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

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=357497

Referring to this thread. Yes, should disclose. No, should not disclose.

[parkplace33]

I know this poll pertains to the DiMaggio, but honestly, this happens all the time in big auctions. Sells in one flips, then sells with a different grade in another flip. Par for the course.

[parkplace33]

I often to go back to one of my favorite books, Animal Farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Truer words have never been spoken about this hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I often to go back to one of my favorite books, Animal Farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Truer words have never been spoken about this hobby.

Yeap. Used that one many times. Animal Farm grading lol. Very true.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I know this poll pertains to the DiMaggio, but honestly, this happens all the time in big auctions. Sells in one flips, then sells with a different grade in another flip. Par for the course.

Difference in my mind between two grades, and one grade and a determination a card cannot be graded.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Difference in my mind between two grades, and one grade and a determination a card cannot be graded.

True, but what about a card that was in a flip that said 5, then was graded for a 7?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

True, but what about a card that was in a flip that said 5, then was graded for a 7?

I don't think that needs to be disclosed.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think that needs to be disclosed.

Can’t speak for everyone, but I would love to hear your reasoning.

[GeoPoto]

"If a card is trimmed, it's altered. If a card came from the factory a particular size, it should be graded with a number grade."

I thought the whole point of "minimum size not met" was the assumption that any card below that size couldn't have "come from the factory" that size and therefore was surely trimmed after it left the factory. What am I missing?

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

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

"If a card is trimmed, it's altered. If a card came from the factory a particular size, it should be graded with a number grade."

I thought the whole point of "minimum size not met" was the assumption that any card below that size couldn't have "come from the factory" that size and therefore was surely trimmed after it left the factory. What am I missing?

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

No, cards come cut short from the factory all the time. If the card was trimmed they would grade it "Evidence of Trimming."

[steve B]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

"If a card is trimmed, it's altered. If a card came from the factory a particular size, it should be graded with a number grade."

I thought the whole point of "minimum size not met" was the assumption that any card below that size couldn't have "come from the factory" that size and therefore was surely trimmed after it left the factory. What am I missing?

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

I think you just stated the why without knowing it.

If the card is very undersized but with factory cuts many people will see it short in the slab and assume that it's trimmed. And worse, that the grading company was at best incompetent.


Of my three rejects, two could have gotten a number grade, but might be seen by others who didn't see if in hand as trimming that SGC missed.

[GeoPoto]

If the card was trimmed they would grade it "Evidence of Trimming."

I thought the problem was trimming performed carefully by experienced people with proper tools didn't leave enough direct evidence of trimming to be detected by routine (affordable) inspection. Minimum size not met is indirect evidence of trimming.

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

[nolemmings]

It would be nice and in my view helpful for a TPG to identify right on the slab (or rejection) label the precise measurements down to 1/64" inch or so whenever it determines that a card fails to meet "minimum size requirements". Similarly, there could be a link to their website where every set they grade has an identification of what minimum size is required to qualify for a numerical grade and/or the "standard size" typically found for the issue, possibly with a notation for those sets known to have frequent slight variations (such as M101-4/5).
As for the disclosure issue at topic here, I am in the camp that full disclosure should be required if known, although the degree of investigation or due diligence is subject to debate.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

If the card was trimmed they would grade it "Evidence of Trimming."

I thought the problem was trimming performed carefully by experienced people with proper tools didn't leave enough direct evidence of trimming to be detected by routine (affordable) inspection. Minimum size not met is indirect evidence of trimming.

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

Cards cut short from the factory are prevalent enough that you can't assume trimming based on size alone. In fact, I'd speculate that the majority of trimmed cards don't measure short because they were either cut long from the factory and trimmed to standard size, or pressed large and trimmed. There was far too much variance in sizes from the factory to make labeling a card MIN SIZE useful at all. That's why I say unless there is evidence of trimming, the card should get a number grade.

[GeoPoto]

I certainly agree size above the "minimum" doesn't guarantee a card wasn't trimmed. Below the "minimum" doesn't guarantee it was trimmed either, but it is the point where you start to assume that it was no matter how it looks.

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

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I certainly agree size above the "minimum" doesn't guarantee a card wasn't trimmed. Below the "minimum" doesn't guarantee it was trimmed either, but it is the point where you start to assume that it was no matter how it looks.

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

I've seen far too many factory short cards to assume that.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I've seen far too many factory short cards to assume that.

Absolutely.
For every larger card, somewhere, there is a shorter card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

But for every shorter card, there is not (no longer) a larger one.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But for every shorter card, there is not (no longer) a larger one.

Ok, that's true. Also, not every shorter card is trimmed. How about that?

.

[Fred]

Yes, for every larger card there's a shorter card, however if I were to guess, there's more shorter cards slabbed with a high grade than larger cards.

[Pat R]

The problem with the poll is that based on several posts in this thread a lot of people don't understand the diffrence between minimum size not met and trimmed (as long as SGC didn't change their definition since I last submitted with them). That's why if you send a card to SGC or PSA and it's minimum size you get the grading fee back but if you send a trimmed card and they don't grade it you're still charged a fee.

With both SGC and PSA Minimum size always meant the card was factory cut but smaller than their size requirements. I don't remeber ever seeing either company post the actual size on any card sets but it's possible that it's just under SGC requirements but within PSA requirements.

[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.

[GeoPoto]

The part of this discussion that I find most interesting is where many of the posters seem to believe that they can tell whether a card has been trimmed just by looking at it. I assume they are correct, but that doesn't do me any good. The world I live in has me making bid decisions based on the scans of slabbed cards. I have no notion that I can tell whether a card is "factory cut" or not from a scan. As such, my decisions reward cards with larger borders. Just as, all other things equal, better centering is better, bigger borders are better. Bigger borders are better because the probability of trimming is smaller. Smaller borders are bad because the probability of trimming is greater. Probably off topic, but that's my thought.

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

[ullmandds]

oh and how could I forget that it's been also chemically altered!!!!

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

The part of this discussion that I find most interesting is where many of the posters seem to believe that they can tell whether a card has been trimmed just by looking at it. I assume they are correct, but that doesn't do me any good. The world I live in has me making bid decisions based on the scans of slabbed cards. I have no notion that I can tell whether a card is "factory cut" or not from a scan. As such, my decisions reward cards with larger borders. Just as, all other things equal, better centering is better, bigger borders are better. Bigger borders are better because the probability of trimming is smaller. Smaller borders are bad because the probability of trimming is greater. Probably off topic, but that's my thought.

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

I get the logic, but it's not necessarily true. Many trimmers choose large border cards to trim and/or flatten them to make them oversized before trimming. A small card is not more likely to be trimmed.

[GeoPoto]

"A small card is not more likely to be trimmed".

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I can accept that small doesn't prove that a card has been trimmed, but I think the correlation between small and trimmed is very strong. I would much rather have a larger card because I think the chances of trimming are less. Not zero chance, but lesser chance than the chance that a smaller card has been trimmed. For this reason, the "eye appeal" (to my eye) of a card with larger borders is enhanced even if the other considerations (centering, edges, corners) are not as sharp.

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

[GeoPoto]

"why do you think it is TPGs have gained such a death grip on the hobby"?

Because you can buy a card on the Internet from a stranger and trust that it's not fake.

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

[4815162342]

This snippet from a YouTube interview that Leighton Sheldon had with Derek Grady seems relevant to this thread:

https://youtu.be/n0BMlEoeEN8?si=c1gsftN7JGkg6eYy

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

This snippet from a YouTube interview that Leighton Sheldon had with Derek Grady seems relevant to this thread:

https://youtu.be/n0BMlEoeEN8?si=c1gsftN7JGkg6eYy

Well, when we look at a card of that magnitude (pack fresh 52T Mantle), then yes, everything needs to be disclosed. But does HA feel the same way about, let's say, a card worth 100K ??

[samosa4u]

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...light=nagurski

The above thread is also very relevant.

A quick summary: A 1935 National Chicle Nagurski ASA 8 was sent to PSA and rejected for being ALTERED. A member on this forum (investinrookies) then bought it, cracked it out, and got a PSA 5.5. Now, this is a very expensive card. Of course, people were disgusted with PSA afterwards (except for investinrookies!), and before the thread ended up getting 600 angry posts, Leon shut it down.

Anyhow, whenever he decides to sell it, is this something that should be disclosed ??

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Well, when we look at a card of that magnitude (pack fresh 52T Mantle), then yes, everything needs to be disclosed. But does HA feel the same way about, let's say, a card worth 100K ??

The answer should be the same for a $10 million or $100,000 card. Glad to see that HA is another company who would do the right thing.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

The answer should be the same for a $10 million or $100,000 card. Glad to see that HA is another company who would do the right thing.

It's not quite the same thing though with respect to what he was saying about the SGC 9.5 Mantle. He's saying that he can't lie about having graded the card at PSA first and them only giving it a 9 (or a 7) if someone directly asked him. And with a card like that, he knows that numerous buyers would definitely ask, and that word would get out from within PSA that they had graded it too. That's quite different though from opting to disclose prior grades of a card in the description of a listing. I'd wager good money that if Heritage had sent that card to PSA first and some clown there had given it a 7 (or even a 9) that they wouldn't disclose it in the auction itself but rather they'd just answer honestly if a potential buyer were to ask them directly.

Heritage regrades cards all the time. They have graders in house who know what they're looking at. If a high end card gets a bullshit grade, they're going to regrade it. And I've never once seen them disclose that a card listed in their auction was regraded. Come to think of it, I've never once seen any card listed at any auction house that mentioned a card used to be in a lower graded holder.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Heritage regrades cards all the time. They have graders in house who know what they're looking at. If a high end card gets a bullshit grade, they're going to regrade it. And I've never once seen them disclose that a card listed in their auction was regraded. Come to think of it, I've never once seen any card listed at any auction house that mentioned a card used to be in a lower graded holder.

Yeah, I would love to see anyone find a single example of an auction house disclosing a regrade. That would obviously drive away their consigners. It just doesn't happen.

[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?

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

[Lorewalker]

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?

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

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.

[GeoPoto]

Lorewalker: Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it.

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

[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".

[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.