WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?

oldjudge · #1 01-26-2025, 03:59 PM

I'm pretty sure that Joe T did the second description. I wonder who did the first and if it wasn't Joe then why not? I doubt that anyone at Goldin knows anywhere near as much about vintage cards as Joe.
As to disclosure of the A, if I won the card in the current auction and found out after the fact that it had previously been in an A holder, that Goldin knew this before the auction ended and still failed to disclose this, I am beyond pissed. That would be a great way to potentially lose a deep pocketed bidder. Is there a law that Goldin has to do this--no. The hobby is the Wild West. However, should they disclose this information --I think the clear answer is yes.

Lorewalker · #2 01-26-2025, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I'm pretty sure that Joe T did the second description. I wonder who did the first and if it wasn't Joe then why not? I doubt that anyone at Goldin knows anywhere near as much about vintage cards as Joe.
As to disclosure of the A, if I won the card in the current auction and found out after the fact that it had previously been in an A holder, that Goldin knew this before the auction ended and still failed to disclose this, I am beyond pissed. That would be a great way to potentially lose a deep pocketed bidder. Is there a law that Goldin has to do this--no. The hobby is the Wild West. However, should they disclose this information --I think the clear answer is yes.

If Joe T, who is apparently admired here by everyone, did the PSA 6.5 write up then he had to have done the SGC Min Size write up. He has been there for more than 6 months. If he called this card trimmed based on SGC assessment, not sure he is the guy I would go to for advice in the realm of grading. You are less forgiving than I would be but if he also missed that he took in the SGC version of this card 3 months earlier, you might want to reconsider relying on him.

As rare as this card might be I don't think someone dropped the ball not connecting the two cards to one another and I just do not see this as a failure to disclose based on the info we have... which is next to nothing.

What if PSA is entirely right and this card is EXMT+ and it meets the size requirement and SGC was entirely wrong? Is disclosure needed? The only difference in opinion the two companies have is that one says it did not meet their size requirement and the other, who has another set of standards for size, says it does meet the requirements?

oldjudge · #3 01-26-2025, 04:29 PM

What if SGC was right? Provide the info to potential buyers and let them decide.

Lorewalker · #4 01-26-2025, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

What if SGC was right? Provide the info to potential buyers and let them decide.

Ask Joe why he didn't. Why you are at is ask him why he suggested the card might be trimmed in his description on the SGC example.

I do not think Goldin dropped the ball not disclosing. Both companies see the card as legit. One felt it was too small, the other did not. At that point any interested buyer could just use their eyes...and they should.

bigfanNY · #5 01-27-2025, 01:20 PM

To drop my 2 cents in I favor transparency. And Given card is over 100k with juice now. If I was a bidder I would want to know. 2 TPG's ( both owned by same company) disagreed so significantly. Because down the road it could come up when up for sale next time. If this was a case of one TPG or same TPG saying 5 vs 6.5 that's one thing, but A vs 6.5...I would tell and I would want to know

Peter_Spaeth · #6 01-27-2025, 01:30 PM

That it would be important to at least some people is the very reason things like this don't get disclosed, despite all the justifications people offer.

Lorewalker · #7 01-27-2025, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That it would be important to at least some people is the very reason things like this don't get disclosed, despite all the justifications people offer.

Things like this do not get disclosed because in this case it seems they were not aware there was anything to disclose. They inaccurately disclosed in the first sale that the Min Size assessment might have suggested the card was trimmed. Nobody here seems to have an issue with that because it favored bidders. The house did not see the same card coming through again in another company's graded holder, who has different grading standards, and now they want disclosure. Convenient.

I know literally dozens of collectors and dealers who will submit the same card over and over until they feel it gets graded accurately. I get the desire to do this but what a gimmick when you reward someone for doing a bad job.

I am sure I have many of those cards in my collection and I cannot say I care. When I look at the cards in my collection and to my eye they do not appear to be altered and they appear to be graded right, not sure I care if a grading company got it wrong 3 times before one got it right.

Lucas00 · #8 01-27-2025, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That it would be important to at least some people is the very reason things like this don't get disclosed, despite all the justifications people offer.

Exactly. Say a border was a bit yellowed, and somebody cleans it to pearl white with kurts. I would absolutely want that to be known. And I wouldn't buy it because of that.

Snowman · #9 01-27-2025, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Exactly. Say a border was a bit yellowed, and somebody cleans it to pearl white with kurts. I would absolutely want that to be known. And I wouldn't buy it because of that.

Fortunately for you, the number of cards that had yellowed borders turned pearl white with Kurt's Card Spray is zero.

Lucas00 · #10 01-27-2025, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Fortunately for you, the number of cards that had yellowed borders turned pearl white with Kurt's Card Spray is zero.

Numerous examples, here's one I found in about 2 minutes. Yellow to white, pretty severe change. No harsh chemicals at all luckily. Kurt is using all natural ingredients and 100% studied mixtures on card stock. You are hilarious.

https://youtu.be/6WGmI2uY9Mg

Snowman · #11 01-27-2025, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That it would be important to at least some people is the very reason things like this don't get disclosed, despite all the justifications people offer.

The problem is a lack of education or experience in the hobby with people grading cards. This idea that the number on a slab should be treated as gospel is just flat out ignorant, and could only be held by someone who doesn't submit cards for grading themselves. Anyone who has ever submitted the same card more than once would know that the graders are clueless.

How clueless are they? Here's a fun statistic for you from my grading results database. If you were to take 100 recently graded vintage cards and crack them out and resubmit them, then crack them out and resubmit again, so each card being graded a total of 3 times, you would only have 5 of those 100 cards receive the same grade all 3 times. And if you were to do this experiment with 100 older cert vintage cards, you would have ZERO having received the same grade all 3 times. Yes, zero.

The number of times I've submitted the same card 3 times and gotten 3 different grades is wild. Nobody has an obligation to disclose what some random grader assigned a card in its previous holder because it's completely irrelevant. The seller isn't selling Billy Bob's opinion of the card, he's selling Mikey's opinion. And it's not his job to educate you on the fact that Billy Bob, Mikey, Tayshaun, and Lydia all disagree on how a card should be graded.

If you don't want cards in your collection that were cracked out and regraded, then have fun wasting your life digging through prior sales trying to find cards in their previous holders. Because nobody owes you a disclosure and you're never going to get one.

Peter_Spaeth · #12 01-27-2025, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

The problem is a lack of education or experience in the hobby with people grading cards. This idea that the number on a slab should be treated as gospel is just flat out ignorant, and could only be held by someone who doesn't submit cards for grading themselves. Anyone who has ever submitted the same card more than once would know that the graders are clueless.

How clueless are they? Here's a fun statistic for you from my grading results database. If you were to take 100 recently graded vintage cards and crack them out and resubmit them, then crack them out and resubmit again, so each card being graded a total of 3 times, you would only have 5 of those 100 cards receive the same grade all 3 times. And if you were to do this experiment with 100 older cert vintage cards, you would have ZERO having received the same grade all 3 times. Yes, zero.

The number of times I've submitted the same card 3 times and gotten 3 different grades is wild. Nobody has an obligation to disclose what some random grader assigned a card in its previous holder because it's completely irrelevant. The seller isn't selling Billy Bob's opinion of the card, he's selling Mikey's opinion. And it's not his job to educate you on the fact that Billy Bob, Mikey, Tayshaun, and Lydia all disagree on how a card should be graded.

If you don't want cards in your collection that were cracked out and regraded, then have fun wasting your life digging through prior sales trying to find cards in their previous holders. Because nobody owes you a disclosure and you're never going to get one.

Not the point. Of course grading is all over the place but that's a straw man. We are talking about a very specific case here. Not just a different grade, but the difference between a strong grade that will command well into 6 figures and an assessment that the card was not worthy of a number grade at all.
If a seller KNOWS that a 6 figure card was previously adjudged to be unworthy of a number grade at all, and indeed the seller sold that very card, to me that's material. What's the reason NOT to disclose it, other than it will hold down price? And if it would hold down price, QED.

As to your assertion that it's "completely irrelevant," many people here have said that to them, it isn't. So there. Your circular argument (no need to disclose because there's nothing to disclose) may work for you but not for me. Again, name a legitimate reason for GA not to disclose other than to avoid a price effect.

Snowman · #13 01-27-2025, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not the point. Of course grading is all over the place but that's a straw man. We are talking about a very specific case here. Not just a different grade, but the difference between a strong grade that will command well into 6 figures and an assessment that the card was not worthy of a number grade at all.
If a seller KNOWS that a 6 figure card was previously adjudged to be unworthy of a number grade at all, and indeed the seller sold that very card, to me that's material. What's the reason NOT to disclose it, other than it will hold down price? And if it would hold down price, QED.

As to your assertion that it's "completely irrelevant," many people here have said that to them, it isn't. So there. Your circular argument (no need to disclose because there's nothing to disclose) may work for you but not for me. Again, name a legitimate reason for GA not to disclose other than to avoid a price effect.

LOL. You're hilarious. In one breath you admit that the grading companies' assessments are unreliable and all over the place, yet in the next breath you want to pretend that they're meaningful. You can't have it both ways.

Also, LMAO at the usage of "adjudged" in this case. That's pretty funny in the context of the grade on a slab.

The only person getting screwed in this scenario is the guy who sent the card to SGC and sold it in that AUTHENTIC holder before getting a second opinion.

Snowman · #14 01-27-2025, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not the point. Of course grading is all over the place but that's a straw man. We are talking about a very specific case here. Not just a different grade, but the difference between a strong grade that will command well into 6 figures and an assessment that the card was not worthy of a number grade at all.

It's not a straw man argument, Peter. You are making a claim that carries with it an implication. When you say that a seller has an obligation to disclose a prior assessment of a card, then that implies that prior assessments are reliable, meaningful, and objective.

If you're having car problems and you ask your drunken neighbor with dimensia to take a look at it for you, and he tells you it's the water pump today, then tomorrow you repeat the experiment and he tells you it's the oxygen sensor, then on Wed he looks at it again and says it's the timing belt, then on Thursday he says it's a leaking head gasket, and on Friday he says it's your car's rotator cuff, you might begin to wonder if he actually knows anything about cars at all to begin with. But if you don't, and you still trust that he's an expert, just be sure to take a video of yourself disclosing to the buyer that you have reason to believe your car has a torn rotator cuff when you go to sell it because you had an expert look at it for you. Then post the video here, because I'd like to see it.

ValKehl · #15 01-26-2025, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

As to disclosure of the A, if I won the card in the current auction and found out after the fact that it had previously been in an A holder, that Goldin knew this before the auction ended and still failed to disclose this, I am beyond pissed. That would be a great way to potentially lose a deep pocketed bidder. Is there a law that Goldin has to do this--no. The hobby is the Wild West. However, should they disclose this information --I think the clear answer is yes.

+1

CardPadre · #16 01-26-2025, 09:55 PM

Would anyone agree that if SGC graded that card 10 times (with a fresh look each time, not knowing they had graded it before) you would probably come out with trimmed, min size, VG-3, VG-EX-4, and EX-5 included in those results?

Everyone knows and complains that there is no consistency or reliability in grading and that's why previous grades are not relevant (in my opinion) in selling a graded card.

And "min size" is the most irrelevant assessment since no TPG specifies what constitutes "significantly undersized" and they all are known to have numerically graded a card they had previously min sized. It's so ludicrous, that it just can't be considered relevant.

Snowman · #17 01-26-2025, 11:01 PM

You guys are hilarious.

For the record, "Minimum Size Not Met" means the card DOES NOT bear evidence of trimming. If it did, they would put "Evidence of Trimming" on the label.

I have a NM+ card that I've submitted 5 times and it has gotten 5 different grades: 6.5, 4.5, Authentic, 6, 5. What a card was graded previously is completely irrelevant. Graders get it wrong far too often for that to matter. The idea that a card's previous holder/opinion should be forever attached to it is pretty hilarious. Good luck with that.

Zero chance Goldin takes this down and zero chance PSA decertifies it.

Maybe instead of spending all that energy into crying about someone else profiting from a card you should learn how to grade yourself and then spend that time finding cards that have been assaulted by some new inexperienced grader that had no clue what he was doing when he graded it.

Lorewalker · #18 01-26-2025, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Would anyone agree that if SGC graded that card 10 times (with a fresh look each time, not knowing they had graded it before) you would probably come out with trimmed, min size, VG-3, VG-EX-4, and EX-5 included in those results?

Old Judge would expect disclosure on all those results too. Imagine auction write ups if that ever happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardPadre

Everyone knows and complains that there is no consistency or reliability in grading and that's why previous grades are not relevant (in my opinion) in selling a graded card.

I agree to a certain point. Certainly in the case of this card the previous grade by SGC is not remotely relevant. If I consigned the card in the SGC holder I would be more than upset...with myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardPadre

And "min size" is the most irrelevant assessment since no TPG specifies what constitutes "significantly undersized" and they all are known to have numerically graded a card they had previously min sized. It's so ludicrous, that it just can't be considered relevant.

This is 100% correct. And it is a moving target at both PSA and SGC. I would not call 1/32 of an inch significantly undersized for a baseball card until we get to possibly cards the size of T206s.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SGC DiMaggios	samosa4u	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	11-12-2020 12:52 PM
10 DiMaggios	theshleps	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	14	06-05-2019 06:27 PM
3 DiMaggios Postcard	Ben Yourg	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	07-16-2018 08:02 PM
WTB: Pre-War Joe DiMaggios...	davetruth	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	3	05-28-2014 07:51 PM
Some more Joe DiMaggios...opinions needed!	Big Six	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	6	07-03-2013 09:20 AM