Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag
In my view the most important point to take from this thread is that one should never acquire an item based on an assumption an on-line scan or catalog image is accurate. This has nothing to do with the integrity of the auction house. When there is an item I am interested in bidding on and I know I will not be able to see it in person, I will call the AH and ask them to take the item in hand and then compare it to what it looks like in the catalog or on-line, as the case may be. If I have a catalog of the auction, I will have these discussions based on catalog images, not on-line images. The latter can vary with one's monitor and monitor settings. Catalogs, in contrast, do not vary. I remember an instance over 25 years ago when I was at a well-known print shop in NYC. It has been owned and operated by three generations of a family and enjoys universal respect. There was an upcoming auction at Christies and I wanted the print shop's opinion on a particular item in the auction. I showed the owner's son the catalog image and asked his opinion. As he was answering his father interrupted and admonished him for opining on an item based on the catalog image. The basis for the admonition was not that Christies would intentionally make the item look better than it actually was, but that one had to see it in person to really know all the nuances of its condition and eye appeal.
|
It is important to realize that, yes, an online scan may not be completely accurate, but also important to realize that certain auction houses may be intentionally doing things to alter scans to their own liking, manipulating collectors and prices. I agree with Conor that simply being willing to accept refunds is no excuse. For instance, the situation with Leon - he got the card he needed and was willing to keep it, but maybe he would have gotten it for less if it were accurately represented. In that case, the allegedly artificially enhanced scan served as a shill.
Realistically, we cannot all go back to looking at the cards in real life. People are bidding from afar and there is no guarantee that one will win an item. You cannot expect everyone who is interested in an item to purchase an airplane ticket, hotel rooms and car rentals just to see an item in person - it is simply not practical. Maybe fifty years ago, every auction was live and it was possible to have the standard of seeing every item live before evaluating it, but nowadays we rely on the auction houses, and that it a matter of technology and modern life.
My view is that Legendary/Mastro has gotten itself in trouble before, not for its bidding practices, but for a failure to disclose its bidding practices. For instance, Heritage discloses in their terms that the house is a potential bidder for every item, yet many collectors participate in their auctions anyways, and it rarely comes up as a topic for debate. Same for the controversy of Legendary's alleged scan altering - if they simply disclosed such practices in the terms of their auction, they would be covered. Their practices could be a matter for debate, but their integrity could not.