[Archive]

Posted By: Robert Lifson

For those who are unhappy that REA is not naming names, there are legal issues that make this not desirable. We are not interested in lawsuits, and are operating in what we think is the most intelligent manner all things considered. If anyone has the interest and financial ability to indemnify REA, REA employees, and me personally from legal action and related legal expenses, we would be happy to name names. We are not interested in being embroiled in legal battles and would prefer to try to continue to try to make a difference in the best way that we think we can. The primary audience for the recent email was not this board, which includes many of the most knowledgeable and active of all collectors. There are thousands of less knowledgeable and active collectors that are on our mailing list who do not read the net54 board.

With reference to Leon’s suggestion that this email was somehow directed at Mastronet because of its timing: Mastronet has auctions up and running or closing over 100 days of the year. We did not reference when the Mastronet auction was closing in deciding to send out this email and only realized it closed last night from this board. It would not have made any difference with reference to our timing, which was related to the receipt of two problematic packages of potential consignments on the very same day: that day being yesterday. In fact, the email specifically references that the altered cards being discussed have been received here in recent weeks. The fact that Mastronet’s catalog has been up online and out for at least that long and had to go press even earlier obviously precludes these very cards from even possibly being in their recent sale. We have been sending out emails for years. Statistically it is not surprising that we would someday send out an email on the very day of another auction’s close. This suggestion that this was an attack on Mastronet and not an attempt to educate the public is extremely not well founded.

We will be sending images of a card (before and after) that was recently received for auction to a board member who knows how to post images. This is not the card that was referenced by our recent email but because we have both before and after scans of it, at least it can provide some tangible evidence for those that do not believe there is a problem with previously sold cards being doctored and then these very same cards being resubmitted for auction. Since its sale by REA from an original owner collection in April 2006, this particular card has been reholdered three times to the best of our knowledge. It is our understanding that it is currently in a PSA holder. The card has gone from a PSA1 MK (as when sold by REA) to an SGC 1.5 to a GAI 3 VG to a PSA 2 GD (with no qualifier). The “after” scan does not do the substantial work that has been done on this card justice, as having the card in hand provides much greater detail and it looks so much better it is almost hard to believe it is the same card. The card has lost its well-deserved “MK” qualifier and gone up grades in appearance due to the relayering and flattening of the paper where the card has creases. There may have been other things done to the card, we no longer have it in hand. The potential consignor of this card had no idea that anything was done to it. In this case he purchased it directly from the buyer at REA. This card has been returned to the consignor per his request.

Lastly, the portion of the email that was posted was only part of the email. The first and third topics as well as the introduction and close were not posted here, and they provide a larger context of the communication. We are trying to make a difference. The fact that we are not communicating everything that we are doing to make a difference does not mean that we are doing anything else. This will be our only post regarding this topic.


Sincerely,

Robert Lifson
President
Robert Edward Auctions LLC
www.RobertEdwardAuctions.com