Quote:
Originally Posted by danc
I would love to know the name of the auction house.
They made a decision about the authenticity of the ball, what, based on a scan or when they received it?
They didn't realize right away that what they had was a ball full of suspect signatures and therefore they are going back to this women for a refund?
Wouldn't you refuse the refund?
This can't be one of the big auction houses (they don't operate like this) and of course it can't be...you know who (they refuse nothing)...so????
DanC
|
No offense but i don't agree with this comment at all. To me, this is no different than the Anson lock situation, or a reprint purchased from eBay. Let's take the Anson lock situation... seller was selling the lock as original. People thought it was original (me included, I owned one I refunded, too). Purchaser purchases it, posts his pick-up, and then discovers it might not be original. After confirming with certain experts (ie, the creator) that it is not original, asks the seller for a refund. Everyone agrees, buyer should get a refund because seller sold an item represented to be original but deemed to be created recently.
Anson lock broken down:
Purchaser made a decision about the lock based on scan and in-person examination.
Purchaser didn't realize right away what he got was not original.
Purchaser confirms with expert that lock is not original.
Everyone on this board thinks purchaser should get refund.
1932 Yankee ball broken down:
Auction house made decision about the ball based on scan or in-person examination.
Auction house didn't realize right away what it bought was not original.
Auction confirms with expert ball is not original.
People on this board think the auction house bears responsibility.
Why is the auction house held to a different standard?