Everyone's favorite auction house

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Thanks, Joe, I tend to agree with you, but Al's consignor claims otherwise. Another question I have is this: if the transformation was accomplished purely with the removal of rust and oxidated(?) material, even if aided by chemicals or other means, would that still be acceptable as a method of "cleaning" that wouldn't need to be disclosed? In other words: no additions, no coverings, no restoration, just the removal of material original to the piece, deteriorated and otherwise. Is that OK?

Hank it seems to me that if something is OK, which it may well be, that's all the more reason TO disclose it; after all, what's the downside of letting potential bidders know something generally considered acceptable was done so they can make a fully informed decision?

Not specific to this case, but people always seem to trip over themselves trying to explain why a certain thing done to a card or other item is perfectly acceptable, yet they won't disclose it. And yes one can take this to an extreme silly hypothetical (nobody would disclose that they blew off a piece of dust and nobody would argue that they should) but that's not a helpful response.

PS nothing changes, we had the same discussion about the Keeler cabinet card in Mastro in 2004 or thereabouts.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

PS nothing changes, we had the same discussion about the Keeler cabinet card in Mastro in 2004 or thereabouts.

I don't remember that discussion, I might not have been a member then. Is cleaning supposed to always be disclosed when it comes to cards, no matter what the extent or methods? And yes, a lot of it does seem to come down to a matter of degree, but if I was the consignor of the sign and all I did was wipe it down with water, I don't think I'd feel the need to disclose that fact. If you say why not, I could say because it might raise the question of what else I did to it, or make bidders wonder if the rust might come back, or any other reason I could cook up to think the price might be affected by me volunteering that information. I would answer why should I? I cleaned lots of stuff when I was a dealer, I don't think I ever mentioned it or told an auction house when I consigned it. That didn't seem relevant or important, and certainly not unethical.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's never easy to draw lines especially in the gray area, and yes it probably comes down to a case by case basis. I guess if I were to try to articulate a general rule, it would be along the lines of if something might matter to a non-trivial percentage of potential bidders, it should be disclosed. Of course there's a lot of play in that formulation too.

[2dueces]

You guys sound like a bunch of old ladies criticizing the way kids dress today. Don’t you have any thing better to do with your time beside bitch about grades, pencil marks and dirty signs. The OCD on this forum is strong. Last time I read such stupidity here was the 1000 post bitch session when SGC changed its flip header color. The movie Idocracy moves closer to reality here.

[Hankphenom]

We love you, too, Joe. But let me ask you this: why in the world would I give a shit what you think about anything?

[2dueces]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

We love you, too, Joe. But let me ask you this: why in the world would I give a shit what you think about anything?

No reason to care what I think. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

[blametony]

Just my 2¢. If Al notified the bidders about the suspected altering as well as inform other prospective bidders, he did his job. Both PSA and SGC label cards as altered. Should Al not sell a card labeled as Altered? The point being if the alteration or suspected alteration is fully disclosed, then it's up to the bidders to decide if they still wish to participate.