Posted By:
Ed HansJosh,
Thank you for your reply. As I stated in my post, I take no position on the E94 Young in question. I wouldn't bid on it because it just doesn't look right to me. My issue is with the apparent blind trust in third party authenticators/graders. I don't think that anyone would ask Huggins and Scott to quibble over every grade or half grade they felt was incorrect or to "regrade" every piece that was consigned to them. But I do think that they owe their bidders and consignors an accurate description when an obvious error has occurred. The bidders should be made aware of any obvious alterations or gross overgrading, and, in fairness to the consignor, it should be noted when a card in horribly undergraded. How would Huggins and Scott have handled the trimmed N172 Kelly, slabbed and graded by PSA, that recently came to light had it been offered to them for consignment? Please don't tell me that they would have presented it as is, with no mention of the obvious trimming.