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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

If the additional information would result in a substantially lower price, or if it matters to a large group of bidders, how is it not relevant from an overall standpoint? I get that to you it isn't.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the additional information would result in a substantially lower price, or if it matters to a large group of bidders, how is it not relevant from an overall standpoint? I get that to you it isn't.

I don't believe it would result in a lower price. The card will bring PSA graded price whether you say SGC wouldn't grade it or not. You can't assume it would just because a minsize card with no subsequent grading history sold for less.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

Not slander if it's true. All I am suggesting should be disclosed is the fact that the same card was graded MINSIZE by SGC.

[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.