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

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

Nor do they disclose the countless cards they accept from known card doctors.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nor do they disclose the countless cards they accept from known card doctors.

Nor do they focus on the flaws, even for unmodified cards.

Instead the marketing is focused on: "pack fresh", "looks nicer than the grade", "creamy white borders", "shiny gloss", "razor sharp corners", etc.

And that's the way it should be. Whether we as buyers pay attention to the puffery or not is entirely up to us. But representing the seller, they're going to do their level best to whip up interest from bidders.

Or as Leon likes to say: caveat emptor.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by raulus

Or as Leon likes to say: caveat emptor.

It's not just Leon.

And PT Barnum said things too, but he forgot his password so he can't post.

People who buy f'd up cards based on a puffy auction descriptions or a slabbed opinion, get exactly what they deserve.

I have no sympathy for any of them, it actually kind of makes me chuckle.

Doug

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

Nor do they focus on the flaws, even for unmodified cards.

Instead the marketing is focused on: "pack fresh", "looks nicer than the grade", "creamy white borders", "shiny gloss", "razor sharp corners", etc.

And that's the way it should be. Whether we as buyers pay attention to the puffery or not is entirely up to us. But representing the seller, they're going to do their level best to whip up interest from bidders.

Or as Leon likes to say: caveat emptor.

Caveat emptor ain't the law though. The law says you can't conceal known material facts. Caveat emptor feels like yet another variation of the endless efforts people make to excuse fraud.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by raulus

Nor do they focus on the flaws, even for unmodified cards.

Instead the marketing is focused on: "pack fresh", "looks nicer than the grade", "creamy white borders", "shiny gloss", "razor sharp corners", etc.

And that's the way it should be...

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.