See here’s the problem I have with your position Scott. I understand re-examining the issues whenever a new scanner is used or when different types of items are scanned, but what about when the same scanner is used for all flat items/cards and the scans are met with few or no complaints from buyers or bidders?
Here I do not believe that Goodwin or Probstein--intentionally or unintentionally-created extra bright or enhanced scans of these cards, yet clearly the actual card in hand does not look as good as the scan. The scans provided were large and clear, yet they failed to display the flaws. Should these sellers be in any way scorned?(you say be held accountable, but I’m confident they would have both honored returns-- is that sufficient accountability?). Did they have an obligation to carefully examine these cards and change their settings to show the defects or at least point them out in the descriptions? What is a “good representative scan” as you call it, and did the sellers of my two Bakers fail to provide those here in your opinion?
__________________
If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon's but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other. - Ulysses S. Grant, military commander, 18th US President.
|