Cherry-picking a couple of data points isn't an accurate way of depicting the market.
The guidance provided was a range that denotes a large amount of scenarios and was accurate.
Not sure if you are unhappy because you own a restored book and "want" it to be worth more or something else, but this is just silly.
If we are to talk about what's silly, hen the market itself gives us plenty of accurate examples of silly behavior in regard to resto. Originally, the idea of identifying resto was to say "it looks like a certain grade but it's actually a lower grade books that's been repaired or made to appear better." That then evolved into a desire to identify books not just as restored but "desecrated" so it was judged not based on what the grade was prior to the work and how the grade was changed but on the intent behind the work. Thus, a book with giant red scribbles on the focal point of the cover became worth more than a book with a couple dots of red ink in a red field of the book, and a book with a tiny tear seal was valued less than a book with a much larger tear that had not been sealed. A book with color touch in a corner was worth less than a book with a large section of that corner torn away.
The information about values may be accurate. But I think if we call a person "silly" for pointing out anomalies in the prices realizes, it begs for someone to point out the anomalies in pricing which result from silliness.
Very well said!!