[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bounce

Couple questions/issues I think are at the heart of this.

1) I think it's pretty well established that PWCC was at least in some way involved with the purchase of the card from REA, which was prior to any "changes". They were then involved with the subsequent sale of the card after those "changes", so I think it logically follows that they knew the "changes" had been made. I don't think it really matters whether they were "owners" or "brokers" from the standpoint of responsibility for the changes, they had knowledge of it.

They were then involved a 2nd time in the sale of the "changed" card, and it seems pretty clear that in neither instance did they disclose or point out that "changes" had been made. I'm not trying to make a sweeping all encompassing judgment of disclosure requirements here, but I think we can all agree in this specific example the "changes" are pretty "significant" and would be considered "material" information to many collectors.

I think a lot of people view that lack of disclosure as at least mildly dishonest, or maybe a better phrase is misleading through ommission? In either description, there's absolutely a question of "intention" is there not?


2) I don't view "string bids" (whether you take the lead or not) made at what is well less than the expected ending price of an auction to be shilling, but I also recognize that may not necessarily be the majority view - however I do think that distinction is pretty relevant to forming an opinion around the text message asking Courtney to "take the lead".

I think I tend to agree that the overall context of the text discussion is relatively harmless, except for the part where it goes to being "outbid". This is where views on string bids separate opinions. PWCC seems to "know" that the bids will go higher, and if so then why would the string bid matter whether taking the lead or not? I know folks will say it "looks bad" and PWCC even implies that understanding in the texts, but again these sorts of bids at well less than final sale price ultimately are irrelevant to the final sale price. Sure it bumps "activity", but it doesn't ultimately affect the price.

However, I acknowledge that if you fall in the camp that string bids are really a form of shilling, then the "you will get outbid" statement becomes at least somewhat concerning doesn't it?


3) I've thought a lot about what the correct designation for this card is, and I'm not able to come to a conclusion that a PSA 7 is in any way accurate. My logic is as follows. At some point, the original card "toned" except in areas on the right side that almost look like it was "clipped" or "taped", whatever prevented those areas for also toning. Somehow, the card was returned closer to it's original presentation. So from that standpoint, I don't think "altered" is the right assessment, because the toned card wasn't really in its original condition. However, removing of the toning (whether water or chemical) ultimately "restored" the card closer to the original condition and to me that is the accurate grading of the card - it's been RESTORED.

I should add that I don't believe it's always possible to know a card has been "restored", and for now I think we're giving the grader the benefit of the doubt. Although, a close inspection of the pictures here still indicate the "shadow" areas of the "clip/tape", and I probably fall in the camp that for a card at this value level that should have been identified, which I believe would have led to better understanding of its history and ultimately would have landed it in a different holder.

This is a great post. I think "restored" might well be an appropriate designation and then people can decide for themselves how it affects their assessment of the value. I wouldn't even mind if a number grade was given too, to indicate the grader's assessment of the present appearance. In the meantime, all we can rely on is the seller's full and candid disclosure, which was not (in my opinion) forthcoming here.