Beware Carterscards2006

[iwantitiwinit]

I don't in any way see how any refund here is warranted. Facts: 1) You bid on and bought a graded card. 2) All pertinent facts were disclosed about the card at time of sale, ie. grading company, grade, type of card, No Refunds on graded cards, etc. 3) You received the card offered in the manner that it was offered in a untampered with holder. Fact of law - the transaction ends at this point. No warranties or guarantees were made or implied.

The fact that you chose to submit the card to another grading agency and were then not happy with the result is not germane to the previous argument. It has no bearing on the purchase/sale transaction which again was completed satisfactorily from the point of law.

Personally, I find it surprising that you are making such a fuss about this. It would be interesting to know your motivation for resubmitting the card for grading? Lastly, I wouldn't bother pursuing a lawsuit here, in my opinion you will end up being countersued and most likely be on the hook for at a minimum court costs assuming you have listed all pertinent facts that could be viewed in your favor.

[bcornell]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Personally, I find it surprising that you are making such a fuss about this. It would be interesting to know your motivation for resubmitting the card for grading? Lastly, I wouldn't bother pursuing a lawsuit here, in my opinion you will end up being countersued and most likely be on the hook for at a minimum court costs assuming you have listed all pertinent facts that could be viewed in your favor.

Also "interesting" is why you're anonymous and full of opinions.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bcornell

Also "interesting" is why you're anonymous and full of opinions.

Good point. Per the rules, iwantitiwinit's full name needs to be put out here in the post. Please do that or edit out your comments....or do nothing and I will handle it. Nothing personal and feel free to say what you want to.

Todd- at least you will be able to save on lawyer fees if it goes that far. You have that going for you. Good luck with this poor situation. It certainly was not as advertised, there is no debate on that.

[pgellis]

I think one question that could be instrumental that hasn't been answered yet is:

Is the card still in it's GAI holder or has it been busted out?

[DJR]

.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by DJR

''At no time did I state I broke out the card, because I did not. It was submitted as received.''

That doesn't mean that SGC didn't break it out when examining it. My question should be restated then:

Is it still in it's original GAI holder?

[FrankWakefield]

That doesn't mean it is still in the holder. That just says it was submitted in the holder.


Edited to add that what Phil just said I was saying at the same time...

[botn]

Stating No Returns, As Is or All Sales Final, means nothing any longer under the new ebay and paypal rules. Just read the policy on seller requirements relating to a SNAD. If upon receipt the buyer simply does not agree with the grade assigned by the 3rd party grader, (despite the grading co's guaranty on the grade) they can file a SNAD claim and will prevail every time. The seller can merely delay the inevitable.

And as Peter pointed out it does appear that this seller has a single buyer with 6 feedback who really really loves the cards he sells. Must be great to have a customer like that in this economy!

Greg

[nolemmings]

Thanks Bill and Leon.

Frank, I don't need the card to be graded by SGC "in the first place". I have cards from these sets in all 5 company holders, including one "PRO" that I know to be authentic and unaltered, albeit overgraded. The holder means nothing to me so long as the card is good. Similarly, I didn't care about the numeric grade, and I submitted this with a request for a minimum 60. I didn't/don't need just a nm example of this card-- I would take one in most grades and my collection of this set spans from grades 2 to 8, depending on back.

I submitted this card because I was concerned about its being trimmed--while some don't mind altered cards, I do, and certainly so at the non-altered price. I submitted it within 24 hours of receiving it, and requested the 24 hour turnaround time, both out of fairness to the seller--if I was going to seek a refund I wanted to do so timely.

I believe the seller wanted bidders to have some faith in this being a GAI card from the Baker era; if so, he is no dummy as to the hobby. He not only advertised it as a "very early GAI" card in big bold letters immediately following the card's identification, he even paid extra to include that in the listing line. Why place such importance on this attribute unless you expected people to consider it significant?

[oldjudge]

Sellers need to stand behind what they sell, period. I agree with Todd 100%.

[rhettyeakley]

I see both sides on this one, kinda tricky especially if the card is no longer in the GAI holder.

Todd, you knew you were getting an M101-4 when you bought it (I assume) since you know as much as anyone about this issue did you not? You know the Sporting News back isn't found on M101-5's, despite what was in the description.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Sellers need to stand behind what they sell, period. I agree with Todd 100%.

He sold him a GAI graded card, not a SGC graded card.

[FrankWakefield]

Todd, when you say "The holder means nothing to me so long as the card is good." I have difficulty believing that... I think the holders do mean something to you. Here are some holders that meant nothing to me...




If you're leaving the card in the holder then the holder does mean something to you.




Now I do think that you should be able to undo the deal, return the card, and get your money back. But I still think if you're wanting an SGC card, buy one. If you are buying from a seller who has no returns and all of that 'guarantee' language you need to have your eyes open and pay attention.

[chaddurbin]

todd's not stupid to crack out a 1k gai card, and sgc would never crack out a card w/o the submitter's consent.

obviously seller should do the right thing and refund and not stick the buyer with a trimmed card. todd has alot experience with those Ms and if he suspects it's trimmed i'll take his/sgc words over GAI. from my experience tho i woulda asked the seller beforehand with gai/beckett slabs would they guarantee it'll cross unaltered to SGC...if not i stay away.

[barrysloate]

What riles me most about this, and it has nothing to do with Todd's dilemma, is that one company calls it NR MT+, and another calls it trimmed. And we've all seen far too many situations like this before.

How can TPG continue this way? This just isn't fair to collectors. I accept that no company gets it right all the time, but I have a right to demand a higher level of proficiency and a greater consensus among the various companies. If there are five grading companies out there and they each have their own distinct grading criteria, then the system doesn't work.

[FrankWakefield]

Todd poorly predicates his case if he posts here that he knew it was a -4 and not a -5; and that he knew that a card in a GAI holder may well be mistakenly graded.

I agree with Barry to a point. Ideally, TPG should work as he suggests. But it doesn't. And that's why I'm content to collect without it. I do understand why folks want it, there are a bunch of reasons. Again, if you're leaving your card in a slab then the slab does mean something to you...

[T205]

If this card would have came back from SGC graded and slabbed would you still seek a refund? Did you know at the time you sent the card into SGC to have it cross graded that it wasn't the card type the seller had in his auction?
If you did, and you wanted to see what the grade was when it came back from SGC and it ended up unfavorable for you then all of the sudden now you want a refund? To me it seems very unfair.

How long did you wait for a response from the seller? Sometimes people don't have access to the internet 24/7 or they just simply don't respond right away. Did you give him enough time to respond?

As mentioned before you seem very knowledgable about this particular issue yet you still bought the card knowing that it was the wrong card listed in that acution. There is a picture of the back of that card. The question that I got is what was your true intentions once you bought this card?

In my opinion I would think the sellers responsibility ended when you sent the card in to SGC.

Just my 2 cents.

[chaddurbin]

todd knew what he bought...the -4/-5 is just a technicality in case he needs it to get his money back. if people actually bother to read his post he did say he has these cards in all 5 holders, including PRO. his main concern with the card when he first got it was it's trimmed, so he sent it to SGC for a 2nd opinion. he got the confirmation, seller should refund. how hard is that? anyways TPG is not the problem, incompetent TPG is...and GAI falls in that category.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Thanks Bill and Leon.

Frank, I don't need the card to be graded by SGC "in the first place". I have cards from these sets in all 5 company holders, including one "PRO" that I know to be authentic and unaltered, albeit overgraded. The holder means nothing to me so long as the card is good. Similarly, I didn't care about the numeric grade, and I submitted this with a request for a minimum 60. I didn't/don't need just a nm example of this card-- I would take one in most grades and my collection of this set spans from grades 2 to 8, depending on back.

I submitted this card because I was concerned about its being trimmed--while some don't mind altered cards, I do, and certainly so at the non-altered price. I submitted it within 24 hours of receiving it, and requested the 24 hour turnaround time, both out of fairness to the seller--if I was going to seek a refund I wanted to do so timely.

I believe the seller wanted bidders to have some faith in this being a GAI card from the Baker era; if so, he is no dummy as to the hobby. He not only advertised it as a "very early GAI" card in big bold letters immediately following the card's identification, he even paid extra to include that in the listing line. Why place such importance on this attribute unless you expected people to consider it significant?

I just noticed that the auction ended on February 1. Above in bold you say that you submitted within 24 hours of receiving it and you don't yet have it in your hands.
Assuming that you paid for it timely, you probably received the card no later than February 7th or so. If you submitted it "within 24 hours of receiving it" and you "requested 24 hour turnaround time" (which I don't believe to be an actual SGC option - they have 48 hour turnaround), then how is it possible that you don't have the card back in your hands yet?

[richieb315]

Send it off to PSA and get a there opinion. GAI says not trimmed. SGC says trimmed. PSA ?. If it was to get a number grade from PSA who do we believe.

[Mikehealer]

Phil
SGC next day special, it's on their home page this month.
http://www.sgccard.com/
Thought you might be interested.

Originally Posted by pgellis

I just noticed that the auction ended on February 1. Above in bold you say that you submitted within 24 hours of receiving it and you don't yet have it in your hands.
Assuming that you paid for it timely, you probably received the card no later than February 7th or so. If you submitted it "within 24 hours of receiving it" and you "requested 24 hour turnaround time" (which I don't believe to be an actual SGC option - they have 48 hour turnaround), then how is it possible that you don't have the card back in your hands yet?

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

I don't in any way see how any refund here is warranted. Facts: 1) You bid on and bought a graded card. 2) All pertinent facts were disclosed about the card at time of sale, ie. grading company, grade, type of card, No Refunds on graded cards, etc. 3) You received the card offered in the manner that it was offered in a untampered with holder. Fact of law - the transaction ends at this point. No warranties or guarantees were made or implied.

The fact that you chose to submit the card to another grading agency and were then not happy with the result is not germane to the previous argument. It has no bearing on the purchase/sale transaction which again was completed satisfactorily from the point of law.

Personally, I find it surprising that you are making such a fuss about this. It would be interesting to know your motivation for resubmitting the card for grading? Lastly, I wouldn't bother pursuing a lawsuit here, in my opinion you will end up being countersued and most likely be on the hook for at a minimum court costs assuming you have listed all pertinent facts that could be viewed in your favor.

Mea culpa i did not realize that he advertised a M101-5 and you in fact received a M101-4. Given that I retract my entire past statement.