Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p>Lets say you collect only vintage cards that are slabbed. However, that one card you've always desired is now available to you, unslabbed. So, you buy the card with the intention of getting it graded. You send the card to any of the big three. The card comes back as trimmed, or altered etc. Through all your years of experience, you can NOT tell the card has been tampered with at all. Obviously your dissapointed. Since you cant get the card slabbed you decide to go ahead and sell it. Since you cant tell anything is wrong with the card other than the one grading company telling you that there is, do you make mention of the fact that the card has been tampered when selling??? Do you instead say "well that one grading company is full of idiots, so I'll sell the card and not mention it, and hopefully the guy buying it sends it to grading company B or C?" Just curious in people's thoughts as to should you disclose the information based on what one grading company has said, even though in your experience looking at the card it doesn't look altered in anyway??

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>In my opinion (and you're going to get a number of varying ones) is that if a card has been deemed trimmed by one of the big three you should disclose that fact when selling the card. If you decide not to disclose you should have a money back policy should the buyer determine that the card is in fact not as represented. Remember omitting a relevant fact is a misrepresentation just as much as making a false statement in connection with the sale.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Martin Neal</b><p>I know I am not really answering your question, but I would try to exhaust your possibilities with the grading services. I have had cards returned from PSA as trimmed when I was almost positive that they were not trimmed. These cards were then sent to SGC, and all three were subsequently graded. We all know that T206s come in varying sizes, some short and some trapezoid, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are trimmed. If your efforts are fruitless, then I would just bite the bullet on the card and disclose that you have not been able to get the card graded.<br /><br />I should add that I only have submitted cards to PSA or SGC.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p>If you're not going the full disclose route, at least have it Authenticated. We've all seen some _A's_ fetch more than low-graded examples. On the plus side, you lose the anxiety of being exposed AND the risk of tainting your rep in the future.<br /><br /><br /><br />editted to lower tone

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Ask yourself, if you were the buyer, is the fact that one grading service had rejected the card for trimming something you would want to know and that would affect the price you would pay?

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>have had cards deemed trimmed by ______ (you fill in the blank) that were submitted to _____ (again, fill in the blank) and graded. Of eleven (11) submitted six (6) were graded. I do not submit cards to GAI, CSA or PRO. I only deal with the top two companies.<br /><br />Now let us re-visit the initial question. Do I disclose (with respect to the six graded cards) that another company had deemed them trimmed?

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Peter's response hits the nail on the head. The responsibilty of the seller is to provide such disclosure that a reasonably prudent buyer would want to have. In this instance I know if I was the buyer I sure as heck would want to know the card had been rejected by one of the grading services. Yes, too, the seller can accompany this disclosure with a tirade about the idiots who perhaps work for the grading service and that they simply were wrong about their assessment of the card. But the initial disclosure must be made.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>It would only be fair to disclose this information to the seller. Your opinion about the condition of the card, regardless of your hobby experience, will carry little weight compared to that of one of the reputable grading companies. In practical terms that equals dollars and cents lost for the potential buyer as the value of the card (depending on the issue) will be only a fraction of an untrimmed example. It is your responsibility either to re-submit the card or disclose the information to potential buyers.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Guys:<br /><br />That question was a little "soft"...<br /><br />so let's take it a step further:<br /><br /><br />Let's suppose you bought the card unslabbed and sent it to PSA or SGC and they sent it back as "trimmed."<br /><br />But THEN you sent it to the OTHER legitimate grading company (SGC or PSA) and it came back graded.<br /><br />So now you have a card slabbed by a legitimate grader.<br /><br />NOW DO YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE THE PRIOR REJECTION FOR "TRIMMING"??

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>The OJ Delehanty I sold you, that I bought raw on ebay, was rejected by the idiots at PSA. They didn't have a clue. SGC put it in an 84 holder as they should have. Will you please sell it back to me now for what you paid? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> But to answer the question I don't believe you need to disclose that xxx grading company rejected it before it was put into abc's holder now. Just my opinion though. Everyone has their own view on this...and I don't care if a card I buy, in a slab, has been rejected before and I am not told. I look closer at slabbed cards today than I used to ....especially in anyone but SGC's holders. (I still look but I trust them more)....regards .....and Hal...I think we talked about the Delehanty before you bought it from me...I knew the darn thing wasn't trimmed...

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>...or, how about if you bought a raw card from someone and they told you the card was trimmed, but then it ended up being graded? Do you diclose that?<br /><br />Once it's slabbed, most people don't really care. If it's raw and fairly valaugble card, most people are going to be suspicious and wonder why the card is still raw when their could be more money made if it was slabbed. <br /><br />Disclosure is nice, but in reality, it's not going to happen beucase everyone wants to maimize the amount of moeny they get for their cards.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Martin Neal</b><p> That may be be the most ethical thing to do, but I don't think I have ever seen that disclosed on a EBAY auction. I'm guilty of doing that with the three SGC cards I sold. At the time it did't enter my mind as being unethical, but I can see where someone would think that. Let me add that I would gladly repurchase any one of those cards back if the original purchasers prefer that.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>I believe in erring on the side of disclosure. Suppose in the card Leon describes it was SGC that first rejected it and then PSA slabbed it. Under the rationale of buy the card and not holder, coupled with my view that in regard to vintage cards I have more confidence in what SGC says than PSA, if I was the buyer I sure would want to know the card was rejected by SGC.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>I think all of the major grading services are hyper-sensitive to the card alteration problem right now and are trying to err on the safe side when it comes to authenticating and grading cards. They are trying to protect their reputations. They would rather risk frustrating a customer than holder a card that is later shown somehow to be altered. (Either way, they get paid for looking at the card of course.) I think this is particularly true of high-value cards, where the stakes are higher.<br /><br />Therefore, I would not assume that if a card is returned un-holdered due to suspected alteration, that it has in fact been altered. I would say that if you have a card that has been professionally graded you can sell it as such, without having to disclose the complete history of the actions grading companies took on that particular card on previous grading attempts.<br /><br />An exception to this would be of course, if you altered the card yourself, or otherwise had a good reason to believe that it had in fact been altered. Then I think it would be unethical to sell the card without disclosing your knowledge. Again, I would not take rejection of a card by a grading company, in and of itself, as sufficient evidence that the card has in fact been altered.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am not saying you are wrong and that is certainly a valid view you have. As long as we all KNOW it's not happening (rejection disclosre), because it's not, then at least we aren't being naive. regards

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>anthony</b><p>Yes, you should always disclose the trimmed fact or any other marks or problems with the card or offer a refund...especially if you're not going to put a scan of the back in listing or on the b/s/t<br /><br />I had sold several low grade (but graded) cards that I had popped out of their holders. The buyer sent them to PSA to be graded and one came back "trimmed"...I had guaranteed them to grade (since I took them out of their holders) so I took back the card. <br /><br />Now, when I received the card back, the buyer had done a horrible job trimming it himself before sending it off...I have a scan of the card untrimmed and now have the card trimmed.<br /><br />Should I spend the $400 for a plane fare to go to this guy and beat the crap outta him or just eat the $75 ?? (I want to spend the $400 and get pure satisfaction)

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>out the SOB.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>If you like the card, have it slabbed as A or AUT. If not, it's worth a disclosure.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I'd say it's time to stop collecting slabbed cards; keep and enjoy it. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Edited to add: Some of my favorite cards are ungradeable. <br /><br />Seriously, if you feel that you have the requisite expertise to examine the card and your examination tells you it is not trimmed, if I was you I would not accept the response of the grading company and dump the card. I've seen the graders make too many erroneous rejections. If you were hesitant about the card or felt incompetent to determine whether the card was trimmed, that's another story. Before abandoning ship on that one card you wanted, I would resubmit to either that company or some other company. I've had cards rejected as trimmed that I knew were ok and they've later been slabbed by the same company. <br /><br />If you are intent on selling the card raw, I would say it would be best to disclose why.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Assuming you could receive a refund from the original buyer: When the card was returned<br />as 'trimmed' would you want to return the card for a refund (presumably due to you felt the card<br />was worth less money or because you aesthetically didn't want a 'tainted' card)? If you<br />answer is yes, then you would necesarilly have to disclose that it was rejected.<br /><br />The second queston is: Is the card trimmed or not trimmed? If the card is not <br />trimmed and the card is known to be untrimmed, there's no requirement to <br />disclose known erroneous opinions on the card. People pull cards straight from<br />wax packs, and know that the card is not trimmed. If I'm selling a 1976 Cranes<br />Disc Walter Payton Rookie, I'm not required to disclose that my four year old<br />daughter said it was a cookie. I can if I want, but I'm not required.

Ethical Question #549
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Leon:<br /><br />Yes, you told me.<br /><br />And, Yes, I think this is something that SHOULD be told to purchasers so that they can make informed decisions.<br /><br />In my case, I also agreed that the OJ was not trimmed, so getting it slabbed by SGC was all I needed to see.<br /><br />At that time, PSA was not really doing much in the vintage area anyways.