WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?

[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.

[oldjudge]

So let me get this straight—Goldin ran the A card and is now running the numerically graded card but is not now disclosing that SGC would not give it a numerical grade. Am I missing anything? If this is true, I believe this is wrong. I believe this should be disclosed in the lot description and all people who have bid already should have the right to rescind their bids.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

So let me get this straight—Goldin ran the A card and is now running the numerically graded card but is not now disclosing that SGC would not give it a numerical grade. Am I missing anything? If this is true, I believe this is wrong. I believe this should be disclosed in the lot description and all people who have bid already should have the right to rescind their bids.

One card is in a SGC slab and one(maybe the same) card is in a PSA slab. How would Goldin or any other AH know they are the same card.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

if it's changed hands and was sent by a consignor who wasn't the buyer last time, I could understand how it never crossed anyone's mind to even check. When you're dealing with the volume of cards that a company like Goldin is and have a number of people writing descriptions it could simply slip through pretty easily.

I am no Goldin apologist, and philosophically I agree with you, but I understand how something like this could easily be missed.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's a bit of an odd write up otherwise, with so much discussion of the Zeenut DiMaggio.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a bit of an odd write up otherwise, with so much discussion of the Zeenut DiMaggio.

I did not read the full description on either listing but the person who did the one for the SGC card, honestly, should be fired. Fully demonstrated no understanding of basic TP grading, which is hard to comprehend at this level.