WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?

[Rhotchkiss]

Peter, I think that’s up to the AH and I don’t think either is wrong (or right). In my opinion, it’s not the AH’s job to disclose that competing companies had different opinions. What Al did with Jay’s helmet is admirable, but I don’t feel required.

I have no interest in going back and forth. I have said my peace and we will just disagree on this one.

On a personal note, I once had a t227 Cobb that sat in a PSA 3 (or something) flip. BODA posted that it used to be in an SGC A flip but stated they saw no evidence of alteration. When I consigned it a few years later, I did mention to the AH that according to BODA it was once in an SGC A flip and the AH did not mention that on that listing; they described the lot as a PSA 3, which is what it was. I feel very fine about that. So so many cards used to have different grades or designations in other TPG flips (or same TPG flips).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Peter, I think that’s up to the AH and I don’t think either is wrong (or right). In my opinion, it’s not the AH’s job to disclose that competing companies had different opinions. What Al did with Jay’s helmet is admirable, but I don’t feel required.

I have no interest in going back and forth. I have said my peace and we will just disagree on this one.

On a personal note, I once had a t227 Cobb that sat in a PSA 3 (or something) flip. BODA posted that it used to be in an SGC A flip but stated they saw no evidence of alteration. When I consigned it a few years later, I did mention to the AH that according to BODA it was once in an SGC A flip and the AH did not mention that on that listing; they described the lot as a PSA 3, which is what it was. I feel very fine about that. So so many cards used to have different grades or designations in other TPG flips (or same TPG flips).

Ryan, respect your opinion, just disagree at least on these facts. Obviously a question which people can assess differently.

[oldjudge]

If I were thinking of bidding on a potential 6 figure card I would certainly want to know if a major grading service, one that many people believe is the most accurate grading service, thought it was undeserving of a numerical grade. I believe that GA didn't know about the card's history when they wrote it up. However, they do now and I continue to believe that they need to disclose this. Like Ryan did, I think the onus was on the consignor of this card to disclose it's history

[tjisonline]

Well said Ryan. Who is to say SGC got it right?

So many cards have been regraded since 3rd party card grading companies were created plus nothing suggests this ‘36 WWG Joe D card has ever been altered. Ever since SGC was acquired by PSA, their min size not met requirements is as inconsistent as PSA’s. I wonder if SGC is using that Collector’s purchased software company’s tech for sizing during the grading process.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Peter, I think that’s up to the AH and I don’t think either is wrong (or right). In my opinion, it’s not the AH’s job to disclose that competing companies had different opinions. What Al did with Jay’s helmet is admirable, but I don’t feel required.

I have no interest in going back and forth. I have said my peace and we will just disagree on this one.

On a personal note, I once had a t227 Cobb that sat in a PSA 3 (or something) flip. BODA posted that it used to be in an SGC A flip but stated they saw no evidence of alteration. When I consigned it a few years later, I did mention to the AH that according to BODA it was once in an SGC A flip and the AH did not mention that on that listing; they described the lot as a PSA 3, which is what it was. I feel very fine about that. So so many cards used to have different grades or designations in other TPG flips (or same TPG flips).

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tjisonline

Well said Ryan. Who is to say SGC got it right?

So many cards have been regraded since 3rd party card grading companies were created plus nothing suggests this ‘36 WWG Joe D card has ever been altered. Ever since SGC was acquired by PSA, their min size not met requirements is as inconsistent as PSA’s. I wonder if SGC is using that Collector’s purchased software company’s tech for sizing during the grading process.

I agree. If we play the slab game, if it's in one that's all that matters. And i have several instances of SGC not knowing what they were doing. Today's 8 is tomorrow's AUT.
And, I also don't think saying it was rejected is necessary. Sgc probably got it wrong.

[Vintagedeputy]

There’s no question that the cards are the same card. I have never known the “minimum size not met” to mean that the card was trimmed. It simply means that the card was cut (from the factory) shorter than what it should be. I think PSA got this horribly wrong.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Leon

I agree. If we play the slab game, if it's in one that's all that matters. And i have several instances of SGC not knowing what they were doing. Today's 8 is tomorrow's AUT.
And, I also don't think saying it was rejected is necessary. Sgc probably got it wrong.

None of us know which grading service got it wrong. My point is that if I was throwing down six figures for a card I would want to know what its history was, especially if a major grading company gave it an A. If you are saying that you wouldn’t care then I think you are in the minority.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If SGC got it wrong, the owner, or Goldin, had a HUGE incentive to get another opinion before auctioning it the first time. Just measure the card.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If SGC got it wrong, the owner, or Goldin, had a HUGE incentive to get another opinion before auctioning it the first time. Just measure the card.

Measuring the card only tells you the size. It will not tell you if the card is trimmed. Plenty of full sized cards that are trimmed and many small cards that are not.

If the card had been in a Auth Trimmed or Auth Altered SGC holder and then PSA graded it a 6.5, we would have something to discuss. There is nothing here to disclose or to discuss.

SGC saw the card as being 100% authentic and not altered but too small to give a numeric grade. PSA saw the size of the card to be acceptable and assigned a grade. If the card is smaller than 1/32 of an inch PSA should not have assigned a grade to it.

The description writer should be fired for suggesting the card was trimmed, thereby hurting the sale price for the consignor. The buyer hit is out the park.

Based on the scan I think both companies got it wrong because the scan gives the appearance of a trimmed card but I cannot see the edges.

[Peter_Spaeth]

My point is simply the owner or Goldin could have measured the card to make a judgment if SGC had the min size right or not, given the huge upside if there was a reasonable chance it could regrade with a number grade. And if they concluded it was within spec, send it in again, don't sell it for a fraction of value. Not commenting on trimmed or not.