Thoughts on this? (Round 2)

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

"Mathewson's unparalleled reverence is perfectly emanated via this classic Carl Horner headshot pose with his facial hues as vibrant as the original distribution date over a century ago."

"Yet these more than forgiving blemishes are more than offset by the card's overall brilliance"

When hyperbole and grammar/usage collide nobody wins.

Actually, if the winner of the lot thinks he's buying a legit 6 there are some clear winners: Memory Lane and the consignor. And weren't the scans very large and clear in the Memory Lane listing for this card? I think we're all so used to the typical fluffing and BS in auction descriptions that I can easily excuse ML for theirs here due to the great scans they put up. If you can't see the flaws on this card then overspending for this card -- which I consider to be an ugly 2 at best -- is the least of your problems.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I was just making fun of the awful writing. I think we're all agreed on the main point of the thread.

I do have a problem with hyperbole though. I would maintain that I put up pretty awesome scans on ebay and I still point out flaws, tell people when I think a card is over-graded etc... It's called honesty.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It would be so much better if people just put up good scans and spared us all the bullshit. I can see writing up memorabilia; I can see providing information about a rare or unusual card; but on mainstream cards no. It all reads like parody.

[pokerplyr80]

Thanks Greg for tracking that description down. About what I expected. This card reminds me of that psa 5 green cobb that the AH actually said had paper loss that seems inconsistent with the assigned grade.

I do agree with Jeff, the scans are clear and anyone spending more that 2 or 3 money on this card has no one but them self to blame. Except for the guy at PSA who gave it a 6 of course.

[botn]

Thanks for pointing out the prior sale, Jesse. True that anyone buying the card as a 6 has only themselves to blame but the description was more than just hype or fluff that we typically see. Classifying the surface gouge as diminutive is more than an exaggeration.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by botn

Thanks for pointing out the prior sale, Jesse. True that anyone buying the card as a 6 has only themselves to blame but the description was more than just hype or fluff that we typically see. Classifying the surface gouge as diminutive is more than an exaggeration.

True, but I never expect an AH to be too critical of a card's flaws. Not good for the bottom line or the consignor. Any time a visible flaw is mentioned at all I assume it's worse than described. That's why that green cobb stood out to me. I have never seen another auction in which the site said a card did not deserve its assigned grade.

[botn]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

True, but I never expect an AH to be too critical of a card's flaws. Not good for the bottom line or the consignor. Any time a visible flaw is mentioned at all I assume it's worse than described. That's why that green cobb stood out to me. I have never seen another auction in which the site said a card did not deserve its assigned grade.

I have seen REA describe a card as not deserving the grade. Even if an auction house does not go that far, I do not recall regularly seeing one actually hype a card that is glaringly over graded. Maybe I do not read enough auction house descriptions or maybe I do not read them closely enough.

I do not expect an auction house to be too critical of its consignments but I do expect them to not misrepresent.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Actually, if the winner of the lot thinks he's buying a legit 6 there are some clear winners: Memory Lane and the consignor. And weren't the scans very large and clear in the Memory Lane listing for this card? I think we're all so used to the typical fluffing and BS in auction descriptions that I can easily excuse ML for theirs here due to the great scans they put up. If you can't see the flaws on this card then overspending for this card -- which I consider to be an ugly 2 at best -- is the least of your problems.

The buyer certainly wasn't a winner. Paid 3888 and sold for 3012. After fees that is a loss of more than 1200 unless he was shilling the card and ended up winning his own card.