Posted By:
Aaron M."If that is wrong on my part I will be wrong forever."
I think that's the point. You seem so intent on defending your right to a refund and what you perceive to be Lee's mistakes that led to that right, you are not listening to the large number of experienced posters who have said you are flat-out wrong: the card is not trimmed.
Regardless, it's not Lee's policy to give refunds on graded cards (clearly stated in his auction description). What if he were to stick to that policy, content to be "wrong forever" and refuse to accomodate you?
Do you see what an incredible double-standard you've imposed on Lee in this ridiculous thread?
Besides, how much was the insurance? The exact dollar amount? $1.00? $2.00?
That is petty.
Because that's the amount of money that was at issue that caused you to start a discussion thread attacking a fellow poster who had already agreed to give you a refund off a graded card when his policy was not to do so--despite the fact that he posted a clear image of the card and the card's SGC assigned grade and enough reputable collectors and dealers seem to be saying that contrary to what you believe the card is NOT trimmed. .
That's the epitome of petty and a lack of common-sense perspective.
"If there is no clear scan and the description says I just try to give the best description possible, I think the seller should mention the miscut and actually give the best description possible."
There WAS a clear scan. You just missed what you perceive to be a defect.
The description WAS his best possible. He took SGC's word for it that the card was not trimmed.
You are asserting your opinion as fact, even though you claim to not be here to attack Lee or his side of the transaction.
Really, what you should be saying is, "Lee, I'm going to hold you personally responsible if I (not anyone else mind you) think SGC made a mistake and I didn't look at the scan carefully enough."
"How can I embarrass Lee when I wasn't even going to use his name? I didn't even mention the card until he told me it was ok because I didn't want anyone looking on Ebay to see it was him. I tried to make my points in regard to the post."
Oh, forgot. Lee was just supposed to sit back and let you publicly attack his side of the transaction without responding.
You seem to be having a very difficult time seeing this from anyone else's perspective. Try this:
Imagine if you were the seller of a card and the buyer received it but was unhappy and wanted a refund, even though your item description clearly stated that you did not offer refunds (not to mention the fact that you think the buyer's claim is ridiculous).
In a generous move, you agree to give the refund anyway, but the buyer, still so irate over a disputed $1.00-$2.00 insurance charge says that he's going to post about the transaction on a website that you both frequent and discuss his side of the transaction (blaming you for everything).
That's not a form of black-mail? You don't think Lee was thinking, "gee, I better do what this guy says--he seems mentally imbalanced and I want to make sure he doesn't do anything that could hurt my sales or embarras me."
I honestly think, since you've so openly questioned Lee on a public site and he's already lost any motivation for making you happy, that he should forget about giving you the refund. Why should he when you've already done what you've threatened to do?
I mean the classy thing for him to do is give you a refund. Have you responded to his treatment in kind? If you had, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
"I think I made it clear it was not the sellers intention to post a bad scan."
Yes, but you continue to claim it was a "bad scan". Not only was it NOT a bad scan, your claim implies Lee was sloppy and possibly misleading in his listing.
That's not embarrasing? (Or worse?)
Lee had already agreed to eat YOUR mistake/buyer's remorse. Why take this to this to this level over what? $1.00? $2.00?