Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
LOL yeah that's what I was afraid of, mostly. 88-84 yes as we speak. But of course people are now assuming the Yes votes are misinformed.
|
Well some of the yes votes are clearly misinformed. But the N is too small still and if the margin is that close then there is no mandate either way.
If nobody has done anything to a card to make it gain value by virtue of a bump in a grade (i.e. the 6 to 8 example of an SGC Min Size to PSA 6.5) then I feel disclosure could be made but it is 100% not necessary. Don't care if the card went from being worth 10 cents in the first assessment to being worth 150K in the second. This is nothing more than a different opinion based on a different day at the grading service. For anyone who submits a lot of cards and knows how almost random the assessments are, they would know that an opinion changing is a non event. Travis has alluded to this often and shown examples of it many times.
From my vantage point, if you
do something to a card, even if it is innocent and what a majority of the board agrees is ok to do, and the card gets a bump in grade, then that needs to/should be disclosed.