EBay police department

[YankeeCollector]

So, I listed a card on eBay which happened to be a PSA 5 (mk). I purchased the card from a major auction house which marketed the card as the highest grade with none graded higher. If you look at the PSA pop report, this card was the only PSA 5, albeit with a qualifier, with none graded higher.

I can get an email today questioning my ethics because I indicated the card was the highest graded. This gentleman said to me that I was being unethica by saying this card was the highest graded because he says that the psa 5 mk is like a psa 3 and there's a few 3s and a 4.

If the psa 5 mk is equal to a psa 3, why is the psa 5 mk listed higher than the psa3. in addition, there are scans of the card in a psa 5mk holder. I put in my description that the card is graded PSA 5 mk. how exactly am I being unethical?

[alanu]

When he says a PSA 5 MK is equivalent to a PSA 3, he's probably referring to the fact that the PSA set registry considers cards with a qualifier as 2 grades lower.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your listing as long as you have a scans of the the front and back of the card and list it as a PSA 5 MK.

[vintagecpa]

Your not. Anyone sophisticated enough to know the two grade bump for qualifiers shouldn't be bothered by your description.

[YankeeCollector]

I included scans of both front and back and indicated in my description that the card was graded PSA 5 mk.

Anyone else think that grading with qualifiers is a stupid idea? If the card has a slight mark, grade it accordingly I say!

[YankeeCollector]

When he says a PSA 5 MK is equivalent to a PSA 3, he's probably referring to the fact that the PSA set registry considers cards with a qualifier as 2 grades lower.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your listing as long as you have a scans of the the front and back of the card and list it as a PSA 5 MK.

He introduced himself as being a prominent PSA registry guy:)

[Matthew H]

I'd rather have a 5 mk over a 3 any day. Has the registry really driven people to rather have less appealing cards just to up their score? :confused:

Edit: Some 3s look really bitchin' too... just in general.

[YankeeCollector]

I'd rather have a 5 mk over a 3 any day. Has the registry really driven people to rather have less appealing cards just to up their score? :confused:

Edit: Some 3s look really bitchin' too... just in general.

And the mark is on the back and hardly detracts from the overall appeal of the card.

[rhettyeakley]

Don't get too upset about it, there are strange people on ebay and they tend to make mountains out of mole hills.

For example, I also sell some autographs and recently an ebayer contacted me and absolutely went off about how big of a low life blankety-blank I was because I dared to write in my ebay title "(d.72)" when the person had passed away. he went off about how I was trying to profit from someones death and I should be ashamed of myself for being such a despicable person. Obviously, the autograph market has dictated that the death date of an individual is of utmost importance due to the limited time to get the autograph, etc., etc.

Life is too short to let these types of people under your skin.

-Rhett

[teetwoohsix]

I included scans of both front and back and indicated in my description that the card was graded PSA 5 mk.

Anyone else think that grading with qualifiers is a stupid idea? If the card has a slight mark, grade it accordingly I say!

I do. I agree, just grade it accordingly. If a mark would bring the grade from a 5 to a 3, why not just grade it a 3 ?

[doug.goodman]

Has the registry really driven people to rather have less appealing cards just to up their score?

The registry has nothing to do with cards, it has everything to do with scores.

[Zach Wheat]

I included scans of both front and back and indicated in my description that the card was graded PSA 5 mk.

Anyone else think that grading with qualifiers is a stupid idea? If the card has a slight mark, grade it accordingly I say!

I agree with most on this post. I would not have a problem with your description or what you did. There is a lot of angst in general.

Don't let the occasional bad ones spoil it for you!

MWheat

[jbbama]

No issue, some people like to argue about anything.

[YankeeCollector]

No issue, some people like to argue about anything.

Tell me about it. It was the tone of the email that set me off. My parents never ever spoke to me in this manner! Either that or that he may be some egomaniac (he did mention in his email that he was in the "PSA HOF") who has the next lowest grade of the card I was auctioning and it set him off!

[Ladder7]

March right down there and give that uppity bastid a qualifier. You're a Yankee damnit.

Doesn't help your sitch, I know... There's (was) a check box on the PSA sub, to waive qualifiers in lieu of a lesser grade.

[slidekellyslide]

Tell me about it. It was the tone of the email that set me off. My parents never ever spoke to me in this manner! Either that or that he may be some egomaniac (he did mention in his email that he was in the "PSA HOF") who has the next lowest grade of the card I was auctioning and it set him off!

What was his ebay ID?

[sportscardtheory]

Weren't Qualifiers created specifically for the Registery so people could have the higher grades to bump their sets? What I'm saying is, if you placed that card in a Set Registry, it would show up as a 5, no? I could be wrong.

[glchen]

Well, I can see where you both have points. If you were to send that card to SGC, it wouldn't receive a 5. It would probably receive something like a .... 3. I don't see anything wrong w/ marketing that card as the highest gradest, however. It's still a 5Q. I dislike marks myself, but the one on that card hardly detracts from it.

[jg8422]

Weren't Qualifiers created specifically for the Registery so people could have the higher grades to bump their sets? What I'm saying is, if you placed that card in a Set Registry, it would show up as a 5, no? I could be wrong.

I believe the PSA Registry automatically drops the grade by 2 points if there is a qualifier. I am not 100% sure, but I think that is the deal.

[albrshbr]

I included scans of both front and back and indicated in my description that the card was graded PSA 5 mk.

Anyone else think that grading with qualifiers is a stupid idea? If the card has a slight mark, grade it accordingly I say!

Actually, I like the use of qualifiers. Let's take it a bit more to an extreme. A card could receive a grade of an 8(MK), but without a qualifier any card with even the slightest bit of writing would grade no higher than Good (a 2).

[iwantitiwinit]

Just to be clear did you cite in the title that the card was a psa 5 or a psa 5 mk? I would expect that it would be disclosed in the title that the card was qualified not just in the description. If you disclosed in the title that the card was a psa 5 but failed to cite it was qualified I would have to say, in my opinion, you were not being on the up and up.

As to the claim that it was the highest graded, i might have said it has attained the highest psa NUMERICAL grade though it has been qualified, though again that is simply my opinion.

[benchod]

I don't think you did anything wrong.
Can you post a link to the auction?