Great photo of "vendor pennants!"

That Braves one is actually pretty rare. Seems like you see the Cardinals and Dodgers the most from that series with all the "lines".

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?

Agree...

Any alteration including bleaching, trimming, re-coloring, spine transplant or tassel replacement must be disclosed. I can easily give a "pass" to ironing and removing pet hair with tape or a lint roller. Those more minor improvements do not change the original makeup or construction of the pennant.

The only grey area (to me) is the trimming of loose/stray threads on a cloth pennant. I personally don't think it's an issue, unless the scissors were to accidentally cut into the actual body of the pennant. Just my .02

.

This topic is complicated and filled with nuance IMHO. First, I think intent matters. I am not the best at crazy detailed descriptions when I sell, but I personally never try to mislead or omit information. I know I've sold to people in this forum and once or twice the condition wasn't what the buyer hoped for...in one case the camera phone made the pennant lot look brighter than it was, in another case there was a small portion of the spine (perhaps an inch) no longer attached. In both cases, I did not try to mislead the buyer... in one case the buyer returned the pennant lot, in the other I gave a significant discount. In both instances, since the buyers were a part of this forum, I really tried to make it right. I've also bought from people on this forum and in one case the condition wasn't what I completely expected, but again, I don't think it was intentional and because we're friends, I didn't give it a second thought. What's the point of dwelling on it? Finally, I've traded with people on this forum and in one example, the pennant I traded was believed to be fake. In that circumstance, we came up with an amicable solution. Point is, regardless of what character I am in the transaction, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt if I feel their intent is good. Hard to do when you don't know the person on the other end!

Now, I have bleached pennants before - improving their condition - and sold them. I didn't disclose it as I felt improved the aesthetics and I personally didn't think the disclosure was necessary. I can see how a purist may disagree, but my lack of disclosure wasn't to mislead...in fact, I felt it would confuse matters. But, that's just me! :)

Replacing a spine or trimming a flag (somewhat easy to see), if known, should be disclosed in my opinion. If somebody takes the spine off to clean it...that seems okay to me. I suppose it's impossible to know if the seller swapped the spine out, but again, if the person has a good reputation, then I'd trust that.

My point is, I think it depends and it's not a binary right/wrong.

my 2 cents

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

lololol!

I'll vouch for Erik any day of the week... one of the very best guys on this forum and a great collector/friend. But I will play Devil's advocate, in regard to the bleaching disclosure. Bleaching can make substances more brittle over time. It can definitely affect vintage felt and make it "crispy" (for lack of a better word). Nothing wrong with doing it, as it is definitely the owner's prerogative. But when selling it really should be disclosed, IMHO.

Thanks, Mark! The feelings are mutual! And don’t get me wrong, you and most people on this forum are more avid collectors than I am, so my perspective is just that, my perspective...perhaps less seasoned, too. I do see your point and it’s a good one. I will say I typically don’t sell ‘high-end’ items so if I post condition as ‘good’, ‘fair’ or ‘vintage’, my general thought is there are flaws/integrity issues. But your comments are well taken and you’ve always been great to deal with - even if my descriptions aren’t the best [emoji2957]

Good insight, guys. I have no problem with someone who fixes up a pennant for personal display. But it has to be disclosed IMO if resold, if original stitching is replaced. Let the buyers/bidders decide. I have a host of questions that I usually ask about a pennant if I don’t know the seller and if it seems that the seller has no experience with pennants. I think such a person might not think twice about innocently trimming a pennant, etc. In this case it was a seller who clearly should know better. I’m getting a refund - it’s owed to me of course, given the circumstances - so still it’s not really the fact that he tried to pull one off at my expense. Well maybe a little since I’m not a complete stranger to this guy. Like Erik suggests you should perhaps take extra care with people you know and people who have previously purchased from you. But it’s the fact that he had the chutzpah to insinuate that I was the problem in the transaction that really irked me.

As a side note, I do suspect it’s a full spine transplant, but either way given the totality of circumstances I believe disclosure was required.