It is an interesting (and odd) test case, with the seller saying it is from 1951. What happens if the seller instead said 1915 or 1885? The seller describes it as being 1951 four times, so it's questionable that it's a typo. It appears the seller may have really believed it is from 1951.
It appears the authenticator is identifying if the card is original or reprint, which is a reasonable and good service that I like. It also appears to be working under the assumption that "anyone who's a collector knows the Diamond Stars are from the 1930s, not the 1950s," which is largely but not entirely true. However, authentic means the item matches the description and "1951" is way off. Technically speaking, a reprint is authentic if it's described as a reprint.
It can be argued both ways, but I think authentication should correct such blatant description errors. A buyer may be a newbie who assumes that it's from 1951. It's also such an unusual, odd case that it may not be worth debating too much.
Last edited by drcy; 02-10-2022 at 02:59 PM.
|