WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

And if so, who got it right, SGC or PSA?

Are these the same card?

https://goldin.co/item/1936-world-wi...JkSW5kZXgiOjB9

https://goldin.co/item/1936-world-wi...JkSW5kZXgiOjB9

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And if so, who got it right, SGC or PSA?

Are these the same card?

https://goldin.co/item/1936-world-wi...JkSW5kZXgiOjB9

https://goldin.co/item/1936-world-wi...JkSW5kZXgiOjB9

Both show up as lot not found so I would say they are the same and SGC got it right.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Try now. They worked before, and now seem to be working?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Try now. They worked before, and now seem to be working?

Yes worked for me this time and I still have the same opinion on what grader got it correct if it is the same card.

[Lorewalker]

Each TPG has their own criteria for what is considered minimum size and depending on who sends the card in, that can result in different outcomes too.

They appear to be the same card and both TPG feel the card is 100% unaltered. Might be the scans but I do not love the appearance of the edges but would really need to see in hand and not make concrete opinions based on scans.



Added: From the SGC Min Size listing it states, "SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim." The lot writer knows very little about grading and should be reassigned. Min Size does not at all imply trimming. There is no premise of trimming in SGC's assessment. In fact it implies the opposite. It means the card has 100% legit factory cuts but the card is cut smaller than published specifications.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Each TPG has their own criteria for what is considered minimum size and depending on who sends the card in, that can result in different outcomes too.

They appear to be the same card and both TPG feel the card is 100% unaltered. Might be the scans but I do not love the appearance of the edges but would really need to see in hand and not make concrete opinions based on scans.

The SGC auction description reads as follows:
SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The SGC auction description reads as follows:
SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim.

I have always assumed not meeting min size was their way of saying it is trimmed but we can't tell what side(s). The one thing I have noticed with cards is the side to side is never different unless it has been altered and top to bottom is the way cards can be short or tall and still be factory cut.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The SGC auction description reads as follows:
SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim.

I had edited my post to add the following while you were replying to me.

Added: From the SGC Min Size listing it states, "SGC’s label clearly states this card did not meet minimum size, leaving the premise that one or more edges have experienced a manual trim." The lot writer knows very little about grading and should be reassigned. Min Size does not at all imply trimming. There is no premise of trimming in SGC's assessment. In fact it implies the opposite. It means the card has 100% legit factory cuts but the card is cut smaller than published specifications.

Both SGC and PSA feel the card is not an altered card. I do not like the way the card looks in the holder based on the scan, as I stated in my first post.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And if so, who got it right, SGC or PSA?

Are these the same card?

https://goldin.co/item/1936-world-wi...JkSW5kZXgiOjB9

https://goldin.co/item/1936-world-wi...JkSW5kZXgiOjB9

I think even min size was generous that bottom edge looks trimmed to me. just too pristine especially compared with the other edges, plus a minor bat ear in the lower left.

[commishbob]

Because i had nothing better to do, here they are side-by-side (sort of):


Screenshot (20250125-161250).jpg

[CardPadre]

Let’s remember these are all just opinions, not factual results of an assessment (although they are valued as factual determinations by nearly everyone).

Should we view TPGs as similar to expert witnesses? You consult with a couple/few to see what they have to say, but when it comes to the one you call on to support your case, you’re probably not going to (nor do you need to) mention the opinion of any that didn’t have a supporting position.

*disclaimer, I don’t know anything about expert witnesses.

[TiffanyCards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And if so, who got it right, SGC or PSA?

Are these the same card?

https://goldin.co/item/1936-world-wi...JkSW5kZXgiOjB9

https://goldin.co/item/1936-world-wi...JkSW5kZXgiOjB9

Added to the Altered Card Database as a Grade Bump:

1936 Joe DiMaggio #51 World Wide Gum Company

SGC Authentic (Min Size) cert# 1281523

PSA 6.5 cert# 100133549

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by TiffanyCards

Added to the Altered Card Database as a Grade Bump:

1936 Joe DiMaggio #51 World Wide Gum Company

SGC Authentic (Min Size) cert# 1281523

PSA 6.5 cert# 100133549

Ah yes, let's add another non-altered card to the "Altered Card Database". Well done. Great work Nick Dragovich!

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ah yes, let's add another non-altered card to the "Altered Card Database". Well done. Great work Nick Dragovich!

We need to start adding your cards to it. They're likely all altered. Then again that would probably be a badge of honor to you.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

We need to start adding your cards to it. They're likely all altered. Then again that would probably be a badge of honor to you.

Cute attack. I don't alter cards. But have fun with that. Let me know how it goes!

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Cute attack, but I don't alter cards.

Considering your definition of altered. And your constant defense of altered cards, I'd take that with a grain of Mt. Everest.

[GeoPoto]

What if PSA made an informed determination that the card was "gradable" after consideration of the previous involvement of SGC? Does Goldin have a duty to respect the "expert opinion" purchased by the consignor if that opinion discredits the previous minimum size determination of SGC? Would there be an obligation to disclose the SGC "opinion" if PSA determined that either the size measurement performed by SGC or the "minimum size standard" applied by SGC was wrong or inappropriate?

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

[oldjudge]

I would guess that the card was broken out of the SGC holder before it was sent to PSA.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I would guess that the card was broken out of the SGC holder before it was sent to PSA.

100 percent.

[TiffanyCards]

If you sub a card and it comes back much lower than expected or even just authentic, then do you sell that card or resub it? Based on the numerous comments it seems that many people would continue to resub the card until it gets the grade they believe is correct.

If that is true, then why would the original submitter sell the card in the SGC authentic? Why would the auction house misrepresent the card as being manual trimmed? Why would the seller allow their card to be misrepresented in any way as being manually trimmed? By selling it as SGC Authentic and being represented as manually trimmed they know that it would obviously bring in a lower price. Which is not what the seller or the auction house wants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by TiffanyCards

If you sub a card and it comes back much lower than expected or even just authentic, then do you sell that card or resub it? Based on the numerous comments it seems that many people would continue to resub the card until it gets the grade they believe is correct.

If that is true, then why would the original submitter sell the card in the SGC authentic? Why would the auction house misrepresent the card as being manual trimmed? Why would the seller allow their card to be misrepresented in any way as being manually trimmed? By selling it as SGC Authentic and being represented as manually trimmed they know that it would obviously bring in a lower price. Which is not what the seller or the auction house wants.

This forum sure is lucky that you created another account (after your first account was banned). I'm not sure what we'd do without our resident Sherlock Holmes solving these exacting riddles.

[oldjudge]

Perhaps when Goldin corrects this typo "princess cardboard heirloom" they can disclose the card's history.

[tjisonline]

Because at least the 2 original sellers (while in the SGC slab) were either hobby uneducated or given bad advice. Graders can’t even measure cards anymore and when it's a very close call, seems they flip a coin. I told auburn on twitter pretty much the same last week or so as I thought the card looked legit back in Oct enough to bid on it. I Lost. Ugh.

This entire ordeal reminds me of the AGA graded 1935 National Chcle Bronko N card from last spring ( PSA would only grade it altered so it sold on eBay for $8k) and new owner sold 6-7 months later for est. $65K in a shiny new PSA 5.5 or 6.5 holder . The eBay seller also should have tried to resubmit outside of the then current holder.

As a person who sends cards to get graded (mainly star basketball cards purchased in a collection & whatever modern cards my son wants), the grading inconsistency is grown even more frustrating…. I dislike the grading game but what can we do other than help educate each other & ourselves by adapting.

Originally Posted by TiffanyCards

If you sub a card and it comes back much lower than expected or even just authentic, then do you sell that card or resub it? Based on the numerous comments it seems that many people would continue to resub the card until it gets the grade they believe is correct.

If that is true, then why would the original submitter sell the card in the SGC authentic? Why would the auction house misrepresent the card as being manual trimmed? Why would the seller allow their card to be misrepresented in any way as being manually trimmed? By selling it as SGC Authentic and being represented as manually trimmed they know that it would obviously bring in a lower price. Which is not what the seller or the auction house wants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by tjisonline

This entire ordeal reminds me of the AGA graded 1935 National Chcle Bronko N card from last spring ( PSA would only grade it altered so it sold on eBay for $8k) and new owner sold 6-7 months later for est. $65K in a shiny new PSA 5.5 or 6.5 holder . That seller also should have tried to resubmit outside of the then current holder.

investinrookies sold it that quickly ?? I thought he was going to keep it long-term ??

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...1&postcount=64