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

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

This has happened so many times it's just a difference of paid opinions. I vote no..so many times the grading companies get it wrong. I can't vote yes on this one sorry.

This times 1000. Anyone who voted 'Yes' obviously doesn't grade cards with any sort of regularity. Would be hilarious to see a crosstab of voter results by card grading status.

[Snowman]

Some of you guys aren't thinking this through.

Take a card and a ruler and hand them to your 19-year-old son or daughter. Ask them to measure it within 1/64" and to write down what they get. Then take that same card and ruler and hand them to 5 of their friends and ask them to do the same. If even two of them come back to you with the exact same measurements in both directions to 1/64", you'd be lucky.

Next, take a card that is just slightly bent (not warped, but just bent ever so slightly like half of your collections probably are) and then scan it raw on a flatbed scanner. Then measure the card with a ruler and compare the dimensions. You'll discover that the dimensions you get from the scanned card are smaller than the card itself because it wasn't flat when it got scanned. And smaller by enough to matter too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

And yet, even if it should not care given all that has been pointed out about the MIN SIZE designation, the market DOES care -- as evidenced by the disparity between the two auction prices. Sure, the GA description knocked down the price even more perhaps, but there is no way in hell a card designated MIN SIZE is going to sell for anything close to a PSA 6.5. So even if it's due to the market's own stupidity, it is clearly material IMO. People think it's meaningful. Disclose it -- it would take one sentence -- and let the market judge. Why are we working so hard to justify non-disclosure?

Poll is dead even, btw. Yes, Travis, I know, it doesn't mean anything.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And yet, even if it should not care given all that has been pointed out about the MIN SIZE designation, the market DOES care -- as evidenced by the disparity between the two auction prices. Sure, the GA description knocked down the price even more perhaps, but there is no way in hell a card designated MIN SIZE is going to sell for anything close to a PSA 6.5. So even if it's due to the market's own stupidity, it is clearly material IMO. People think it's meaningful. Disclose it -- it would take one sentence -- and let the market judge. Why are we working so hard to justify non-disclosure?

Poll is dead even, btw. Yes, Travis, I know, it doesn't mean anything.

Don't you think the lower value is at least significantly based on the fact that a MIN SIZE slab doesn't designate a grade? The value of vintage cards is heavily dependent on the grade. It's the main reason why a PSA 5 will sell for more than a similarly conditioned raw card. So a card in a MIN SIZE slab won't get the premium that a graded card will.

I do agree that there is at least a part of the equation that people value MIN SIZE cards less out of ignorance of what it means. But I don't agree that we should consider something material just because someone mistakes that fact for a material fact.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Don't you think the lower value is at least significantly based on the fact that a MIN SIZE slab doesn't designate a grade? The value of vintage cards is heavily dependent on the grade. It's the main reason why a PSA 5 will sell for more than a similarly conditioned raw card. So a card in a MIN SIZE slab won't get the premium that a graded card will.

I do agree that there is at least a part of the equation that people value MIN SIZE cards less out of ignorance of what it means. But I don't agree that we should consider something material just because someone mistakes that fact for a material fact.

But how else can you define materiality other than by what buyers consider important? I mean sure, maybe they shouldn't, but if they do, they do.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But how else can you define materiality other than by what buyers consider important? I mean sure, maybe they shouldn't, but if they do, they do.

You are making assumptions about what they find important based solely on sales of two items. Is it not possible that the reason buyers pay more for graded cards over MIN SIZE is because they find grades to be material, and they find non-altered cards to be material? If a card is graded MIN SIZE, neither of those material facts are present. The fact that the buyer misunderstands what MIN SIZE means doesn't make the size of the card the fact that is material to the buyer. It is the alteration that is material. And if there is no alteration, what difference does it make? Since the card is currently in a PSA slab with a number grade, the buyer is assured (theoretically) that the card is both unaltered, and in the condition on the slab. Which satisfies both of the material facts.

This is EXACTLY like SGC grading a card a 5 and cracking it and PSA saying it's a 7. If you don't believe you have to disclose the SGC grade, then you shouldn't believe you have to disclose the MIN SIZE grade. Both are nothing more than opinions of two different companies. Neither is saying the card is altered. By your logic, people pay less for an SGC 5 than a PSA 7. Therefore, the fact that the card was once determined by SGC to be a 5 is material. Right?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

You are making assumptions about what they find important based solely on sales of two items. Is it not possible that the reason buyers pay more for graded cards over MIN SIZE is because they find grades to be material, and they find non-altered cards to be material? If a card is graded MIN SIZE, neither of those material facts are present. The fact that the buyer misunderstands what MIN SIZE means doesn't make the size of the card the fact that is material to the buyer. It is the alteration that is material. And if there is no alteration, what difference does it make? Since the card is currently in a PSA slab with a number grade, the buyer is assured (theoretically) that the card is both unaltered, and in the condition on the slab. Which satisfies both of the material facts.

This is EXACTLY like SGC grading a card a 5 and cracking it and PSA saying it's a 7. If you don't believe you have to disclose the SGC grade, then you shouldn't believe you have to disclose the MIN SIZE grade. Both are nothing more than opinions of two different companies. Neither is saying the card is altered.

I am SURE that if we tracked the sales of all MINSIZE cards, the data would show that the market significantly devalues them. And my analysis does not really care if that's right, or wrong, or based on misunderstandings, or stupid, or anything else. I don't disagree with what you are saying about what MINSIZE should be taken to mean, or that it probably should be abolished altogether. But the market believes what it believes, and therefore -- especially on a hugely important and pricey card -- the prior grade should have been disclosed.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But how else can you define materiality other than by what buyers consider important? I mean sure, maybe they shouldn't, but if they do, they do.

The problem is that you're conflating opinion with fact. You might think that the previous grader's opinion is material, but at the end of the day it is still just an opinion. It is not a fact about the card itself. A material fact has to be a fact to begin with. And you can't spin it to say it's a material fact that someone had an opinion lol.

You have to get over this idea that whatever is written on a slab is some sort of factual statement about a card. It's just not. It's just one person's opinion on a particular day.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The problem is that you're conflating opinion with fact. You might think that the previous grader's opinion is material, but at the end of the day it is still just an opinion. It is not a fact about the card itself. A material fact has to be a fact to begin with. And you can't spin it to say it's a material fact that someone had an opinion lol.

You have to get over this idea that whatever is written on a slab is some sort of factual statement about a card. It's just not. It's just one person's opinion on a particular day.

Why can't an opinion be material? I am selling a revolutionary new cancer treatment, claiming that it is safe. But I conceal that expert A -- let's make him the most prominent expert in the world -- told me clearly that in his opinion the treatment was highly unsafe. No fraud because it's not a "fact"?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why are we working so hard to justify non-disclosure?

We all know why