[barrysloate]

I don't think Bill's example using the T206 Plank was a good one because for many bidders that may have been the sole reason they were bidding on the lot. Maybe they only wanted the Plank and were prepared to sell the other 520 cards just to get it. So if you expected a 6 and got a 5 you may not have wanted the lot at all.

In the case of the 1956 Topps set, the misgraded team card was an important one because of its low pop, but it wasn't a Mantle rookie or a card of that caliber. So it would be easier to come up with a solution there.

The only area here that I felt REA was remiss was counting on the registry report and not examining the set card by card. Unfortunately, as time consuming as that is, you have to do it. At the end of the day, the auction house has to write up the description and stand behind it. By counting on the registry listing they were ceding control of that step to someone else. That's a no-no and I am sure Rob and company realize they can't do that in the future.

Other than that he gave Bill as much as he could have hoped for so I don't understand why this thread was even started. Like I said in Scott's post about SGC, both sides need to be a little more flexible in resolving an issue like this. I don't think Bill exhibited any flexibility at all. It had to be his way period, and Rob actually agreed to it. End of story.