Quote:
Originally Posted by Bliggity
If the seller lists it as unaltered, and does so with the intent to defraud, then yes.
ETA: subject to Peter's caveat. If the buyer relies on any representation that the card is unaltered and that factors into the decision to purchase, or the price, then it is fraud.
|
So intent matters? The OP could theoretically argue that the premium from the Topps pack was more the frame (as a presentation piece) than the card and frame in its entirety. Topps was putting random cards into frames with zero correlation between the two, so OP was just doing same. The argument would become how natural the assumption that these came in packs as such would be (I imagine).
None of us believes that about the OP's intent, of course, but I think this is a pretty gray area as well in that the Topps206 holder is not too far differentiated from a generic topholder (seems closer to that than to a slab, at least). I don't know how easy it is to remove and replace the cover.
Sorry if I'm annoying anyone here. I'm enjoying the back and forth quite a bit.