Would you dispute paypal transaction over trimming?
 

I recently purchased a 1993 Jeter SP titled NM-MT+ on Ebay from a large store, and member of this forum.

I looked it over but never compared size. I sent it off to PSA on the 30 business day monthly special. I just got my grades in an email today and the Jeter is rejected for not meeting the minimum size. The transaction is still inside the 180 day Paypal dispute window. I asked the seller to accept a return and told them I wasn't looking for them to reimburse me grading or shipping fees. They said NO and said PSA was crazy and they use SGC anymore. So am I wrong for wanting to return this even if it took a long time for me to get it verified?

No way. File a claim.

But if I was the seller, I suppose I'd want to see proof that PSA rejected it

Not meeting minimum size does not always mean trimmed. Sometimes cards come from the factory short and PSA is not comfortable with grading them as such.

I agree.

You need to resubmit the card... I've taken 4, 5, and 6 submissions to get cards into holders.

Though true, and I'm not really a card collector, but for someone to have to pay to PSA a card 4-5 times really worth it, and necessary for a buyer? I would think after the first time getting your money back and go for a better example would be a better approach.

93s are pretty common for being short, this actually isn't that unusual

Ultimately it's up to you, if you paid PayPal you should be able to get your refund regardless of the PSA part of it

If you feel like you were misled, then get your money back. If you feel misled because PSA wouldn't grade it, you need to recognize that size is a very common issue with the 1993 SPs and it could take a few submissions to finally get it holdered and who knows what the grade will be.

Thank you all for the input. The seller has about 900 cards listed on ebay. Looks like 90-95% are graded. With some very expensive pieces. I cant help feeling like they knew of the problem and that is why the passed it off on Ebay ungraded.

I never knew there was a common issue with size on the 1993 SPs. I also was confused about "Not meeting min size requirements" vs "Evidence of trimming" Thank you all