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

[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.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Maybe SGC inspected the sides and saw evidence of trimming and PSA didn’t.

This shows you STILL do not understand what Min Size means. Until you do and until you incorporate that into your reasoning your conclusions will be influenced by the oversight.

[oldjudge]

Then I guess that Goldin didn't either. Does min size absolutely say that the reason a card is smaller than normal is that it was factory cut small or is it possible that the grading company is unsure whether a card was trimmed or not and to be safe just use a catch all phrase like minimum size? Regardless, why are you against a potential buyer having the information and letting him decide for himself? What are you afraid of?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Then I guess that Goldin didn't either. Does min size absolutely say that the reason a card is smaller than normal is that it was factory cut small or is it possible that the grading company is unsure whether a card was trimmed or not and to be safe just use a catch all phrase like minimum size? Regardless, why are you against a potential buyer having the information and letting him decide for himself? What are you afraid of?

Min Size by any of the TPG is a card that they find has a 100% legit factory cut but measures smaller than factory specifications. The exact term is significantly smaller but none tell us what the allowance is.

There is no gray area for a card being trimmed or not. It is either trimmed or it is not. If they are not sure, which I am pretty sure has never happened, then they have to err on the side of rejecting the card and stating Evidence of Trimming and a card can meet or exceed factory size specifications even if it is trimmed.

I am not afraid. I think the card speaks for itself. As do all cards in holders and many of which have had more than one opinion before they are bought by collectors. The lack of disclosing might turn away 50% of Net54 voters (many of whom do not understand what Min Size actually means, still) but my stance is that GA should not HAVE to disclose the prior opinion.

If we all want to believe that the cards we have in our collections in graded holders have been given an opinion that will stand the test of time, we are sadly fooling ourselves. If we all want to believe all the cards in our collections have only been submitted once, we are again fooling ourselves.

[Leon]

"If they are not sure, which I am pretty sure has never happened," LOL ...I am seriously sitting here laughing my ass off....thank you, thank you...

But we do agree on not disclosing the prior, potentially errant grade.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Min Size by any of the TPG is a card that they find has a 100% legit factory cut but measures smaller than factory specifications. The exact term is significantly smaller but none tell us what the allowance is.

There is no gray area for a card being trimmed or not. It is either trimmed or it is not. If they are not sure, which I am pretty sure has never happened, then they have to err on the side of rejecting the card and stating Evidence of Trimming and a card can meet or exceed factory size specifications even if it is trimmed.

I am not afraid. I think the card speaks for itself. As do all cards in holders and many of which have had more than one opinion before they are bought by collectors. The lack of disclosing might turn away 50% of Net54 voters (many of whom do not understand what Min Size actually means, still) but my stance is that GA should not HAVE to disclose the prior opinion.

If we all want to believe that the cards we have in our collections in graded holders have been given an opinion that will stand the test of time, we are sadly fooling ourselves. If we all want to believe all the cards in our collections have only been submitted once, we are again fooling ourselves.

[samosa4u]

DiMaggio sold for 149K w/ BP.
That's crazyyyyyy considering the guy only paid 22K for it a few months ago!!