REA Auction - Noting prior work done to cards

[G1911]

If this is a 3.5, I’m a 9.

Just as the 9.5 Mantle, SGC is clearly happy to over grade big name cards to get more attention and sales records for their slabs. And it will work, as ‘collectors’ don’t seem to care about reality but the number on the paper slip.

The Plank should be an A. The Doyle I would get a 2 if I sent a common in the exact same condition.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

If this is a 3.5, I’m a 9.

Just as the 9.5 Mantle, SGC is clearly happy to over grade big name cards to get more attention and sales records for their slabs. And it will work, as ‘collectors’ don’t seem to care about reality but the number on the paper slip.

The Plank should be an A. The Doyle I would get a 2 if I sent a common in the exact same condition.

Dunno if you are a 9 or not but the comment gets a 10. Exactly my point. As great as the disclosure is I am very uneasy with the rest of the story surrounding both cards. I am far from a purest but I call bullshit on the whole thing. If SGC or PSA is not going to do this for you then they should not be doing it for REA or REA's higher profile consignor. I get 60s commons booted for fucking min size from both companies.

[ALBB]

I dont mind it at all, and Im sure there will be many many bidders who feel the same way

[Kidnapped18]

Great job by REA!!! I would expect nothing less from them. Full disclosure is definitely preferable. I have no qualms with them using a professional company to remove Doyle from a scrapbook. Scrapbook removal is done on a regular basis and there are even threads right here requesting help in soaking glued cards from scrapbooks or other backing. I also have no personal problem with the water stain being removed on the Plank. I have cards from my childhood that have damage from me spilling liquid on them and that makes them no less valuable to me and I keep them as part of my collection.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Kidnapped18

Great job by REA!!! I would expect nothing less from them. Full disclosure is definitely preferable. I have no qualms with them using a professional company to remove Doyle from a scrapbook. Scrapbook removal is done on a regular basis and there are even threads right here requesting help in soaking glued cards from scrapbooks or other backing.

Right but the soaking process most here use or maybe all use, is that using water. The Doyle underwent something much different, it would seem given it took weeks of analysis and an explanation to SGC. Not sure anyone here has an issue with removal as a general concept.

I also have no personal problem with the water stain being removed on the Plank. I have cards from my childhood that have damage from me spilling liquid on them and that makes them no less valuable to me and I keep them as part of my collection.

Again, this sounds like you are ok with conservation as long as it is disclosed and that is cool. I think may would agree with you. Far as most of us know, we might not have the same success submitting these two cards with the expectation of any numerical grade. That you still value your childhood collection with stains is a whole other topic.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Right but the soaking process most here use or maybe all use, is that using water. The Doyle underwent something much different, it would seem given it took weeks of analysis and an explanation to SGC. Not sure anyone here has an issue with removal as a general concept.

This would be my second objection; this does not sound like a normal soaking but that something fairly extreme but vague was done (and not entirely successfully after weeks of preparing this process and discussing it with the graders, looks like some bits of paper loss). Then again, auctioneers are so used to writing superfluous and exaggerated crap for their catalogs, maybe it was just a quick soak!

[Rhotchkiss]

I have no issue with Doyle- the goal was to detach a card, not improve it, and if that all is they did, then I don’t care. The Plank is a bit more problematic. Attached are pics of the plank with the water stain and now. If all that was done is the stain was removed/erased (as opposed to recolored, etc), then I really don’t have a problem; it’s not much different from removing the Doyle from an album. But if the card was improved by addition, then I have an issue. Regardless, it’s not ideal and I think REA is very classy (per usual) to disclose it; although they didn’t have to and anyone doing their own research could figure it out

Also noteworthy is the grade on the Plank. SGC gave it a 2. Water stain “removed” and PSA gives it a 2.5 with that paper missing in upper left corner and large crease midway down card. Compare that to this 2.5, which has a minor marking from an album removal

[Prof]

Originally Posted by G1911

This would be my second objection; this does not sound like a normal soaking but that something fairly extreme but vague was done (and not entirely successfully after weeks of preparing this process and discussing it with the graders, looks like some bits of paper loss). Then again, auctioneers are so used to writing superfluous and exaggerated crap for their catalogs, maybe it was just a quick soak!

'Weeks of scrutiny' sounds a hell of a lot more professional and enticing than 'we chucked it in some water.'

Who knows what they actually did? But, it's definitely using some descriptive flair for a card that will draw a bunch of casual eyeballs and potential news stories.

I respect the disclosure, even if most heavy collectors inherently expect the soaking.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

If this is a 3.5, I’m a 9.

Just as the 9.5 Mantle, SGC is clearly happy to over grade big name cards to get more attention and sales records for their slabs. And it will work, as ‘collectors’ don’t seem to care about reality but the number on the paper slip.

The Plank should be an A. The Doyle I would get a 2 if I sent a common in the exact same condition.

They mete and dole unequal grades iunto a savage hobby.