REA Auction - Noting prior work done to cards

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by packs

Maybe someone just wanted to do a good job and remove the card without damaging it. People seek advice for the same thing on here all the time. Whether you soak the card yourself or pay someone to do it for you, isn't the motivation the same?

My definition of altering a card is adding or subtracting from the card itself. If you're trimming the card or you're adding color to the card or you're frankensteining two cards together, that all falls under alteration to me.

Removing an original card from a mounted surface without altering the card, is not alteration in my opinion. If you can reduce a stain without removing or adding anything to the original card, you have not altered it either.

Otherwise, you would have such a stringent view that a crease must be considered alteration, etc. because the card was not released creased, etc.

I appreciate that. I prefer to have cards that have not been messed with but it is not realistic so I am pretty liberal with regard to what is ok. If it passes my eye, which I feel is pretty good, then I am ok. I would prefer if work is disclosed but most is not.

And nothing against REA and whatever involvement they had with these cards, and since you responded to me, how do you feel abut REA having access to the graders to explain the conservation? Do you think you and I would have the same access and be received the same way?

[packs]

It's hard to answer that question because I'm not sure how relevant the disclosure was to the graders. In other words, it might make a company look good public relations wise to say they disclosed XYZ but the reality might be that the disclosures were unnecessary and had no impact on the outcome.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by packs

It's hard to answer that question because I'm not sure how relevant the disclosure was to the graders. In other words, it might make a company look good public relations wise to say they disclosed XYZ but the reality might be that the disclosures were unnecessary and had no impact on the outcome.

Got that and understand but I doubt we would have the same access. I imagine you would agree.

[packs]

I would agree. The unknown in this instance is how much scrutiny was raised about the cards, if at all, prior to disclosing their history.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by packs

I would agree. The unknown in this instance is how much scrutiny was raised about the cards, if at all, prior to disclosing their history.

I am sure it was disclosed upfront or maybe even prior to giving a green light to the work. I am just not overjoyed by one more instance of privileges granted to some and not to all.

[ullmandds]

As someone elsewhere noted...there appears to be some loss on the back of the doyle from removal. Should this warrant a 3.5? There is no question that all submitters are NOT created equal. Guessing if I submitted same card with same qualifications it'd be in an A/1-2 holder.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

As someone elsewhere noted...there appears to be some loss on the back of the doyle from removal. Should this warrant a 3.5? There is no question that all submitters are NOT created equal. Guessing if I submitted same card with same qualifications it'd be in an A/1-2 holder.

That card is 100 percent not a 3.5. I think 2, maybe a 2.5 at best.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

As someone elsewhere noted...there appears to be some loss on the back of the doyle from removal. Should this warrant a 3.5? There is no question that all submitters are NOT created equal. Guessing if I submitted same card with same qualifications it'd be in an A/1-2 holder.

LOLOL. I had not even looked at the card. Just did. There is light scuffing all over the back. The stains on the front appear muted but that could be the scan. Also the right edge appears different than the left edge but that could be the SGC gasket. Either way the scuffing on the reverse puts it in a 2 category, imo.

Wonder if the card was presented to PSA first and did not grade or if work was disclosed and PSA said do not bother submitting it? Not that PSA is some pillar of ethics or anything.

Awesome so not only does it get over graded but the submitter has access to the graders to explain work that was done. Good thing it is only a Doyle variation and not an important card int he hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

As someone elsewhere noted...there appears to be some loss on the back of the doyle from removal. Should this warrant a 3.5? There is no question that all submitters are NOT created equal. Guessing if I submitted same card with same qualifications it'd be in an A/1-2 holder.

Wrong. All submitters are equal. But some are more equal than others.