what you are saying about what MINSIZE should be taken to mean, or that it probably should be abolished altogether. But the market believes what it believes, and therefore -- especially on a hugely important and pricey card -- the prior grade should have been disclosed.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am SURE that if we tracked the sales of all MINSIZE cards, the data would show that the market significantly devalues them. And my analysis does not really care if that's right, or wrong, or based on misunderstandings, or stupid, or anything else. I don't disagree with what you are saying about what MINSIZE should be taken to mean, or that it probably should be abolished altogether. But the market believes what it believes, and therefore -- especially on a hugely important and pricey card -- the prior grade should have been disclosed.

Again, you are not proving the market believes minsize is material. You are proving having a number grade is extremely important.

The fact is, the opinion of SGC and PSA are NOT wildly different on this card. They likely are very close on condition. One just chose not to give an opinion on the card's condition.

No matter how you slice it, minsize is not an opinion on the condition of the card, the authenticity of the card, nor whether the card has been altered. So SGC gave no relevant opinion on the card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Again, you are not proving the market believes minsize is material. You are proving having a number grade is extremely important.

The fact is, the opinion of SGC and PSA are NOT wildly different on this card. They likely are very close on condition. One just chose not to give an opinion on the card's condition.

No matter how you slice it, minsize is not an opinion on the condition of the card, the authenticity of the card, nor whether the card has been altered. So SGC gave no relevant opinion on the card.

But it comes to the same thing. If having a number grade is material, so too is NOT having one, in the other direction. MINSIZE is materially different from 6.5. Here, MINSiZEs sold for 17 and 21K, and 6.5 will sell for 150K or more. This is not complicated. The case for disclosure is very simple.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But it comes to the same thing. If having a number grade is material, so too is NOT having one, in the other direction. MINSIZE is materially different from 6.5. Here, MINSiZEs sold for 17 and 21K, and 6.5 will sell for 150K or more. This is not complicated. The case for disclosure is very simple.

Then explain why it isn't material to disclose that it received a lower number grade from another company. It's the same logic. The lower number will sell for less and is therefore material, right?

Further, there is an actual material difference between those minsize sales and this one. Those didn't have another reputable company verify that it wasn't trimmed. The subsequent grade alleviates fears that minsize might mean trimmed.

You can't assume materiality from differing circumstances.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Then explain why it isn't material to disclose that it received a lower number grade from another company. It's the same logic. The lower number will sell for less, and is therefore material, right?

I answered that before. It's a good question, but I think the difference is in how people understand these things. I think people understand that there is wide variance in grading, that it isn't consistent, and generally accept that graded cards might have a grading history. On the other hand, rightly or wrongly, there's just a big perceived difference between grade x and grade y, and a graded card and one where the $1 or #2 TPG in the industry said the card was not worthy of a number grade in the first place. As you said, having a number grade is very important to people. Perception is reality.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Let me put a question back to you. Since obviously many people think this is important information, even if they might be misguided, what's your reason NOT to disclose? If you're right, and it's irrelevant/immaterial, it won't affect anything. If I'm right, it will mean that a fact relevant to price was disclosed rather than concealed, which is a good thing, yes? Or do we really want people concealing facts that could bear on price?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let me put a question back to you. Since obviously many people think this is important information, even if they might be misguided, what's your reason NOT to disclose? If you're right, and it's irrelevant/immaterial, it won't affect anything. If I'm right, it will mean that a fact relevant to price was disclosed rather than concealed, which is a good thing, yes? Or do we really want people concealing facts that could bear on price?

The card is being sold as an authentic card that in PSA's opinion is a certain stated grade. I have no problem offering up additional information. It's just not necessary as all relevant information to the card as sold is disclosed.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let me put a question back to you. Since obviously many people think this is important information, even if they might be misguided, what's your reason NOT to disclose? If you're right, and it's irrelevant/immaterial, it won't affect anything. If I'm right, it will mean that a fact relevant to price was disclosed rather than concealed, which is a good thing, yes? Or do we really want people concealing facts that could bear on price?

Of course it would affect the price. Maybe not in this particular case this one time, but if you were to run this experiment of slandering cards in the description 1,000 times it would absolutely suppress pricing of the cards in aggregate. But it wouldn't be because the card itself is flawed or defective in some way, but rather because you spooked a pool of candidate bidders (who as evidenced by this thread are entirely ignorant about the grading process) into believing that the card must be trimmed when it in fact has not.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I answered that before. It's a good question, but I think the difference is in how people understand these things. I think people understand that there is wide variance in grading, that it isn't consistent, and generally accept that graded cards might have a grading history. On the other hand, rightly or wrongly, there's just a big perceived difference between grade x and grade y, and a graded card and one where the $1 or #2 TPG in the industry said the card was not worthy of a number grade in the first place. As you said, having a number grade is very important to people. Perception is reality.

That is some serious pretzel logic there.

[doug.goodman]

Buy the card not the opinion.

And if you do want an opinion get Dmitri Young to submit your cards.

[Rhotchkiss]

Another thread where (generally the same) 4-5 people monopolize the airtime, argue in circles, and kill the thread making reading it unbearable for everyone other than the 4-5 monopolizers.

Bottom line is that 150 people have voted and the majority feel that GA should not (or need not) disclose the situation. End of story. If you are in the minority, get over it.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Another thread where (generally the same) 4-5 people monopolize the airtime, argue in circles, and kill the thread making reading it unbearable for everyone other than the 4-5 monopolizers.

Bottom line is that 150 people have voted and the majority feel that GA should not (or need not) disclose the situation. End of story. If you are in the minority, get over it.

Yeah, 78- 74, a real mandate. Issue resolved--clear as mud.

[Neal]

SGC says minimum size not met and doesn't label the flip as altered.
PSA gives it a number grade.

Goldin needs to do only one thing and that is ship the card.
Carry on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Yeah, 78- 74, a real mandate. Issue resolved--clear as mud.

Same 4 vote lead now for yes, even with all the more recent posts explaining MIN SIZE. Time to get over it?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Same 4 vote lead now for yes, even with all the more recent posts explaining MIN SIZE. Time to get over it?

It's basically been just about 50/50 the whole time. That is how I will see it. For the record, when SGC made 2 bad mistakes on my Yum Yum, thinking it was a counterfeit and then on review just giving it the NO.....then BVG and PSA graded it a 1. NO, I didn't think SGC's mistakes needed to be disclosed when it sold. SGC was glaringly wrong on it.
.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Another thread where (generally the same) 4-5 people monopolize the airtime, argue in circles, and kill the thread making reading it unbearable for everyone other than the 4-5 monopolizers.

Bottom line is that 150 people have voted and the majority feel that GA should not (or need not) disclose the situation. End of story. If you are in the minority, get over it.

We gotta talk about something, my friend!

Otherwise, the chat room would just be an empty room.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Another thread where (generally the same) 4-5 people monopolize the airtime, argue in circles, and kill the thread making reading it unbearable for everyone other than the 4-5 monopolizers.

Bottom line is that 150 people have voted and the majority feel that GA should not (or need not) disclose the situation. End of story. If you are in the minority, get over it.

How about a poll to see if your first paragraph has any merit?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Another thread where (generally the same) 4-5 people monopolize the airtime, argue in circles, and kill the thread making reading it unbearable for everyone other than the 4-5 monopolizers.

.

Speaking only for myself.
I get to sit back with my snacks and read two (I think ) good lawyers debate what's material. It does drag a bit in places, but it's fun for a while.
Yeah, I'm a bit weird like that.

I said my bit above, and it's mostly ignored. That's ok too.

It's a bit of a downer to see how little even advanced collectors care about getting things right. But the hobby is what it is.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Another thread where (generally the same) 4-5 people monopolize the airtime, argue in circles, and kill the thread making reading it unbearable for everyone other than the 4-5 monopolizers.

Bottom line is that 150 people have voted and the majority feel that GA should not (or need not) disclose the situation. End of story. If you are in the minority, get over it.

+1. It would, of course, have been completely inappropriate to use this logic last night when it was 69 for disclosure and 68 against disclosure, but now that it is a tiny win the other way around of 74 in favor and 78 against, all discussion should immediately cease. This makes perfect sense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

+1. It would, of course, have been completely inappropriate to use this logic last night when it was 69 for disclosure and 68 against disclosure, but now that it is a tiny win the other way around of 74 in favor and 78 against, all discussion should immediately cease. This makes perfect sense.

Now 78- 79 lol. Get over it. Oops, I mean it's tied.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Now 78- 79 lol. Get over it.

And now 79-79! I believe this means people can post on a message board again, until more votes are cast and the tie is broken.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a compelling argument that relied on demanding discussion stop. That's usually done by the weak argument.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Another thread where (generally the same) 4-5 people monopolize the airtime, argue in circles, and kill the thread making reading it unbearable for everyone other than the 4-5 monopolizers.

Agreed. There is no need to restate your opinion twenty-five times! And what's up with the essay posts? Introduction ... first body ... second body ... third body ... conclusion.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am SURE that if we tracked the sales of all MINSIZE cards, the data would show that the market significantly devalues them. And my analysis does not really care if that's right, or wrong, or based on misunderstandings, or stupid, or anything else. I don't disagree with what you are saying about what MINSIZE should be taken to mean, or that it probably should be abolished altogether. But the market believes what it believes, and therefore -- especially on a hugely important and pricey card -- the prior grade should have been disclosed.

As someone who often bids on these cards, I can tell you that they do typically sell for more than cards in authentic/altered holders. Sometimes they'll even sell for the price of a 4 or 5 because I'll be in a bidding war against someone else who knows what I know. Although that's rare. But it's quite common to have to pay the price of a 3 for them. Savvy bidders know that they're not altered, and if you are confident that it is full size and the graders got it wrong, they can do well at auction.