![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
That instance is somewhat different because you had the card re-evaluated by the same people who made the initial determination, unlike the other instances where it was a different company that formed the other assessment. Therefore, because there still remains only a single view as to the proper grade of the card, I could make a forceful argument your re-evaluation does not require disclosure. With that said, there is a rebuttal: the fact that SGC changed its mind means the proper grade of the card is not clear cut (at least more than is typically the case), and because some reasonable buyer would be troubled by a card teetering on the edge, you should make the disclosure. I personally think that argument would not prevail, at least in the case of a card being bumped from a 40 to a 50. If it was bumped from an "altered" to a 50, the argument would be stronger. |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FBI to drop Clemens case? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 03-07-2008 05:19 PM |
Mastro Auctions Being Investigated by the FBI | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 399 | 07-13-2007 07:54 AM |
San Diego FBI phone# needed | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 03-31-2005 03:21 PM |
FBI website for Fraud. | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 10-06-2004 09:42 AM |
FBI Internet Fraud Complaint Center | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 04-13-2002 11:39 AM |