 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11
07-14-2007, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Legal issues in the hobby
Posted By: P Spaeth
Corey these are all good points but the essence of what you are saying (simplifying slightly of course) is that, for vintage cards, third party authentication is meaningless. Perhaps that is so, and certainly there are adherents of that view on this board and elsewhere, but I doubt that at this point -- given the general acceptance of third party grading -- a tribunal would agree with that. If third party grading is meaningful, I can't see a tribunal imposing a general duty to independently examine a card on an auction house -- not to mention of course the practical difficulties of examining edges inside a slab etc. etc. 
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 1975 trader speaks hobby mag 12 issues | Archive | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 2 | 05-24-2008 05:29 PM |
| NYC Conference to Discuss Hobby Issues | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 17 | 01-12-2007 04:51 AM |
| Memory Lane's Stance on Hobby Issues | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 23 | 01-06-2007 08:11 PM |
| Andy Madec Sportscards Stance on Hobby Issues | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 11-29-2006 08:58 PM |
| Clean Sweep's Stance on Larger Hobby Issues | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 24 | 11-29-2006 10:56 AM |
Threaded Mode