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

[Fred]

Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware

The principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made.

When it comes to sports cards, it's like musical flips, whatever the current flip indicates is what matters to a lot of people.

TPGs are subjective, however if a trusted TPG indicates they believe there's something wrong, then wouldn't you like to know that before you purchase it, even though another TPG says the card is good to go?

In this case the winner is PSA and the consignor because a higher grading fee was paid and the consignor is going to bank off that. Now if PSA were the consignor, I'd be wondering "wassup".

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have already explained why I think these are different in terms of disclosure. I am sure you disagree, but I am not going to repeat it yet again.

By all means do not repeat it. Ryan will flip out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

By all means do not repeat it. Ryan will flip out.

LOL yeah that's what I was afraid of, mostly. 88-84 yes as we speak. But of course people are now assuming the Yes votes are misinformed.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

My general observation is that isn't always true:
Collector Connection does the best job of pointing out flaws and zero puffery.
Brockelman is great at pointing out flaws, minimal puffery (a sentence or two)
LOTG also does well pointing out flaws, though it is mixed in with maybe a paragraph of puffery.

Some larger houses are on the other end of the spectrum, like Goldin - if they give a description, it's 95% puffery.

Sell the sizzle, not the steak!

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

LOL yeah that's what I was afraid of, mostly. 88-84 yes as we speak. But of course people are now assuming the Yes votes are misinformed.

Well some of the yes votes are clearly misinformed. But the N is too small still and if the margin is that close then there is no mandate either way.

If nobody has done anything to a card to make it gain value by virtue of a bump in a grade (i.e. the 6 to 8 example of an SGC Min Size to PSA 6.5) then I feel disclosure could be made but it is 100% not necessary. Don't care if the card went from being worth 10 cents in the first assessment to being worth 150K in the second. This is nothing more than a different opinion based on a different day at the grading service. For anyone who submits a lot of cards and knows how almost random the assessments are, they would know that an opinion changing is a non event. Travis has alluded to this often and shown examples of it many times.

From my vantage point, if you do something to a card, even if it is innocent and what a majority of the board agrees is ok to do, and the card gets a bump in grade, then that needs to/should be disclosed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As to your last point, that of course is where the overwhelming majority of the hobby's issues lie. And we will rarely, if ever, see disclosure even when known.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As to your last point, that of course is where the overwhelming majority of the hobby's issues lie. And we will rarely, if ever, see disclosure even when known.

I think if you have skin in the game you had better not rely solely on any of the TPG to protect you. Their assurance is only an opinion...that opinion will vary based on numerous factors. You really need to know how to identify alterations and the actual condition of the card you are buying.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I think if you have skin in the game you had better not rely solely on any of the TPG to protect you. Their assurance is only an opinion...that opinion will vary based on numerous factors. You really need to know how to identify alterations and the actual condition of the card you are buying.

If that is so, how ironic, since the whole point of TPG is supposed to be providing that expertise to collectors who may lack the expertise to do this for themselves.

[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?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

"With both SGC and PSA Minimum size always meant the card was factory cut but smaller than their size requirements."

Pat: Thanks for clarifying this. But doesn't that boil down to a distinction without a difference? It's pretty well established that the TPGs can't tell whether most cards are factory cut or trimmed. It seems to me that what the TPG is saying is that we don't see "evidence of trimming" but the card measures short against a standard that we believe encompasses the vast majority of all cards of that type. Given that many many cards where the TPG didn't see evidence of trimming have been shown to be trimmed, it seems like the sensible conclusion is that it is very likely that a "minimum size not met" was trimmed. Am I still missing something?

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

You absolutely do not understand third party grading. The Min Size designation has been explained numerous times by several of us in the two threads. If you want to go out and create your own narrative about it, great, but know it is not based on facts.

One clarification I would add is that while yes, it is true that a "MIN SIZE" determination means that they did not detect any evidence of trimming, and if they had they would have instead graded it as "Evidence of Trimming" or "Authentic Altered", that isn't quite the same thing as them saying it is definitively not trimmed. They are simply stating that they do not see any evidence of trimming. They are not making a claim to the contrary. And in this case, that is a distinction with a difference. It's like in hypothesis testing when you fail to reject the null hypothesis, it does not imply that the alternative hypothesis is true (a concept that even most graduate-level statistics students struggle with).

That said, the fact that a card is in a "Min Size" holder does not mean it is likely to be trimmed but that they just couldn't prove it. And to say that it is "more likely" to be trimmed than a card in a numeric holder isn't particularly helpful. For example, a 1.25% chance of something is "more likely" than a 1.00% chance, but both are still extremely unlikely events.

You really have to look at the card holistically and make your own best judgment. And with this particular card, I would be extremely confident that it has in fact NOT been trimmed. Because if a trimmer skilled enough to fool both SGC and PSA had gotten his hands on it, he certainly would have trimmed that giant left edge, as the card measures wide without question.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

One clarification I would add is that while yes, it is true that a "MIN SIZE" determination means that they did not detect any evidence of trimming, and if they had they would have instead graded it as "Evidence of Trimming" or "Authentic Altered", that isn't quite the same thing as them saying it is definitively not trimmed. They are simply stating that they do not see any evidence of trimming. They are not making a claim to the contrary. And in this case, that is a distinction with a difference. It's like in hypothesis testing when you fail to reject the null hypothesis, it does not imply that the alternative hypothesis is true (a concept that even most graduate-level statistics students struggle with).



That said, the fact that a card is in a "Min Size" holder does not mean it is likely to be trimmed but that they just couldn't prove it. And to say that it is "more likely" to be trimmed than a card in a numeric holder isn't particularly helpful. For example, a 1.25% chance of something is "more likely" than a 1.00% chance, but both are still extremely unlikely events.



You really have to look at the card holistically and make your own best judgment. And with this particular card, I would be extremely confident that it has in fact NOT been trimmed. Because if a trimmer skilled enough to fool both SGC and PSA had gotten his hands on it, he certainly would have trimmed that giant left edge, as the card measures wide without question.

I would add that a number grade is also not proof the card isn't trimmed. Just that they didn't find evidence of it. So in that regard, minsize is no different than a number grade regarding the likelihood of trimming. In fact, it would stand to reason that a minsize card gets more scrutiny by the grader looking for evidence of trimming, yet they found none. Whereas a card that gets a grade probably didn't get the same scrutiny. Therefore, it may actually be more likely your card with a number grade is trimmed than minsize.

[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.
.

[ullmandds]

I remember that card… It was weird looking. Those are rare cards not many examples and some of them look weird yours looked weird...to me. SGC erred on the side of caution PSA is PSA!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I remember that card… It was weird looking. Those are rare cards not many examples and some of them look weird yours looked weird...to me. SGC erred on the side of caution PSA is PSA!

It was real as the day is long. Yes, printing was a bit off but it is 100% legit. Andy Broome did some testing and proved it before he put it in a 1 holder at BVG. THEN PSA put it in a 1 holder also. SGC just isn't very good at some issues.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by conor912

Sell the sizzle, not the steak!

Well to be fair a lot of time we're selling the chopped meat, but at least we call it hamburger and not filet.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Well to be fair a lot of time we're selling the chopped meat, but at least we call it hamburger and not filet.

Wait, wait, wait... Chopped meat AND medium potatoes? Are you working on a cookbook over there?

[Snowman]

Fun fact. When a poll is neck and neck the entire way, and then suddenly breaks 10+ straight votes in one direction after a sample size of 160 votes, it usually means those votes were recruited. Not that it matters, but that would be pretty funny to me if someone here is taking the results so seriously that they felt the urge to recruit. Lol

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Wait, wait, wait... Chopped meat AND medium potatoes? Are you working on a cookbook over there?

lol

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Fun fact. When a poll is neck and neck the entire way, and then suddenly breaks 10+ straight votes in one direction after a sample size of 160 votes, it usually means those votes were recruited. Not that it matters, but that would be pretty funny to me if someone here is taking the results so seriously that they felt the urge to recruit. Lol

Haha, that would indeed be pathetic. And yet is seems somewhat plausible.

I remember from stats class that a sample size of 160 in statistics is generally considered a good, medium-sized sample for most research studies. Funny that as soon as we got to that number, something went haywire.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Fun fact. When a poll is neck and neck the entire way, and then suddenly breaks 10+ straight votes in one direction after a sample size of 160 votes, it usually means those votes were recruited. Not that it matters, but that would be pretty funny to me if someone here is taking the results so seriously that they felt the urge to recruit. Lol

If you're suggesting I recruited votes, that's absolutely false. I can't believe anyone else would bother to either. I frankly expected the poll to be about 60-40 no.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Fun fact. When a poll is neck and neck the entire way, and then suddenly breaks 10+ straight votes in one direction after a sample size of 160 votes, it usually means those votes were recruited. Not that it matters, but that would be pretty funny to me if someone here is taking the results so seriously that they felt the urge to recruit. Lol

They is very little that would surprise me on here. The one thing I am not surprised about is how 95 people have votes yes. Yet not a single one has contacted the AH and gave us their response. At least they cared enough to post/vote in this so ever important thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

They is very little that would surprise me on here. The one thing I am not surprised about is how 95 people have votes yes. Yet not a single one has contacted the AH and gave us their response. At least they cared enough to post/vote in this so ever important thread.

I don't understand this. It's just a poll, one doesn't have to "care" to have an opinion, and besides obviously GA is aware of the situation.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't understand this. It's just a poll, one doesn't have to "care" to have an opinion, and besides obviously GA is aware of the situation.

Just like I do not understand why someone would start multiple threads about it but never contact the AH. Makes no sense to me at all. Contacting the AH might do something while making threads and dozens of posts is just drama. Not saying I am right or you are wrong just don't understand how someone can "care" so much and do basically nothing about it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Just like I do not understand why someone would start multiple threads about it but never contact the AH. Makes no sense to me at all. Contacting the AH might do something while making threads and dozens of posts is just drama. Not saying I am right or you are wrong just don't understand how someone can "care" so much and do basically nothing about it.

Sorry, after the first thread evolved into some good discussion I thought it would be interesting to do a poll to get a better idea of what people thought. I didn't see a way to turn the first thread into a poll. Forgive me Father for I have sinned. My next thread will be on T206s.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My next thread will be on T206s.

You really need to clear that with Ryan, first.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

You really need to clear that with Ryan, first.

I will do so at a break from recruiting votes.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I wonder if it's not recruiting votes as much as it is people reacting to the various turns of the discussion.

[G1911]

When it was 79 no to 78 yes, discussion needed to immediately stop and the yes voters needed to shut up and get over it.

When it is 89 no to 95 yes, the vote might be rigged and Peter probably cheated to bring voters to the poll button.

Do you have alt accounts Peter? Why didn't you freeze the poll at the moment the No's were up by 1? Do you have a swarm of alt accounts or have you imporperly influenced voters to push them to vote Yes through unfair means? This is so wrong.

In reality, it's been within a handful of votes of exactly 50/50 the entire time.

Now, I believe by the rule of Ryan, anyone who voted No has to cut the cope and get over it until that option is winning again, in which case Yes voters must shut up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2uRRDV63ns

[BobbyStrawberry]

I was approached by recruiters from both sides. Ultimately, I went with the highest offer.

(I'm kidding, for those who might have missed it.)

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.
.

Leon--I remember you showing me that card at a National. I looped it and stared at it for a long time and couldn't tell if it was good or not. Probably the best argument that I could come up with for it being good was why would anyone counterfeit that card? I could see SGC not wanting to grade it --that was hardly a clear cut call.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

When it was 79 no to 78 yes, discussion needed to immediately stop and the yes voters needed to shut up and get over it.

When it is 89 no to 95 yes, the vote might be rigged and Peter probably cheated to bring voters to the poll button.

Do you have alt accounts Peter? Why didn't you freeze the poll at the moment the No's were up by 1? Do you have a swarm of alt accounts or have you imporperly influenced voters to push them to vote Yes through unfair means? This is so wrong.

In reality, it's been within a handful of votes of exactly 50/50 the entire time.

Now, I believe by the rule of Ryan, anyone who voted No has to cut the cope and get over it until that option is winning again, in which case Yes voters must shut up.

Honestly I do not believe Ryan spent more than 45 seconds reading either thread. His comment was directed at the 4 or 5 people who have ruined Net54 for everyone (including, ironically, the 4 or 5 people). The topic had nothing to do with it.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Honestly I do not believe Ryan spent more than 45 seconds reading either thread. His comment was directed at the 4 or 5 people who have ruined Net54 for everyone (including, ironically, the 4 or 5 people). The topic had nothing to do with it.

Apologies for ruining it for everyone. I’m trying to cut back!

[JollyElm]

Definitely vote harvesting!!
I demand Leon disclose the names and locations of the last 10-15 new Net54 members to suddenly join up. If they all share the same address at a nursing home somewhere, then we have our answer.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Leon--I remember you showing me that card at a National. I looped it and stared at it for a long time and couldn't tell if it was good or not. Probably the best argument that I could come up with for it being good was why would anyone counterfeit that card? I could see SGC not wanting to grade it --that was hardly a clear cut call.

I respectfully disagree. And there's nothing wrong with that. There are 0 other specimens of that pose except maybe one at the LOC. It was a 7k card and, imo, it would have been a lot of work for that to be made as a counterfeit. I bought it from a book seller on ebay. He offered me a full refund and I said, no, SGC dropped the ball. All good.

[oldjudge]

Hi Leon! I agree that counterfeiting it made no sense. It just looked different under a loope than any other 19th century photographic card I had seen. Hope all is well with you and yours!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Hi Leon! I agree that counterfeiting it made no sense. It just looked different under a loope than any other 19th century photographic card I had seen. Hope all is well with you and yours!

We're in agreement, Jay. I had a great time in VA today with the group. Thanks and hope all is well your way!
About to hop on a plane and back to Lucas..

[oldjudge]

Safe trip my friend!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Safe trip my friend!

Thanks Jay!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you're suggesting I recruited votes, that's absolutely false. I can't believe anyone else would bother to either. I frankly expected the poll to be about 60-40 no.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I know you wouldn't bother with something like that. And I'm not pointing fingers at anyone specifically. Just making an observation that I thought was funny.

[Snowman]

This card just ended a few minutes ago on ebay. It sold for about halfway between what a 4 and 5 would sell for. And there were 5 separate bidders who all had bids in above the PSA 4 value.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/326415150504

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Honestly I do not believe Ryan spent more than 45 seconds reading either thread. His comment was directed at the 4 or 5 people who have ruined Net54 for everyone (including, ironically, the 4 or 5 people). The topic had nothing to do with it.

I don't care to try and read minds, the second paragraph comically demanded that everyone ("if you are in the minority", explicitly not the 4-5) who voted yes get over it, at 78-79. I'm going to enjoy the laugh when people post really stupid things and take victory laps far too early.

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.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This card just ended a few minutes ago on ebay. It sold for about halfway between what a 4 and 5 would sell for. And there were 5 separate bidders who all had bids in above the PSA 4 value.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/326415150504

This brings up a longstanding question I've had with SGC... Do they stock black gaskets that are sized to accommodate undersized cards? I've seen hundreds of cards over the years that are labeled "Minimum Size Not Met", yet (like the McCovey) there is no gap or air space between the card and the gasket.

Quite a contrast between SGC and PSA, who's altered cards in numbered slabs often resemble maracas.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I always assumed gaskets were custom cut. Just an assumption

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I always assumed gaskets were custom cut. Just an assumption

Not sure what they do now, they used to charge extra for custom cut gaskets.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by perezfan

This brings up a longstanding question I've had with SGC... Do they stock black gaskets that are sized to accommodate undersized cards? I've seen hundreds of cards over the years that are labeled "Minimum Size Not Met", yet (like the McCovey) there is no gap or air space between the card and the gasket.

Quite a contrast between SGC and PSA, who's altered cards in numbered slabs often resemble maracas.

They custom cut the aprons to fit offcut cards

[bobbyw8469]

You have to vote no, simply for the fact, how do you differentiate between who got it right and who got it wrong?

[gregndodgers]

Some here are way too sensitive about this (and similar) issues. As long as there is no real threat of future harm, disclosure of the card’s grading history should neither be required nor recommended.

Also, grading is only an opinion. It’s not fact. And with the amount of stupidity happening in grading these days, disclosure of an opinion is akin to someone relying on a witch doctor for a serious medical problem.

[oldjudge]

Greg-I’d agree with you on a card getting an SGC4 and then a PSA5. However, this card was deemed unsuitable for a numerical grade three months earlier. Maybe SGC measured it and PSA didn’t. Maybe SGC inspected the sides and saw evidence of trimming and PSA didn’t. All I’m saying is that someone spending six figures for a card that three months earlier sold for twenty something thousand and whose write-up, by the exact same auction house, alluded to the possibility of trimming may wish to know the history. They may decide it is meaningless and choose to ignore it, or they might think it is relevant. I strongly believe that they should have the information and be able to make that choice for themselves.

[G1911]

I am selling a collectible. That collectibles value is heavily dependent on the appeal to authority that comes with it, stating what it is and what condition it is in. The top 2 experts in the field both examined it and gave very, very different analyses.

Is it more ethical for me to take 3 seconds to disclose both analyses, to tell the full truth, or to only disclose the one that helps the sale price the most?


While many people would not/do not state inconvenient things when selling in any hobby, this is the only hobby I have seen where ~50% won't even pay lip service to telling the full truth and pretend that not telling the truth is equally or more ethical.