PDA

View Full Version : Opinions Please


Archive
11-27-2004, 02:51 AM
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>I would like some opinions from you all on a situation that has arisen. <br /><br />I purchased 4 seperate T206 comons from a seller that were titled as being Ex/Mt or better for a total of $125. I received the cards and thought they might be trimmed but measured close to specs if not right on. <br />I decided to send the cards off to SGC, all 4 came back trimmed. I informed the seller of the fact and he informed me that he had listed in the auction that they measure a trace short top to bottom. I reviewed the listing:<br /><br />Check out the positive feedback on ungraded cards in my other auctions too. I'll accept back any ungraded card, no questions asked. No returns on graded cards. No reserve. If you do not accept optional insurance, you take the risk on lost cards. Total sales over $50 require insurance. Cards are generally sent first class which usually take a week to get to you and we mail once a week, usually Fridays. Personal checks must clear. HAPPY TO COMBINE SHIPPING ON MULTIPLE LOTS. These 206s are from a large collection and have not been graded because they measure a trace short top to bottom. All Piedmont<br /> <br />I found that this was true and that I must have over looked it, my guess is because it was on the very bottom but none the less I missed it, totally my fault. So I was under the assumption that I was bidding on EX/Mt cards.<br /><br />I proposed a settlement of $45, thus paying $20 a card (which I felt was fair price for a trimmed card) to compensate for the fact that his auction title was misleading, I also admitted to him that it was my fault that I missed that they measured short, but that did not make up for the fact that he Titled the auctions as EX/Mt, the seller feels that because of trimming being noted in the description that he handled the fact on his end.<br /><br />After a couple of email exchanges he offered me a full refund on the four cards. This made no sense to me to accept because if I did I would be out the grading fees plus postage and have nothing to show for it. I expressed this fact to him and he has offered to refund the $45.<br /><br />I woould like the opinions of you all on which way you would go.<br /><br />Lee

Archive
11-27-2004, 08:37 AM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I think the seller is handling the situation honestly. If the cards are trimmed a full refund is appropriate, but I don't think you should get a refund of the grading fees or any extras because the listing does say that the cards are short, which is a GIANT red flag to me. It also sounds like you got a very discounted price on ex-mt T206 cards based on that red flag; I'll buy them at that price per unit all day if they are really ex-mt because I can slab them and easily double my money. If they are not trimmed or you are not sure if they are trimmed, then what you are saying is that you don't believe the opinion of the grading service you chose. If so, the seller doesn't owe you anything, again because he disclosed the condition issue and you are apparently in disagreement with the service. IMHO asking for a discount or rebate is fair for an undisclosed condition issue when you want to keep the cards; if the issue is disclosed and you missed it, you really cannot complain. Send 'em to GAI; if they make it back at all, they will probably be 7's <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />

Archive
11-27-2004, 12:29 PM
Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>Lee,<br /><br />Based on what you said, the seller did nothing wrong. Considering graded ex/mt T206 cards sell for $125 each didn't you think something was wrong here when you got 4 for that price? He said he is giving you a complete refund. Take it and call it a lesson learned. <br /><br />Consider your grading fees your punishment for missing the part about them being short in the description. Besides, you can't expect a seller to refund your grading fees, that isn't part of the auction and was your choice to send them in.<br /><br />Lesson for any younger/new collectors out there: <br /><br />Don't fool yourself, people are selling Baseball cards for one reason - to make money - and that is fine. BUT, if someone is selling a card, especially a high end card, and mentions that card is short they KNOW that will hurt the final price so they MUST be mentioning the size for a reason. This holds true for the one time eBay seller AND well known names in the hobby.

Archive
11-27-2004, 12:36 PM
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>I would like to clarify that the $45 refund I asked for is based what trimmed cards actually would go for not the fact that I am trying to recover grading fees.<br /><br />My biggest question in the matter is, Is the seller held accountable for listing a card as EX/Mt but they acknowledge that the card is probably trimmed or am I off base because I missed the fact in the description?<br /><br /><br />This example is the exact reason that I feel that sellers should never apply a grade just describe a card.<br /><br />All help would be greatful<br /><br />Lee

Archive
11-27-2004, 12:45 PM
Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p>I think its just a misleading dealer and youre lucky to have the chance to get anything back.Its as bad as people who use PSA as a keyword to get more people to view their auctions when the card has nothing to do with PSA but if you read the auction and decide to bid you cant be mad when you dont get a PSA card.<br /><br />If hes willing to give you 45 bucks back then take it because thats more than you should expect,and from now on just read the listings more carefully.Eevrybody learns their lesson that way seeing as the seller didnt get away with misleading bidders

Archive
11-27-2004, 01:21 PM
Posted By: <b>al davis</b><p>the seller seemed quite professional and honest in his listing and in his dealing with you. just admit that you made a mistake in not reading the listing. RTFM.

Archive
11-27-2004, 01:39 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Burying something as important as a card being trimmed at the end of a action listing, at the end of the shipping and refund policy no less, is highly suspect, to say the least. This is something that should he in the main body of the description. This in NOT imformaiton that you have find buried somwhere else in the acution's fine print.<br /><br />Is this decietful? The seller probably doesn't think so, but when you bury an important fact that radically changes the description given, you are being less than honest with the people you are trying to sell to.<br /><br />Was my brother at fault for missing this? Yes. But at the same time, how many of us really read closely the shipping and return policy, let alone expect to find pertenant information about the item we are buying that would affect the amount we are willing to bid?<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Archive
11-27-2004, 02:19 PM
Posted By: <b>Howie</b><p>What difference does it make? The seller's 2nd line was "I'll accept back any ungraded card, no questions asked" and the seller was willing to give a refund when asked. Remember, in his mind there were underbidders who may have read the rules and were willing to pay what they bid for the cards based on reading the full description. So the seller loses out by giving a partial refund of $45, but he was even willing to do that to make the buyer happy. There's no question that the auction was deceptive, either by accident or on purpose. The seller offered refunds in two ways to the buyer. I don't understand what the problem is.

Archive
11-27-2004, 02:46 PM
Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>I'd say overall, the seller disclosed a variety of important information and I have problems with the sellers being responsible for grading fees, especially as the buyer could return them right away if he felt there was was something wrong. However, I agree with Lee that the grade should not have been given in the title or, if it was, the disclaimer that the cards were short, and not worth having graded, should have been prominantly displayed with the card's description and not after the section on the return policy and shipping cost.

Archive
11-27-2004, 02:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>as, you are a great person to deal with! First, the seller stated he gives refunds on ungraded cards - so, he should. Second, ANYTHING listed as short, I simply assume it is trimmed and ungradeable. Hope everything works out for you Lee. And, I am sure you learned to go by my philosophy mentioned earlier from now on.

Archive
11-27-2004, 05:11 PM
Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>READ. EVERY. WORD! (and feel lucky if what the words say cover it all!)

Archive
11-27-2004, 05:52 PM
Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>I'm sorry folks, but if an eBay description of a card says "This card is Near Mint" but burried three paragraphs below in the shipping options and insurance charge is "(This card really is grade poor and will be rejected by PSA)", I would be pissed and each and every person reading this thread would be pissed.<br />

Archive
11-27-2004, 06:09 PM
Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>"Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb Authgraphed baseball. Comes with an LOA from PSA/DNA and Mike Gutierrez. Also comes with appraisel from Sotheby's for $50,000, signed by Sothby's President. This ball was once displayed at a special event at the Babe Ruth Museum in his hometown of Baltimore, and comes with a museum program and letter from the special event's curator both proving this provenance. Bill Mastro told me in person at the 2004 National Convention in Cleveland that this was one of 2-3 finest Ruth/Cobb signed ball's he's seen. Lifetime No Questions Asked Money Back Guarantee. Shipping is fully insured for no extra charge.<br />.....<br />.....<br />.....<br />....<br />....<br />....<br />....<br />....<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />....<br />...<br />....... (This auction is really for a 1987 Topps Mike Greenwell. All sales final, no refunds. I have never met Bill Mastro and have never been to Cleveland.)"

Archive
11-27-2004, 11:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Trae R.</b><p>Literally Laughing Out Loud, Hank - Good one. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
11-28-2004, 05:35 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>There's not even a question that Lee is in the right here. First, the seller agreed to take back all ungraded cards. Second, he suggests that the reason he didn't get the cards graded is because they were slightly short--but he doesn't say that they're trimmed! He's sort of giving the buyer a clue that the cards may be trimmed but won't come out and say it, most likely due to the fact that it will lower his ultimate sales price. This one isn't even close.

Archive
11-29-2004, 12:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>It appears to me, Lee, that you voided the warantee. That the seller continues to extend courtesy to you is a testament to his belief that the buyer is always right.<br /><br />This seller clearly states that he will accept back any ungraded card, no questions asked. No returns on graded cards. <br /><br />Upon your grading these cards, the warantee no longer applies.

Archive
11-29-2004, 01:03 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Gilbert, you are misreading what the seller is saying. The seller is refering to cards that he is selling, not what is done after the the card leaves his possesion.<br /><br />It's reading wayyyyyy to much into things like this that makes the lawyers on this board rich and allows them to outspend us for cards we wants <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Archive
11-29-2004, 01:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Jay Miller</b><p>Lee--I understand your point about the Ex/mt in the title but, despite that, I think the seller has been more than fair. I would take the full refund and leave it at that. Your grading fees are your expense. If you had bought a card from Lelands or pretty much any auction house, had it graded, and it came back trimmed the most you could expect back (if anything) would be what you paid for the card. The grading fees would not be returned. As to the confusing grade given the cards consider how many major auction houses grade cards as EX-neglecting back damage.

Archive
11-29-2004, 04:05 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>One person misreads what Lee wrote and now everyone thinks he wanted his cost of getting the card rejected by a grading company refunded. THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WROTE!!! <br /><br />Jay, the seller may have "done the right thing" in offering a full refund, but I can't believe that you think his auction description is adequet with the way he buried the fact that the cards are short.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Archive
11-30-2004, 07:52 AM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>Jay: Since you have assumed the position of interpreter here, perhaps you can tell me if I understand the request for opinions correctly.<br /><br />Lee bought some cards without reading the complete description.<br /><br />After he got the cards, he became dissatisfied.<br /><br />He complained to the seller.<br /><br />The seller offered a complete refund.<br /><br />A complete refund was not viewed as sufficient.<br /><br /><br /><br />I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I do not want in.

Archive
11-30-2004, 08:38 AM
Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>The seller seemed to go beyond what was necessary. The most obvious part of this that is being overlooked, is that the seller noted that they were short, but Lee could not tell they were trimmed and sent them to SGC anyway. So if Lee wasn't sure, then why is he holding the seller accountable for judgement that he himself couldn't make, especially when the seller appears to have a more accurate ruler than Lee and spelled out the results in his listing? <br /><br />Lee, put away your ruler and use your experience - if you receive cards that appear "altered", simply tell the seller BEFORE you send them in for grading, and ask for a refund. The value of the cards would have gone up substantially if they had been slabbed, as you are well aware. You elected to take that chance, so you absorb some cost for the risk you took - the rest of us do it all the time.<br /><br />And it's impossible to get into the seller's head to determine if he "thought" the cards were trimmed - if that were the case, he certainly should have pointed it out. But since Lee also wasn't sure, I don't think we should assume any different for the seller.<br /><br />...I have to go - they are letting me walk around the prison yards for 30 minutes. Yesterday I got a t206 Cravath for only 3 bundles <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />

Archive
11-30-2004, 11:30 AM
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>I did not want to chime in any more, but some of the responses came up with there own concusions without reading throughly. Scott's last response seemed to understand the facts the best.<br /><br />Here is what happened that I am trying to get compensation for. I bid on the cards as EX/Mt, missing the fact they were listed as short. I received the cards and thought maybe they were trimmed, not knowing the they were asvertised short. I sent them in to SGC because they measure extremely close if not on to specs as either getting the cards slabbed or having confirmation that they were trimmed. <br /><br />As stated clearly in my other 2 posts, I am not asking for $45 to compensate for the grading cost, but to bring the cost down to a what I feel is a fair level ($20 a card ) for a trimmed T206 common.<br /><br />The biggest thing I was trying to get out of the thread was the fact that the title read EX/Mt but the description says it was not warrant any compensation on my end. I take full blame for the fact that I missed the fact they were short in the description.<br /><br />I appreciate the help but alot of the response actually didn't answer the question and jumped to conclusions (especially about me wanting the compensation for sending the cards into get graded, The seller has actually told me that other cards from this lot were graded by PSA, but that's another story).<br /><br />I appreciated the fact that the seller offered a full refund, but it makes no sense to me to send them back now having the postage and grading cost into the cards and have nothing to show it. At least this way I still have the cards.<br /><br />By the way the seller although not thrilled has been very open in this whole matter. I wanted to use this thread to decide whether the $45 compensation was warranted.<br /><br />Thanks for all the responses more are welcome good or bad<br /><br />Lee

Archive
11-30-2004, 12:08 PM
Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>...for putting up with our criticism. You and Jay are better at that than most of the rest of us, which is good because you will learn more than we will! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
11-30-2004, 12:11 PM
Posted By: <b>Howie</b><p>You're out the grading costs and shipping costs no matter what you do.<br />If you return the whole lot you get your $125 back and are just out the costs above. <br />If you take his $45 then get to keep 4 trimmed t206 cards for $20 each plus the costs above.<br />If you don't want anything to do with the trimmed cards then return the lot.<br />If you don't mind owning the trimmed cards then take the $45.<br />If you want to try to recover you costs then take the $45 and list the cards on Ebay with a clear description that the cards are slightly short, and you submitted the cards to SGC and they felt the cards were trimmed.<br />The cards will end up going for close to what they did originally and you'll be ahead on the deal.

Archive
11-30-2004, 12:43 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I really doubt that if Lee relisted these cards that they would sell for anywhere near what he originally paid for them since the fact that the trimming was burried in the shipping and return policy, but openly disclosed in the description. People seem to keep forgetting this fact. Yes, it was mentioned in the auction, but listing something that significant in the shipping and refund is questionable at best.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Archive
11-30-2004, 12:56 PM
Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>But please provide a link to the auction - my searches couldn't find it.

Archive
11-30-2004, 01:46 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Lee provided a cut and paste from the auction in a previous post. I have no clue what exact auction it is in as I don't think a link was ever provided. Lee made the claim, and I doubt he would do it if it was not the case. It's too easy to check.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

Archive
11-30-2004, 01:51 PM
Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>No one's accusing Lee of anything - I'd just like to see the auction description.

Archive
11-30-2004, 04:55 PM
Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Scott, That is a cut and paste of the auction description. I have purposely left the sellers name out because he has 100% feedback and has been willing (not overly happy about)to agree to my settlement. I just felt it would be fair to impose the question to the board whether I was off base in asking for the $45, if I was than I would not accept the $45 and move on.<br /><br />I still would like some more opinions on the matter.<br /><br />Lee

Archive
11-30-2004, 05:21 PM
Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>The only reason I can think of for ANYONE in your situation to keep the cards and be happy with $45 back is that they want to sell the cards as "ex/mt but short" and hope some greedy fool thinks they aren't trimmed - or doesn't read the "short" portion of the description - and bids like they are true "ex/mt" cards.

Archive
11-30-2004, 05:36 PM
Posted By: <b>three25hits</b><p><br />"I just felt it would be fair to impose the question to the board whether I was off base in asking for the $45, if I was than I would not accept the $45 and move on"<br /><br />You are free to ask for whatever you like. If the seller offers you something acceptable, take it.

Archive
11-30-2004, 05:49 PM
Posted By: <b>Howie</b><p>My thinking is that everybody else that bid on the cards read and understood the item description. After all you have four EX/MT T206 cards that sold for a total of only $125.00 If any of the other bidders thought they were EX/MT then they should have sold for more than $31.25 each. Dozens of other potential bidders had to have seen those auctions and would've eagerly bid more than $31.25 each for EX/MT T206 cards unless they noticed something funny about the auctions. If you run them and clearly point out that although they measure pretty close but SGC returned them as trimmed, the cards would sell for close to the same as they did before. If they're worth $20 to Lee as trimmed then $31 or so like before to another buyer isn't unusual or out of line. If they sell for about what they did before then with the $45 credit you got you might get close to being even with what you paid for trying to grade them.

Archive
11-30-2004, 05:49 PM
Posted By: <b>Todd</b><p>Maybe its because I can't stand trimmed cards (other than maybe the really scarce or some cards held for learning experience purposes), but I would return these and take him up on his money back no questions asked policy. <br /><br />Why do you want these trimmed cards? and if you do, then pay the price and don't chisel him down. As has been stated, true ex-mt cards from the issue would go for considerably more, and the price you got was no doubt due in substantial part because others didn't want to take the risk or were confident that the cards were in fact trimmed. If you return them, seller can do with them what he pleases, if you keep them, you can do likewise, but the price was the price. Frankly I'd be somewhat pissed if I were this seller and the deal was 're-struck" after the fact in this manner, particularly in light of the full refund offer. Maybe some underbidder would have paid nearly what you did and then kept the cards happily.