FS: 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson PSA 4.5

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Ok ���� This is very interested and very informative. I hope things work out for AJ.

I don't think anyone could now fault him if he sold it.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think anyone could now fault him if he sold it.

Agree.

[Exhibitman]

Just sell the card with full disclosure and be done with it. Odds are it will sell regardless of the history because there are enough PSA nut-huggers who don't care about anything besides the label on the slab. They trust PSA blindly and nothing anyone finds out will change that. It is not just a PSA thing, though: people in general will not pay attention to negative facts when there is something they want. In real estate, for example, there is generally a duty to disclose all known material facts that might have an impact on the sale. I have had clients with very adverse issues related to their properties sell them successfully with full disclosure because the buyers just don't care. Even places with significant construction defects. The buyers want it, they happily sign off on the package of disclosure documentation, and I bet they don't even read it half the time. People routinely sign six-figure construction contracts without even reading them, let alone seeking a review from an attorney. It should not amaze me after 30+ years in the business but it still does. So why we expect diligent and relentless pursuit of facts about a baseball card by people who generally do not behave that way in life is beyond me. They just rely on the opinion of the TPG and call it a day. This has been an issue in autographs for a long time, long before all the card doctoring was outed, and no matter how much the whistle-blowers rant, it is rare that anyone pays attention.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Just sell the card with full disclosure and be done with it. Odds are it will sell regardless of the history because there are enough PSA nut-huggers who don't care about anything besides the label on the slab. They trust PSA blindly and nothing anyone finds out will change that. It is not just a PSA thing, though: people in general will not pay attention to negative facts when there is something they want. In real estate, for example, there is generally a duty to disclose all known material facts that might have an impact on the sale. I have had clients with very adverse issues related to their properties sell them successfully with full disclosure because the buyers just don't care. Even places with significant construction defects. The buyers want it, they happily sign off on the package of disclosure documentation, and I bet they don't even read it half the time.

Agreed. It won't affect the price at all IMO. And while of course there is always the chance the buyer will sell it at some point without disclosure, that's on PSA now, not AJ.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Just sell the card with full disclosure and be done with it. Odds are it will sell regardless of the history because there are enough PSA nut-huggers who don't care about anything besides the label on the slab. They trust PSA blindly and nothing anyone finds out will change that. It is not just a PSA thing, though: people in general will not pay attention to negative facts when there is something they want. In real estate, for example, there is generally a duty to disclose all known material facts that might have an impact on the sale. I have had clients with very adverse issues related to their properties sell them successfully with full disclosure because the buyers just don't care. Even places with significant construction defects. The buyers want it, they happily sign off on the package of disclosure documentation, and I bet they don't even read it half the time. People routinely sign six-figure construction contracts without even reading them, let alone seeking a review from an attorney. It should not amaze me after 30+ years in the business but it still does. So why we expect diligent and relentless pursuit of facts about a baseball card by people who generally do not behave that way in life is beyond me. They just rely on the opinion of the TPG and call it a day. This has been an issue in autographs for a long time, long before all the card doctoring was outed, and no matter how much the whistle-blowers rant, it is rare that anyone pays attention.

That made me LOL.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by irv

That made me LOL.

And if it sold left because of the disclosure, would the difference be what he could get from PSA?

[Rhotchkiss]

Peter, I am not sure the duty to mitigate would/should apply when doing so could cause a relative fraud or injustice on the purchasing party. The card is tampered. Even if that is disclosed, the buyer may not understand the true import or my get buyer’s remorse, etc. I would argue there is no duty to mitigate when doing so could cause an injustice to the next buyer/owner.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Peter, I am not sure the duty to mitigate would/should apply when doing so could cause a relative fraud or injustice on the purchasing party. The card is tampered. Even if that is disclosed, the buyer may not understand the true import or my get buyer’s remorse, etc. I would argue there is no duty to mitigate when doing so could cause an injustice to the next buyer/owner.

Fine, cite me a case.