Wow... Lot's of unnecessary drama and redundancy in this thread. I would think a dozen posts would have more than sealed the deal here.

Ebay's rules are crystal clear, and a refund was issued. I don't like the TPGs either, but this matter is cut and dried. If you don't mind the over-grading, just do the deal with Greg Morris off-line. You'll probably avoid paying sales tax, and he will avoid the eBay fees. A win-win. :)

Drama and redundancy are the hallmarks of many a thread, and no doubt I share some of the blame for that. :) But here, John said he hadn't been refunded, which I think in part led to it being drawn out.

The Andy guy does sound like he knows what he is doing. He sounds like someone I would be bidding against in an auction. Does he post on here? I recognize his name.

In my analogy, he's the guy that security calls to ask if it's okay to let Dusty Baker into the clubhouse and he says, "Dusty Baker?, Yeah, let him in."

One final comment and then I shall be forever silent on this topic, which was caused was by my own stupid blunder and dramatics, and that is both the seller and Greg Morris can't be happy with this busted transaction, which should have been so simple without the interference of Ebay's vaunted new program.

I believe Greg really needs to grade on a conservative basis, which I think in the main he does. I have bought multiple raw cards, had them graded and received grades consistent with his. More Ebay interferences that are 'reported' like mine, are going to discourage sellers. His platform depends on the proper grading of cards in his auction or confidence is lost.

Good. He overgraded the card. That's exactly the type of stuff I WANT discouraged.

I don’t think he’s posted here in a long time.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...Andy+Broome%94

Well, this should be fun. Looks like it's my turn...

I bought a raw Mantle on eBay and it got sent to CSG to authenticate it. I didn't notice it at the time, but the card in the listing showed the wrong back (the card I bought was a 1960 Topps, but the back image is actually of a 1966 Topps Mantle). It didn't register to me when I bid on the card because I only examine the images for creases, markings, and other flaws. Anyhow, the card gets sent off to CSG and they authenticated it. However, the card I received has a pen marking on the back that someone tried to erase.

The listing states "no returns" and eBay will not allow me to file a claim because the card was authenticated by CSG.

You should contact EBay. The card should not have been authenticated.

1. The card you received is different than the one pictured in the auction, its a mistake but still a legitimate reason to return.
2.If the seller didn't mention the erasure, you have 2 grounds for refund.

LOL, that is hilarious. I am sure I have done similar. I just wouldn't tell everyone or try to return something that was 100% my own fault.

Yes, it was partly his fault for not noticing but the seller is wrong too for not disclosing a fault and CSG is wrong for authenticating a card that clearly did not match the auction photos. CSG takes most of the blame here.

The seller also is selling a 66 Mantle and screwed up uploading the picture. Weirdly they relisted it a several times before it sold and no one must have sent the seller a message letting them know of the mistake.

100% my fault? lol. OK, if you say so. :rolleyes:

So you bid on the rare 1 of 1 "Future Backs" parallels and the seller sent you a common backed one?

That's not right. :eek:

And my natural follow-up, because the divergence here is somewhat glaring:

You can spot 51/49 centering from across the room but can’t identify that the back photo is from the wrong year?

1% centering is a lot more noticeable than the entire design.

Correct. I primarily focus on the front centering. I couldn't care less about the back unless it has been altered. I looked for alterations. I didn't see any, so I bid accordingly. The CSG authenticator clearly didn't notice either. However, they also failed to spot the alteration, which is much worse IMO.

Here is the listing:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/285021128754

And here is a scan of the back of the card I received. Alteration circled in the top left corner. The scan blows out the color differentiation somewhat though. It's more obvious in hand. Someone tried to erase a pen marking in that corner.

I filed a claim. eBay denied the claim. I filed an appeal. We'll see how it goes...

Most claims are never seen by humans, its all automation. Your appeal might be seen by a person but I would call them or contact them through Facebook. Making a case to an actual person helps.

I contacted EBay through Facebook recently and they responded within an hour and fixed the problem within 5 minutes.

Yeah, that would put the brakes on buying for me. I'd take about 6 months to a year off buying anything....Or maybe NEVER. E-bay should have refunded you immediately, but they don't know the meaning of the word. You'll get your money back after a little more aggravation.

AND the only reason to buy from Greg Morris in the past has been their fairly consistent grading. They don't miss many, but the other sellers are batting .056 with 500 strikeouts.

John did get the refund he said that he was looking in the wrong account.

I guess I didn't realize that if a raw card goes to CSG, they are both authenticating it AND matching up what the seller said it would grade? That must get interesting fast, since descriptions of raw cards on eBay many times don't conform to a TPG's 10 point scale. What if they said a card was EX, but in the opposite direction - CSG said no, this is NM! Would that be rejected for being the "wrong" grade even if it were higher? I once bought a '61 Willie Mays AS that was described as "EX" by an eBay outfit that was more of an antique mall than a pure card dealer. When I sent it off to SGC, it came back an 8. Would that have "failed" authentication?

They aren't grading the card or making judgements on sellers grading, they make sure its not counterfeit and they match it to photos in the auction to make sure its the same card.

This is not true. This is not what the raw program claimed to do - they are supposed to make sure the card matches the sellers description, including condition. Cards have been rejected for sellers over grading them, like the Bowman Spahn card.

I can see where this would get super frustrating. Agreed that buyers should have an option to opt out of the authenticity guarantee. Some of the vintage cards I have seen thus far in CSG slabs are waaaaaay overgraded. I wouldn't want them casting judgement on raw cards that I bought online.

This is not true. In fact, the only cards I've purchased that were rejected were done so because of the condition not matching the description.

I even consigned some cards with Probstein that got rejected by CSG. When I looked at the listings, it was difficult to see that there were wrinkles (they were low-grade raw cards). He sent them back to me, and I relisted them myself and put "wrinkle" in the title and showed clear pics of the wrinkles and called them out in the description (something Probstein should have done as well). They passed authentication for me.

Do you have links you can share for the overgraded CSG slabs you've found? I've come across a couple, but not a lot. They've been pretty on point from most of what I've encountered.

The authenticators aren't supposed to reject cards that are off grade from what the seller claims (VGEX instead of EX or EX instead of EXMT) They are looking for hidden undisclosed damage and flaws, wrinkles, trimming, erasures, etc. If those flaws are disclosed or clearly shown in the photos, as long as the card is authentic, its supposed to pass.

They are looking for undisclosed damage or a lying grade. I doubt they will go so literal as to reject a EX+ they think is EX, but they are absolutely rejecting cards with overstated grades. List a card as gem mint and disclose the crease, watch what happens.

So here's a good one. I recently bought a PSA graded Pedro Martinez autograph card, standard Leaf issue, was clearly fine, PSA REJECTS it and ebay refunds me. PSA tells the seller the case was cracked. He gets it back it's not cracked at all. But here is where it gets even stranger, they send him a note telling him when he RELISTS it, to use a higher resolution scan, when his scan was already outstanding. The whole thing makes no sense, and why are they telling him to relist it if they just rejected it?

If the seller is honestly relating what happened to you … uh… Wow.

I think he is. He isn't asking me to buy the card again or anything, so no reason to make anything up.

I suspect that it was an ebay rep who actually told him to use higher resolution scans next time, just hoping that it might resolve whatever issue it was that they couldn't figure out. Regardless, it's still bonkers. This whole ebay authentication thing is a clusterF.

Those aren't scans.

And the bottom edge of the slab is covered.

(Sigh) The buyer should have the option to waive this service especially if the card is graded by one of the big 3. What a freakin waste of time and shipping materials. And does anyone actually keep the card on that ridiculous cardboard monstrosity? Jeesh.

Another missing cog in the program is that complete sets appear to be ignored. So they'll be sure that your single $700 slab purchase is ok (but not the multitude of high-value cards in a $50 k set)

At least that's what I'm assuming, since there isn't the typical mention of the authentication program in the listings of such sets.

Oh sure, I would not have a problem if there was a form a buyer could sign saying something like "I believe this card is mis-represented or fake but I want to buy it anyway and waive any recourse against the seller or ebay".

I personally wouldn't sign that but if there are people who think that would be a good thing, well okay let's have ebay make it an option.

Sorry Travis, somehow missed your reply. I was talking most recently about a card I saw in person. It was a '63 Topps Ernie Banks at my LCS in a CSG 2.5. It looked pretty decent and I was actually considering buying it, when I noticed a cut and not small area of paper loss on the surface on the bottom right. It should have been pretty obvious to a grader. No way that card should have been more than a 1.

Others, like with shopping online - I seem to see some discrepancies with cards in upper midgrade that have questionable corner wear for the grade assigned.

No they are certainly not scans and the cell phone pics are not that clear but how did PSA give that card a 9? The upper right corner is a 6, at best. :confused:

Ya, paper loss on the front should probably be a bit harsher than that. Although I'm somewhat of the mind that PSA & SGC do this wrong as well sometimes, but it's the standard of the industry, so might as well uphold the it.

The corners thing is mostly where I've seen CSG overgrade cards, but I'm not sure I've seen them overgrade for that at a higher rate than what I've seen from PSA or SGC. As an example, here's a Jackie card in a 6 holder that I came across recently. Beautiful card, but if I sent that in, I'd be crossing my fingers for a 4, and PSA probably gives it a 3.5 nowadays (once upon a time, they would have given it a 5). Basically, all the TPGs are seemingly all over the place with respect to corners.

Ya, paper loss on the front should probably be a bit harsher than that. Although I'm somewhat of the mind that PSA & SGC do this wrong as well sometimes, but it's the standard of the industry, so might as well uphold the it.

The corners thing is mostly where I've seen CSG overgrade cards, but I'm not sure I've seen them overgrade for that at a higher rate than what I've seen from PSA or SGC. As an example, here's a Jackie card in a 6 holder that I came across recently. Beautiful card, but if I sent that in, I'd be crossing my fingers for a 4, and PSA probably gives it a 3.5 nowadays (once upon a time, they would have given it a 5). Basically, all the TPGs are seemingly all over the place with respect to corners.

Yeah, no way that Jackie realistically has 6 corners. So what you are saying is what has always more or less been true about professional grading: The subjective scale based on eye appeal waxes and wanes, and standards fluctuate over time. This is why all TPG's to me at the end of the day still smack of at least some type of gimmick.

I just received another graded, ebay authentication item. In the long run this has to be more than a $10 cost basis, with the great packaging, service and shipping. I am not going to like it either. I don't need anyone to tell me this is real.
.
https://luckeycards.com/greiner.jpg

Super pick up, Leon - congrats! I've never had a Grieners Bread in my type collection, and if I has seen the eBay listing, it would have cost you more! :)

Well, it took a while, but I have an update. I appealed eBay's claim denial and sent in pictures of the card I received. eBay said they would get back to me within 2 days... 2 weeks later and still no update. So, I was able to contact someone in customer support and they looked into it. They had me send the card back to CSG for re-authentication. I just got word today that they have reversed their decision on my case and have accepted my appeal. They are refunding me the $500.

Interesting plot twist
 

Got an email from eBay this morning about an item I recently ordered, relating to the authenticity program, which reminded me of this thread, and the desire by some parties to opt out of the program. Not that I really wanted to opt out myself, but apparently the seller managed to make it happen.

For your reading pleasure:

Your order is on the way, but won’t come with our Authenticity Guarantee

We wanted to let you know that your order (below) is on the way, but unfortunately we can’t provide the Authenticity Guarantee you were expecting. The item was miscategorized when it was listed and isn’t eligible for this service. We know this may be disappointing and we’ve contacted the seller to let them know about the error in their listing. If you have any questions or concerns, please just get in touch. We’re here to help.

Thanks for being part of the eBay community.

I had sonething similar. It was a postcard in a PSA slab. But since it was a postcard PSA isn’t allowed to check if the slab is authentic.

apparently after speaking to a eBay seller who sold a cobb super cheap eBay AG will send it back and tell them to get it graded. So much for a binding contract lol