Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Hawk
Yup, but I think the guys in this grading business are on a hiding to nothing when you won't even get agreement if you put 10-20 of the most highly regarded hobbyists and ask them their opinion on a card's alteration.
Most would actually just pass on the measure of whether a card has been altered, but better yet for a real laugh tell them they have to put up 20K to back their opinion.
GUARANTEE none would be willing to do so, especially if you already HAD the truth in hand and were just taking a straw poll.
But they WOULD give opinion on condition, as that is plenty subjective enough they know they can't be 'wrong'.
I accept I'm participating in a flawed concept to start with, and enjoy it for that. I will take and mostly accept that grading opinion on all the matters they're asked to consider, and from that point the item 'becomes' what it is opined to be. Just as many paintings become true 'in the hand of' original pieces of work after an opinion by an art expert, regardless of whether that judgement is uniformly accepted across the art histoians who view it. The opinion of certain experts is accepted and the art world moves on, even though the truth may lie lost in the years of history.
If we were to flip to my concept for grading, which I think is less flawed, of course I'd be just as happy.
But If you want something that is absolute, then buying peoples assessments of alteration on 1-140 year old pieces of paper should NOT be your game.
|
Is that an offer of a bet of $20K that I can't tell if a card is altered?
If the card is in hand....
And what set.
Most of the ones I'm familiar with it's not going to be a problem.
Somehow it is for the Grading companies, which are apparently now hiding their mistakes/incompetence/collusion behind regrading and denial.