Posted By:
Corey R. ShanusPeter,
Fair point in regard to the grading companies, though one could argue that the experience component of detecting alterations wasn't around in grading's early years; in addition, possibly the companies themselves have better equipment today than they did then. But the thrust of your point, at least as regards PSA (assuming what I read is correct that they have inexperienced graders, perhaps working without adequate equipment) is correct; therefore I would argue that it is reckless to sell any slabbed graded (PSA) card without current re-examination or explicit disclosure, or at least those cards that show a high percentage of alteration (e.g., T206's (but not, say, 1997 Upper Deck)).
In regard to the seller, sorry, I did miss your qualification that the individual seller was to be experienced. Two points. First, that fact would have to have been known to the buyer before he/she bought the card. Second, even if it were known, even experienced sellers wouldn't be reasonably expected to have the equipment needed to detect alterations, as well as the experience in using it, not to mention the access to information and outside expert corroboration, that a national auction house would. Therefore, I continue to believe even experienced sellers would be held to a different standard than a national auction house.
EDITED To add that even with Mike Baker on the PSA payroll, inasmuch as there have been posts saying that experienced card doctorers submit their cards to PSA when they know the experienced graders are away, I still think PSA has a ways to go before people have confidence that all PSA submissions undergo "state-of-the art" examination.