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

[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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Again, you are not proving the market believes minsize is material. You are proving having a number grade is extremely important.

The fact is, the opinion of SGC and PSA are NOT wildly different on this card. They likely are very close on condition. One just chose not to give an opinion on the card's condition.

No matter how you slice it, minsize is not an opinion on the condition of the card, the authenticity of the card, nor whether the card has been altered. So SGC gave no relevant opinion on the card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Again, you are not proving the market believes minsize is material. You are proving having a number grade is extremely important.

The fact is, the opinion of SGC and PSA are NOT wildly different on this card. They likely are very close on condition. One just chose not to give an opinion on the card's condition.

No matter how you slice it, minsize is not an opinion on the condition of the card, the authenticity of the card, nor whether the card has been altered. So SGC gave no relevant opinion on the card.

But it comes to the same thing. If having a number grade is material, so too is NOT having one, in the other direction. MINSIZE is materially different from 6.5. Here, MINSiZEs sold for 17 and 21K, and 6.5 will sell for 150K or more. This is not complicated. The case for disclosure is very simple.

[doug.goodman]

Buy the card not the opinion.

And if you do want an opinion get Dmitri Young to submit your cards.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

As someone who often bids on these cards, I can tell you that they do typically sell for more than cards in authentic/altered holders. Sometimes they'll even sell for the price of a 4 or 5 because I'll be in a bidding war against someone else who knows what I know. Although that's rare. But it's quite common to have to pay the price of a 3 for them. Savvy bidders know that they're not altered, and if you are confident that it is full size and the graders got it wrong, they can do well at auction.

[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]

Cards like this have most of their value dependent on the appeal to authority, not the cardboard itself. The top 2 authorities were consulted and gave widely different opinions. It is honest to take 2 seconds to note that. If people don't care, then the price won't change and there's no issue. Honesty was once considered the proper course of action to take. Most hobbies at least pretend that it still is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Cards like this have most of their value dependent on the appeal to authority, not the cardboard itself. The top 2 authorities were consulted and gave widely different opinions. It is honest to take 2 seconds to note that. If people don't care, then the price won't change and there's no issue. Honesty was once considered the proper course of action to take. Most hobbies at least pretend that it still is.

You wonder if all the people going to such lengths to justify nondisclosure, if they were selling the card to a friend and knew the grading history, would conceal it from them? Maybe they would.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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"?

Please don't turn this into a political discussion, but did you not just live through the same pandemic the rest of us did?

Regardless, you seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that these graders are experts. They're just not. 90% of them know less about the cards they're grading than nearly everyone here on this board.

Try this on for size... There are a significant number of people in this hobby who highly value my opinion on what a card should grade and whether or not it has been altered (I know, shocking). I get consulted almost daily about whether or not someone should buy cards X, Y, and Z. My opinion affects whether or not these people bid on those cards. If you were to auction a card off at Goldin and I mentioned that I was confident the card was trimmed and thus not deserving of the PSA 8 grade it received, would you/Goldin then have an obligation to disclose my opinion? No? What if Mike Baker chimed in and agreed with me? Do they have an obligation then?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Please don't turn this into a political discussion, but did you not just live through the same pandemic the rest of us did?

Regardless, you seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that these graders are experts. They're just not. 90% of them know less about the cards they're grading than nearly everyone here on this board.

Try this on for size... There are a significant number of people in this hobby who highly value my opinion on what a card should grade and whether or not it has been altered (I know, shocking). I get consulted almost daily about whether or not someone should buy cards X, Y, and Z. My opinion affects whether or not these people bid on those cards. If you were to auction a card off at Goldin and I mentioned that I was confident the card was trimmed and thus not deserving of the PSA 8 grade it received, would you/Goldin then have an obligation to disclose my opinion? No? What if Mike Baker chimed in and agreed with me? Do they have an obligation then?

I don't think there would be an obligation to disclose individuals' informal opinions on cards under any circumstances, no. But it's a good hypothetical.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Try this on for size... There are a significant number of people in this hobby who highly value my opinion on what a card should grade and whether or not it has been altered (I know, shocking). I get consulted almost daily about whether or not someone should buy cards X, Y, and Z. My opinion affects whether or not these people bid on those cards. If you were to auction a card off at Goldin and I mentioned that I was confident the card was trimmed and thus not deserving of the PSA 8 grade it received, would you/Goldin then have an obligation to disclose my opinion? No? What if Mike Baker chimed in and agreed with me? Do they have an obligation then?

Time to fire up that sticker enterprise that you've been talking about!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

We all know why