To anyone surprised or amused by the REA/Probstein comparison:
Both companies are movers of high volumes of cards which are consigned to them by collectors. They may not react the same way, but they provide an identical service, albeit through different venues. They are counterparts. Comparisons will be made. Expectations will be set.
If one of those companies (REA) sets a standard of basic ethical practice in the business, it is not out of the ordinary to think that other auction houses should follow suit when an altered card is brought to their attention (ie. investigating and at least pulling the auction and returning the card to the consignor if the alteration is blatant).
Of course, other auction houses may not follow suit (Probstein, in this instance), but it is neither funny, sad, or an "absolute joke" to make the comparison and expect similar ethical business practices.
I am also not naive enough to think the above will happen, but as a consumer you can expect it. When it doesn't happen, then you complain or criticize which is why this thread was started.
And I just happened to use REA as an example. As another, when Goodwin was alerted about a possibly bad PSA graded '52 Mantle in one of their auctions, they sent it to PSA for review, found it to be a compromised slab, and they pulled the auction.
|