Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoebox
REA has updated the lot description.
"Addendum (4/5/17, 3:52 PM): It has been brought to our attention that at one time this card had what appears to have been excess ink on the reverse. The card was offered at public auction in 2015 in an SGC 10 holder, and at some point in time, it was removed from the holder and the issues on the reverse were diminished (faint traces are still evident as seen in our photos) and some of the creases that are still present appear to have lightened. It is possible that a water soluble ink was present and the card was cleaned in that manner, but we have absolutely no way to know what was done to the card, nor does SGC. The card was graded by SGC as they saw it (there has been no change in grade) and is presented as such."
One of the largest points of contention with the Dimaggio card was the lack of disclosure by some parties. I appreciate the fact that REA has chosen to act in a more transparent manner than some involved with the Dimaggio.
|
And they did so within hours of it being brought to their attention. Well done!