Would you pay $100 for a PSA 3 N172, sight unseen?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bruce Babcock</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/uffda51/PSA3.jpg"><br /><br />This card, with a minimum bid of $100, drew no bids in the 19th Century Only Auction.<br /><br />We have all seen others out there in similar shape. I'm not knocking Seth, 19th Century or the consigner, or even PSA. It simply seems obvious that the marketplace has determined that this card is not in vg condition.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Looks like Chamberlain was left in the icebox too long!<br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>This is no knock against Seth, but I'm glad collectors realized this was misgraded and my hope is that SGC recognizes that a card this sight unseen can not be graded a very good. It is certainly not accepted as VG in the collecting community.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Brings a whole new meaning to "ghost image".<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>This card would grade lower b/c of some glue/paper residue, mostly on back. But it was worth more than $100 to me because of the relative image contrast.<br /><br />J<br /><br />Edited to try to add the %$@#% image. Can't get imageshack to work, so will use the one-week-self-destruct method. Sigh. Doesn't seem like it should be hard, but I am pretty image challenged, it seems!<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1137266296.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>This is a good reason why it would be foolish to buy a card "sight unseen". Grading companies (as we are all aware) are not exactly "faultless" or perfect or even consistent... let me stop before I get started. <br /><br />No, I wouldn't buy a card sight unseen unless:<br /><br />- I knew the person selling it<br />- A complete description of the card was provided<br />- The card could be returned if I wasn't satisfied<br /><br />That is one thing I do like about Seth's auctions - you get HUGE scans to look at. It would have been interesting to see at what price this card would have sold if it had an opening bid of $10. I'd pay $10 for it... I'm not sure how much further I would have gone but a low amount could have enticed me. It could be a great filler card or trade bait for a later deal.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>Grading companies are a tool - but they do have their limitations. We all realize that, I think. Overall - many have criticized <i>all</i> of the grading companies [not just PSA] that have technical merits of grading but do not include things like contrast and image clarity on issues such as N172.<br /><br />All that said - there are definitely a number of dealers with whom I would feel absolutely comfortable buying a card sight unseen, whether raw or graded. And, on the other end of the spectrum, there are a small handful of dealers with whom I would never buy a card, graded or otherwise, without personally inspecting it or having the opportunity for a 100% refunds.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>We have talked about these "ghost" image photo type cards before. Even though it's subjective (isn't all grading?) it would be nice for one of the big 2 to take this into account..... Personally I would grade it pr-fr ....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>We have talked about these "ghost" image photo type cards before. Even though it's subjective (isn't all grading?) it would be nice for one of the big 2 to take this into account..... Personally I would grade it pr-fr ....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I've bought and sold sight unseen and, with someone you know, there's always an implicit or stated assumption on both sides that any major problems will be mentioned. Any legitimate seller would clearly note the problem with this PSA3, and the buyer would consider the seller dishonest if he didn't. So, yes I would buy a PSA3 N172 sight unseen.<br /><br />It reminds me of the eBay seller who was selling the 1949 Leaf Gene Hermanski card with a PSA label that incorrectly said it was a 'Hermansk' error. Anyone looking at the card saw the card said Hermanski not Hermansk. It didn't matter what the label said, the seller has to sell it as a regular Hermanski (This seller was offering it as a Hermansk error in title and description). And, if he offers it as a Hermansk error because that's what the label sells, why would the collector beleive the descriptions for any of his author auctions. In another lot if he says he got the photo signed in person by Willie Mays, why should a collector beleive him? Even if he really did get it signed by Mays, why should a collector beleive him? The collector who saw the 'Hermansk' offering will consider the seller to either be an idiot or a liar, and most collectors wish to avoid purchasing from dealers who are idiots and/or liars. So trying this type of stunt can hurt the seller more than anyone else.