Need advice on a graded T3

[smtjoy]

Ok first off I am not posting this so we can bash on a grading company, there are plenty of those threads already. I use both PSA and SGC and for the most part I have been very happy with the service they both provide. Over the last 7 years I have gotten a few cards that I felt were a little under or overgraded but it has always been close and I am ok with that, its a judgement call on their part.

Now today I just purchased my first card were I really think they got it way wrong. The card is my first T3 and I was very excited to finally own one but was a bit dismayed when I saw it. The card was graded a PSA 4 and cost almost $700, after looking at the back I noticed 3 small spots of paper loss as well as two dark stains plus a large light stain over most of the top back of the card. I just can't see how this got in the holder (its not tampered with I made sure that was not the case), to me I would not give it more than a Poor -Fair, plus where is the qualifier for the stains? I am providing scans so you all can look and let me know that I am not just being overly picky and should be a bit upset. What do you think this card should have graded?


I am also looking for advice/help from anyone who might have already been down this road on what to do next. I am leaning towards calling Joe at PSA and seeing if he will make the situation right but I am open to what everyone else thinks. This is my first time down this road and don't want to be overreacting but at the same time I feel a bit like I was ripped off.

Thanks in advance for any and all help.
Scott

[Tom S.]

Tough break on the T3. Did the seller provide scans of the back before you purchased the card? Does the seller accept returns? I would try to work with the seller first before contacting the grading company.

Hopefully you will be able to come to an acceptable agreement with whichever course you choose.

[chaddurbin]

first, card is not poor/fair, you're being way too harsh.

small card=small flaws, big card=blown-up flaws. card is a bit soiled, and stained....not at all uncommon in VG-VGEX cards. psa also is more lenient with back paper loss. i think the grading on this card is pretty much in line with their standard (whether you agree with it is another story). depending on front i'd give it at least VG...

[ethicsprof]

I understand your disappointment,Scott.
IMHO the card should receive no higher than a Good.
The staining and paper loss should not be that noticeable on a 700 dollar T3.
I hope that you get your money back.
best,
barry

[vwtdi]

I agree with the rest of the opinions here, talk to the seller and hopefully you can work something out.

[Leon]

I am with Quan on this one. I don't think it's that bad. I am not a T3 collector but I have noticed grading companies be a bit lenient in grading of large sized cards. I would say it's only 1 grade difference, maybe a 3. If there was a big back scan, upon purchase, then I am not sure there is a lot of room for disgruntlement, maybe a little bit, but not a lot. This is just my own opinion. Ya' gotta do what makes ya' happy.....BTW, I have a nice VG-EX E94 with spots of paper loss on the back, but the front is close to NRMT. ALSO, if I am not mistaking it actually looks like some of those spots of paper loss are not paper loss but extra paper on the card. Maybe some scrapbook paste residue? Those could probably easily be removed.

[quinnsryche]

As long as a scan was available in the listing, I don't think the seller should issue a refund on a graded card unless it's been tampered with or the holder is damaged. If no scan (of the back) was offered, why wouldn't the buyer have requested one, especially with a high dollar item like that? I ALWAYS request better or additional scans (if the originals are deficient in my opinion) before purchasing ANY card that costs more than $100 or so. Not a slam to the buyer in any way, but you have to be extra careful these days, especially with dealers you are unfamiliar with.

[PolarBear]

I think the trick to getting great T3's is find PSA1's that look EX but have a small pin hole. If I were collecting them, I'd buy them all day like that.

[obcmac]

I know the first thing I do when I get a T3 is flip it over to see how great the checklist printing looks. What a raw deal. I'd agree that the mid-grade T3's are allowed more defects than a standard card.

Mac

[chaddurbin]

they're not allowed more defects....you can't judge a defect from a 1.5"x2.75" and apply it to a 6"x8" card. don't know how i can make it any clearer.

[scooter729]

SGC grades similarly on T-3's. Here is a Matty of mine (BST pickup last year); the front is gorgeous, but the back has some paper loss issues. It grades an SGC 30. That much paper loss on a regular caramel card would not get close to a 30, but I think is appropriate for this card.

[uffda51]

Below is what PSA says about grades 3 & 4 and stains. The words "stain" and "paper loss" do not appear in the VG-EX 4 description. The word "stain" appears in the VG-3 description but only with regard to gum stains. The stain on this card is ugly and impossible to miss. Like Barry, IMHO I would grade the T-3 as "good." I'm less personally bothered by paper loss generally, especially in a set in which all of the backs are essentially the same. On a card with career stats like a 1961 Topps Stan Musial, paper loss on the back would be a different story.

VG 3: Very Good.

A PSA VG 3 card reveals some rounding of the corners, though not extreme. Some surface wear will be apparent, along with possible light scuffing or light scratches. Focus may be somewhat off-register and edges may exhibit noticeable wear. Much, but not all, of the card's original gloss will be lost. Borders may be somewhat yellowed and/or discolored. A crease may be visible. Printing defects are possible. Slight stain may show on obverse and wax staining on reverse may be more prominent. Centering must be 90/10 or better on the front and back.

VG-EX 4: Very Good-Excellent.

A PSA VG-EX 4 card's corners may be slightly rounded. Surface wear is noticeable but modest. The card may have light scuffing or light scratches. Some original gloss will be retained. Borders may be slightly off-white. A light crease may be visible. Centering must be 85/15 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.

ST (Staining):

Cards with staining below the minimum standards for the grade will be designated "ST."

If PSA is going to apply their own standards then this card cannot be a PSA 4. It also can't be a PSA 4 (ST) because there is no mention of paper loss in the VG-EX 4 description, or any other PSA card category, for that matter. The words "paper loss" on the PSA web site appear only in descriptions of the grading standards for tickets. BTW, references to borders all seem to assume white borders. It's a tall order to create grading standards that will fit all card issues and all card sizes. However, if there is an unwritten rule about applying easier standards to "older" cards then maybe it should not remain unwritten.

Having now seen the front of the card, it's a nice looking card and it's a HOFer. Regardless of the "technical grade," paying around $700 for it may not be so terribly out of line. If the seller clearly stated "no returns on graded cards" then that should really settle the matter. One possible course of action, if the seller agress. Ask the seller to offer the card to the underbidder and pay the seller the difference between the two bids. The sellers comes out even, the underbidder get the card at his price and Scott pays a pretty small price to unload what is now an unwanted card.

[ethicsprof]

I'm pleased that we agree. And more importantly,I must add how much i appreciate the thorough explication, logical argumentation, and corroboration that you offer. Most refreshing.

many thanks,

best,
barry

[FrankWakefield]

All of this seems to me a good reason to not fool with graded cards.

Seems to me that the T3s are graded more on the look of the front. (And I'd like to see the front of the card of original concern.)

Nice looking Mathewson. Forget the slab and the grade... I like the card.

[rdixon1208]

I'm with Quan and Leon on this one. I don't think it's that bad.

Mental Note: Don't send your cards to Net 54 Grading Company!

[smtjoy]

Thanks for all the replys, keep them coming if you have a view. I have sent a message to the seller but have not heard back yet.

I think Bruce pretty much hit my feeling in that by PSA's own standards they messed up or if in fact they grade them different then I'm even more upset.

Here is a picture of the front, for what its worth-

[Anthony S.]

I checked the auction. The seller did include a scan of the back of the card and when you enlarge the scan (ie the Ebay option of enlarging a scan) the stain is pretty obvious, as is the paper loss over the number 17 on the checklist.

[smtjoy]

If you read my first post my issue was not so much with the seller (they did provide scans, that said I have asked the seller for a refund as I am not happy with my purchase), it was with PSA.

Part of the reason I buy graded cards is I expect a certain standard and if I buy a PSA 4 VG-EX I expect a card in a certain condition or at least close to it. If PSA is cool with paper loss and a stain on a 4 then they might lose my future business. If they grade T3's different how am I supposed to know that and it doesnt make sense to me.

[Kawika]

I assembled a Turkey Red set a couple of years ago. Bought cards any way I could, graded or raw, and completed the set just as SGC started to grade T3s so almost all my slabbed cards are PSA. It seemed to that they were all over the map with their grading and that they don't have consistent standards when it comes to TR's. I got the impression that corner wear and creasing trump other criteria like surface condition. I have twos that are nicer than fives (and heaven help you if you have a microscopic pinhole on an otherwise flawless card). Submitted for your consideration is this PSA 5 of Red Kleinow. Corners are OK but bumped and frayed, no creases (scratch on slab at llc) but the eye-appeal is compromised by myriad foxing marks and a tad of paper loss (@ 44 Trying to Catch...).



Compare it to McIntyre, a relatively unscathed four.



Or even Mullin, a two primarily on account of a 3/32" tear at lhs. Back clean as a whistle.


For all I know these may all be technically correct grades; I am not like some of you who can grade a card at fifty paces. It doesn't even really bother me except when a card's grade is touted as being correlated to a certain price. A set of decent scans beats a grade any day when it comes to buying cards, especially Turkey Reds.

[ethicsprof]

David,
This is the first time that I've seen your 'humble' T3 collection, as you call it.
And it is absolutely breathtaking! I always love the Cobb and Matty but
the Dancing Jennings with the bright yellow truly captured me, as well as many others.
I must say Congratulations, ole friend!!!
From this day forward, i agree with you on whatever you say about T3s!

best,
barry

[Kawika]

Barry, ol' chap,
You'd think that because I have an engineering degree and worked many decades as a land surveyor that I would be comfortable with technical criteria such as those used in the grading of cards. Alas, iron ring notwithstanding, I am but a romantic when it comes to baseball cards. I delight in their beauty and rationalize their flaws. Pop reports and grades and other numerologies matter little compared to aesthetics, especially when reflecting upon the agreeably glorious Turkey Red set.

Cheers-
David McD.

[quinnsryche]

As a seller/buyer on ebay I am not quite sure how you can ask for a refund on a graded card that you saw scans, both front & back, of. Most sellers state in their listings "no refunds on graded cards" which I agree 100% with. Maybe you can explain a bit further why you are unhappy with your purchase? I would never give a refund just because "I don't like it". Scans were provided and nothing was questionable about the listing. The seller provided exactly what was listed, nothing more/nothing less. If your gripe is with PSA, fight it out with them, but leave the seller out of it. Buyer's remorse is no reason for a refund IMO.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by quinnsryche

As a seller/buyer on ebay I am not quite sure how you can ask for a refund on a graded card that you saw scans, both front & back, of. ..... The seller provided exactly what was listed, nothing more/nothing less. If your gripe is with PSA, fight it out with them, but leave the seller out of it. Buyer's remorse is no reason for a refund IMO.

Not to pile on, but I agree with this statement. This isn't the sellers fault.

Edit to add, I looked at the auction and it was a true auction with a $9.95 start. No way under those circumstances is it reasonable to ask for a refund in my opinion.

Also, to agree with others, I think it's a nice card that presents well. I wouldn't feel bad about owning it.

[smtjoy]

I never said it was the sellers fault. That said the seller has no stated return policy and I think on a card that was graded a 4 and had the issues possibly outside that grading standard the seller should have brought that up. I therefore dont see an issue with asking for a refund.

I also think its funny the whole "no returns on graded cards" because is that not in fact assuming that the card is consistently graded and you should get a card thats up to their published standard?

As a sellers on ebay I offer no questions asked returns on any item and just feel its good business and I know I am not alone on this.

[Rob D.]

Scott, if I had to make an educated guess, I'd say that many eBay sellers have a "no refunds on graded cards" policy because of the exact scenario that is developing here: A buyer receives a card he thinks is overgraded (as opposed to the card being altered, misidentified or fake) and wants to return it.

I've got to ask: The seller provided scans of the front and back. If you didn't like the card or had doubts about it, why buy it? It's not like T3s are one-of-a-kind cards of which you'll never see another.

There's not even a consensus in this thread as to what the grade of the card should be. It doesn't seem that either the seller or PSA should be held liable that you don't agree with the grade and don't like the card.

[PolarBear]

Originally Posted by smtjoy

I never said it was the sellers fault. That said the seller has no stated return policy and I think on a card that was graded a 4 and had the issues possibly outside that grading standard the seller should have brought that up. I therefore dont see an issue with asking for a refund.

I also think its funny the whole "no returns on graded cards" because is that not in fact assuming that the card is consistently graded and you should get a card thats up to their published standard?

As a sellers on ebay I offer no questions asked returns on any item and just feel its good business and I know I am not alone on this.

I don't think it's the sellers job to determine if PSA grades cards correctly. That very quickly becomes a one way street. Imagine a listing that says, PSA 4 but they clearly got it wrong, it's a PSA 6, so bid accordingly. We'd all laugh at an auction like that. Bottom line, PSA guarantees the grade, not the seller.

I understand about your return policy and that's a business decision (not a bad one either). Not everyone will make that same business decision however, and the auction clearly states no returns. I don't see how it's reasonable to expect a refund under the circumstances.

Not trying to be a jerk or anything, so don't take it that way. Just trying to add my opinion as to how I would handle it.

[quinnsryche]

I agree with PolarBear 100%. Well said.
Edit to add: Rob D. also.

[barrysloate]

Scott- wouldn't it be easier to just resell the card yourself instead of getting into a disagreement with the seller? As stated by a few, the seller did nothing wrong and it might be unfair to pressure him to take it back. If you resell it yourself you should come pretty close to getting all your money back, and it's not impossible that you might end up a couple of dollars ahead. I've been in your position before, and I find it is better to just sell it and move on.

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by smtjoy

I never said it was the sellers fault. That said the seller has no stated return policy and I think on a card that was graded a 4 and had the issues possibly outside that grading standard the seller should have brought that up. I therefore dont see an issue with asking for a refund.

The seller did have a stated return policy. If you click the "Shipping and Payments" button on the auction listing it states, under the heading Return Policy, "The seller will not accept returns for this item."

[smtjoy]

Sorry I did miss the no return option.

Thanks for all the info and replys, i'm still considering my options.

[Anthony S.]

Is the seller able to see the full Ebay ID --- not that d**6** crap that the bidders see --- of the underbidder? If so, you might want to ask him for it, and then contact the underbidder and see if he's still interested in the card.