[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by thetahat

Question... suppose you paid a decent amount for a pennant, say over $100. You notice that the spine is not attached as it was originally, as you can clearly see the holes from the original stitching. Because, as avid collectors, we all know to look for certain things. Seller did not disclose this, upon reaching out to him he claims to have removed it to clean and then reattached it, says that it is not a transplant. I think either way, that’s something that should be disclosed due to the fact that it is not entirely original - many people might not care but I hold that it should at least be disclosed to let the potential buyers decide.

What are your thoughts? Is this reasoning valid, or am I an “uber anal retentive freak” (seller’s exact words) for not just shrugging off his undisclosed alteration?

So, instead of the Pennant Savant we should now refer to you as the Uber Anal Retentive Freak?