WWG DiMaggios -- are these the same card?

[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.

[Lorewalker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

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

That card went from being dirty with beige/toned borders to clean with still beige/toned borders. There is nothing in Kurt's Card Spray that will bleach out or whiten cards. Nice try.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Snowman

That card went from being dirty with beige/toned borders to clean with still beige/toned borders. There is nothing in Kurt's Card Spray that will bleach out or whiten cards. Nice try.

Nice Dodge. Knew this would get another made up excuse. Surprised you even replied, usually when you're wrong you just ignore and keep the troll posts going.

[Snowman]

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]

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]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

I don't think it's inconsistent. MIN SIZE is supposed to be an objective determination. So that distinguishes it from just an opinion on whether it's a 4, or a 5. Knowing the prior grade, in this specific case, would raise some questions about the PSA grade beyond the usual ones.

And we'll see where the poll I posted comes out, though I would guess at least a significant minority will be in favor of disclosure.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think it's inconsistent. MIN SIZE is supposed to be an objective determination. So that distinguishes it from just an opinion on whether it's a 4, or a 5. Knowing the prior grade, in this specific case, would raise some questions about the PSA grade beyond the usual ones.

And we'll see where the poll I posted comes out, though I would guess at least a significant minority will be in favor of disclosure.

That is the rub. Min Size is not assessed objectively AND each co has their own threshold they use when they are assigning that assessment.

I have 30 cards sitting here that were rejected for Min Size. Each of them measures exactly to factory specifications or is 1/128th short. None are trimmed.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

That is the rub. Min Size is not assessed objectively AND each co has their own threshold they use when they are assigning that assessment.

I have 30 cards sitting here that were rejected for Min Size. Each of them measures exactly to factory specifications or is 1/128th short. None are trimmed.

Yep. I have had the exact same experience. I can't tell you how many times I've had a card rejected as "min size" which was previously graded and/or graded numerically upon resubmission. Probably at least 100 times if I were to guess. The level of incompetency in grading is difficult to exaggerate. The meme about them throwing darts at a grading dart board isn't far off.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think it's inconsistent. MIN SIZE is supposed to be an objective determination. So that distinguishes it from just an opinion on whether it's a 4, or a 5. Knowing the prior grade, in this specific case, would raise some questions about the PSA grade beyond the usual ones.

Here again lies the problem. The same problem I mentioned above, which is that your ignorance about the grading process is on display again. You can think whatever you like about card sizing being objective, but as anyone who owns a ruler that submits cards for grading can tell you, it is still very much subjective. I even got one sent back to me recently as "min size" which measures 1/16" LARGE. A card which had been graded twice before. Rulers may be objective, but someone's ability to use one correctly is not.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And we'll see where the poll I posted comes out, though I would guess at least a significant minority will be in favor of disclosure.

I haven't seen your poll, but as someone whose job it is to analyze the validity of such things, I can assure you its results are meaningless in its intended purpose.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I haven't seen your poll, but as someone whose job it is to analyze the validity of such things, I can assure you its results are meaningless in its intended purpose.

Is your ego seriously this large? Impressive.

[Snowman]

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.