George, you can add all the if's and but's you want, plain and simple the buyer altered the item and should not get a refund. Go to Walmart or where ever you shop and buy a coat. Then cut off the sleeves and try and return it. How is that different?

Bob, Thank you

I'm not sure if you are being tongue-in-cheek or not, but actually, I think this is a really good idea and solve the problem. If this was the case, I would totally support the seller's right to not have to accept the return. And in this scenario, the card could be outright counterfeit, not just altered, and it would make no difference.

I find your idea to be an elegant solution. Then it's a clear "buyer beware" deal and both buyer and seller understand this up front. Sort of like buying a grab bag where the contents are unknown at time of purchase.

Let's lighten it up a bit
I love threads that talk about GAI Gehrigs and Rolex

Milton, the product was the Gehrig card and I am assuming it was returned undamaged.

Suppose the buyer had removed the card for inspection in such a way that the holder was undamaged. He discovers the card is doctored. Would it be OK for him to put the now known doctored card back into the original GAI 7 holder and return to the seller in the identical condition it was received?

Me too!

Truth. It's easy to play devil's advocate when YOU aren't the seller!

Simon(not sure why you started this but it is fun), the product was a Gehrig card in a GAI slab.

Have a great day everyone.:D

So.....Suppose the buyer had removed the card for inspection in such a way that the holder was undamaged. He discovers the card is doctored. Would it be OK for him to put the now known doctored card back into the original GAI 7 holder and return to the seller in the identical condition it was received?

Excellent Point....

To me... Any analogy presented here using an item that was unpackaged... Because the item inside is intended to be used...like a watch...is a poor analogy. It’s more like if someone were to purchase a valuable autograph that came with a certificate of authenticity and then return the autograph but not the certificate of authenticity.

If I bought a $5,000 card in a holder from a dubious, defunct TPG service, I would want to authenticate the card that I just paid $5k for.

That really depends to be honest with you if it were a T215 pirate in a defunct GAI holder the new owner may have no interest in re-holding it as the value will remain the same either way? If it were an incredibly rare card that really did not matter value wise because it was so rare it would not matter and the new buyer may not want to re-holder the card.

In this case it is obvious the buyer was hoping to win a little lottery.

To me these are very different instances.

Since the issue is that the buyer broke the holder and wasn't then able to return the card the same way it was received (and I agree, your point of view has a LOT of validity), I'm really hoping you, or someone, will answer this question:

Suppose the buyer had removed the card for inspection in such a way that the holder was undamaged. He discovers the card is doctored. Would it be OK for him to put the now known doctored card back into the original GAI 7 holder and return to the seller in the identical condition it was received?

If it were possible to remove a card from a holder and then replace it and have there be absolutely zero discernible evidence that the card was ever removed... how would anyone know?

Tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it fall...did it fall?

Bounty prospector removes 33 Goudey gehrig from gai holder...Gets opinion from PSA who deems it to be authentic and altered...And is able to return to its original holder with no evidence he did it? Did he remove it at all?

So you'd be fine with that?

How would u know?

In a conversation where you have not been shy about voicing very strong opinions, suddenly you become evasive.

Is someone else willing to answer my question above?

If while at work...someone hits my bumper while parking yet leaves no evidence on my car?

How can I be mad?

Okay, so you are leaving me to decrypt your answer. Let me know if my interpretation is incorrect. I believe you are saying:

If the buyer could put the card back in the original holder and return the card/holder in the same condition as received, the seller will have been made whole, everything's fine, and nobody's the wiser. Is that about right?

if the scenario you describe was the reality in this situation...would this thread have been started?

No. Why so evasive in responding to my question?

I believe I’ve answered your question at least four times.

LOL You have evaded at least 4 times.

Maybe someone else will have a straight answer.

I think many of the posts in this thread have been in agreement with this since many have said the buyer could have submitted to PSA without cracking the card out to start with. If that had been done and PSA had been unwilling to grade it, then I don't think anyone would have felt the buyer did not deserve a refund. Unfortunately, that's not what happened which has led to the 2 different points of view that have been expressed - "you break it you bought it" or "card is fake so refund is deserved no matter what"

The card is not fake it is likely altered...Just to be accurate here.

Sorry, my bad. I meant altered not fake.

Which of these auctions sells for more? And how much more?

1. Raw 33G Gehrig, with disclosure that it once resided in a GAI 7 holder (auction includes picture of it in the GAI holder), was broken out, submitted to PSA, and rejected.

2. GAI 7 Gehrig, with disclosure that it was submitted to PSA and rejected.

and that begs the question, if the card is likely to be altered since it was in a GAI holder and you don't want an altered card, why buy the card to begin with?

#2 sells for more, to a buyer who will conveniently not disclose to the next buyer that the card is likely doctored.

Now that the doctoring has been discovered, the GAI 7 holder has value to deceive as to the true condition of the card.

There is a big difference between these 2 scenarios:

1. Guy buys a card in a GAI 7 holder, and returns it in the same condition.
2. Guy buys a card in a holder, carefully removes it for examination, discovers it is doctored, puts it back in its GAI 7 holder, and returns it in the same condition.

To the seller there is no difference; both ways he gets back exactly what he shipped out. In that sense he is made whole, and the posters in this thread who look at this issue with that focus, probably think that would be a fair and just solution. Like a tree falling in the forest, nobody would know or care.

But there is a huge difference to the buyer, because in the first case, he simply doesn't like what he bought, so he returns it. But in the second scenario, he is actively putting a card he has discovered to be doctored, back into a holder that clearly misrepresents the card's true condition, and he is doing so for material gain (to ensure his full refund.)

While the actual card/holder is identical both ways, the difference is the knowledge that has been acquired, and this is at the heart of the whole thing.

Consider the PSA accusations, and their defense of them. If PSA, through innocent oversight, slabs a doctored card as a 7, that's a mistake but not fraud. If they know a card is doctored and still put it in a 7 holder, that is deceptive fraud.

So if the buyer had the ability to get that doctored card back into the same holder, and return to the seller in the same condition as received, he would potentially be committing fraud.

My point is: Once that card has been discovered to be altered, and not anything close to the near mint 7 that the holder says it is, one cannot, with that knowledge, put that card back in that holder, ethically. Once the alterations have been identified, that card should not be in that holder.

The point is this. The buyer sold a card graded a GAI 7. He did NOT get a card graded GAI 7 back. That is the most important aspect to me.

I'm not a card guy per se, but as far as a business transaction this makes the most sense to me.

My question is , who is saying the card is altered? The omniscient examiners at PSA? Resubmit 3 times to the three TPG , get 4- 7 different opines.
Seller got the shaft!

Exactly. If I have a Lionel train car from the 1930's and it's in the original package, and I remove it from said package, it devalues the item. Same thing with an unopened Star Wars figurine from 1977. A CGC graded comic book. And a slabbed card.

So is there now an unwritten rule that no GAI cards are allowed to be sold by anyone going forward, unless the seller gets a second opinion from the Dalai Lama of card grading, PSA?

The seller's listing advises its a GAI 7 but further "opinions" its very rare and NM condition. Thus, even though the buyer brought a listed GAI 7 card the part of the lister's post, that it was in NM condition was determined to be "not as advertised." I think this is where it becomes a hobby gray area.

I buy a new automatic watch on ebay in its factory packaging. I unpackage it, wind it, wear it for a day and discover it's badly defective. Can I not return it, because it's no longer in its factory packaging?

And if, in doing so, you discover that several parts are not original but instead modern replicas, some parts are repainted, and so on.... Then what? You just caught a fraudulent item. You're saying you have no recourse?

Depends if the packaging has value or not. If so, is that value contingent upon the packaging and the item being together (e.g., not opened)? If so, then no you cannot return it for a full refund. Partial refund maybe but that packing did add to the value.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

So I am stuck with a broken watch because I actually tested whether it worked our not? That makes no sense.

This is actually Toppsaholic's business model.

Is the company that packaged that hypothetical watch still in business?

Sure but most watch manufacturers provide a warranty only on watches sold through authorized dealers. This watch is not bought from an authorized dealer.

If the packaging had value then you'd be stuck with some sort of loss. I was trying to say that the buy "damaged" the item (in this case the item isn't the card it's the combined item of the card and the slab with an opinion that it was not altered and had a grade of a 7). What's left is just the card. So whatever that value that was lost should be on the buyer.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Let's stick with the watch for now. So the risk is on me that the watch is defective? I really don't understand that, given the "not as described" remedy provided by ebay and paypal.

The risk of destroying an accessory to the watch, yes the risk is on you. The watch itself, no. This isn't the best anology because the slab, albeit GAI and albeit they missed the alteration, did have more than an insignificant value. If you had the following 2 choices to buy the watch, would you expect a full refund in BOTH cases?

1. Just the watch (e.g. a raw card)
2. The watch, but you paid a 50% premium because it came in an expensive hand carved wooden box that you destroyed to pieces (e.g., the slab)?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I think it’s nuts we still don’t know who the seller is?

Peter/Mark and anyone else supporting the buyer here, I don’t want to get into it (we disagree), but regardless of who you think is right and wrong, would you feel comfortable selling any card to the buyer? I wouldn’t!

I think we would all be better off knowing who is out there on eBay cracking cards out, submitting them, and then returning them if they don’t fish their wish.

Edited: substituted “buyer” for “seller” twice

Also the slab serves sort of as a COA that the item being returned is the exact same item in the exact same condition as what was sold. Who's to say the card wasn't trimmed after it was cracked? Or as someone pointed out, cracking it out could have damaged the card, too.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

If I had a GAI high-end card, it would come down to this: IF the card is doctored (assuming I don't know), would I rather:

1. Foist it on a buyer at a near mint price, or
2. Would I prefer to know about the alterations, and deal with that event, knowing I would be selling it for thousands less.

I would like to say I would do the latter, but I have to admit, I might be able to rationalize the former, depending how much the extra money meant to me at the time.

If the former then no, because this buyer verifies authenticity of his purchases and it would be unlikely I could sneak a doctored card past him.

If the latter, then yes, because the buyer and I would both want to know the truth about the card, and him spending his own money to have PSA identify the doctoring would actually be helping me in learning the truth.

Having said that, as has been pointed out, there is a lot we don't know, and we have only heard one side of the story. I also wonder what form the PSA opinion is in, since they apparently did not slab the card.

I see both sides of this issue. It is an unfortunate situation and an innocent person is going to be hurt, since I assume the card doctor got away with his ill-gotten gain a decade ago.

Once it was cracked out, any right to return it should be removed. The card could have been altered/enhanced after the cracking-out, or easily damaged as a result of the crack-out.

I can see the other side of this, and it makes for a great discussion. But to me, a return is only warranted if the seller receives his item back in same condition as it was sold. And based on what we've seen time and time again, PSA's "expert opinion" offers no more credence than any other self-appointed authority.

Sorry, I just edited my earlier post- I meant to say we should know identity of the buyer and I meant to ask would you want to sell a slabbed card to the buyer (if the GAI card in this case).

And why are some taking PSA’s word that the card is problematic? You’re paying for an opinion and nothing more. Seeing how they’ve missed a mountain of altered cards in their own holders!

I'm still calling BS on the idea that the buyer received the card, sent it to PSA, got it back from PSA and returned it to the seller all within a week. I can't believe this hasn't been discussed more than whether he should be able to return the card after he cracked it. He never submitted it to PSA guys.

eBay sale is Oct 14th and sellers first post was Nov 7th. That is 3 weeks unless I am missing something.

Post 23 says it came back in a PSA sleeve. I assume this means it came back not slabbed but with the label that says Evid. Trim.?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Ben,

The seller was asked specifically how long this all took to happen and he said it was one week. Not three weeks.

Buyer could've had a PSA sleeve from a previous bad submission he had, doesn't prove anything about this particular card being submitted. Seller never said there was a flip, just a sleeve.

Sorry missed that one. Still could easily be done with overnight shipping and about a week could easily be 10 days.

I suppose that could be true. I just don't feel it is all. I think something fishy is going one with this one. I still don't know what the right thing to do is, accept the return or fight it?

In post 20 he says time from sale to return was about a week.

So that's also a bit confusing, maybe 2 weeks spent trying to deal with ebay etc?

Or just old like me... Sometimes I'm thinking "I just did that last week" And it was much longer than that:o

[QUOTE=steve B;1930194]In post 20 he says time from sale to return was about a week.

So that's also a bit confusing, maybe 2 weeks spent trying to deal with ebay etc?

Or just old like me... Sometimes I'm thinking "I just did that last week" And it was much longer than that:o[/QUOTE]

I am terrible at that one and it keeps getting worse as I age.:D

I also make the mistake of replying as I read stuff in order.... which ends up being a bit odd sometimes if I miss a day.

Let me be clear a card was sent to PSA by buyer and it took a reasonable period of time
to return to me and may have been 1-2,-weeks. I believe I was advised appx a week after buyer got the card he wanted to return since he claimed PSA advised the card altered.

Would you kindly show a picture of the card and what it was sent back to you in? There is something from PSA included, yes?

"...a card..."

You mean, the card - the same one you sold the buyer - that was subsequently returned to you?

Thank you for clarifying Dave. Are you sure you received the same card back when the buyer returned it? Don't suppose you have before and after images do you?

Don't you guys think the OP would know if he got a different card back? I am just not seeing why you keep pushing this theory.

I'm still undecided.

Honestly, I don't know. But it only takes a few seconds to type "yes, I'm sure it's the same card" and click Submit Reply.

According to the OP, "Ebay high value department...advised it may not be the same card as sold."

Sound advice, in my opinion.

He could also explain, as I've asked repeatedly, why he didn't try to cross the card. Oh well.

It just seems to me that would have been his lead point if he thought it was a different card.

Coming late to this but the OP had to get the card somewhere himself...now that he believes it is altered (as PSA said) why can he not go back to where he got it from and get a refund on his purchase?

Did the buyer return it to ebay? How did ebay get in the middle of the card being returned, to the point where they could make such a statement?

And if ebay thinks the return is fraudulent, why do they still back the buyer?

Okay..... there is MUCH more to this story that has not been clarified...

Because the person he bought it from probably won't take it back because it was cracked out of the case. If he bought it via eBay, they may rule in the sellers favor this time, and he won't be able to return it. :D

Wow this thread is getting long. And many of the OT hypotheticals bring out many of the issues that we all face as card collectors. But again looking at the facts the OP lists one of the key facts that has been lightly discussed is buyer told the seller that the card was no longer in the Holder and the seller said YES when the buyer asked to return the card. Once he said yes is it ok for him to change his mind? How much help would any of us expect from ebay once we said OK to the return?
I understand that many say any buyer returning any card in any slab that he has removed sets a very dangerous president. But the facts of this situation don't really represent that situation. This was a case where both GAI AND THE SELLER represented the card as near mint. The card was determined to be altered so it was misrepresented. The seller said ok to the return...and now he is unhappy with the result. Those are the facts.
This is not a case where Ebay forced the seller to do anything. They just told him to be careful that he might not get his original card back. But again seller states that he did get his original card back.. So everybody who says rhat the seller got screwed by ebay is just wrong. Seller had a choice to fight this return but chose to accept the return.
So folks tell the seller to call the authorities etc... And say what? I sold a card that I said was near mint that turned out to be Altered then the buyer asked to return the card and get a refund and I told him OK. He returned the card in exactly the condition he said he would return it in and I refunded his money.... I am not a lawyer but where exactly did the seller do anything wrong?
Maybe if the seller had told him he would not give full refund because card was out of the case the buyer would have said ok. We will NEVER KNOW. Because the seller said sure send it back.

I dunno? You say PSA "determined" the card to be altered?

I thought these days all that PSA offered was their "opinion?" No guarantees?

So isn't that what GAI/the seller offered? Their "opinion?"

PSA hasn't exactly proven they are capable of detecting alterations as of lately?

They're just "opinions" after all?

Aren't we all entitled to our "opinion?"

The OP said he "accidentally" accepted the return and that he did NOT know at the time the card was no longer in the GAI slab, he only learned that later and that ebay then forced him to accept the return he already had agreed to.

Here are his exact words.
"I accidentally hit accepting return but didn't know at the time the card was cracked out.

The buyer said before it was sent to me on ebay it was no longer in the slab and Ebay said I still had to accept the return."



So how was it an accident?

Looks like I missed something before writing a comment. Never mind.

.

At this point, here is how I see all this.

1. The buyer probably forfeited his right to a return when he cracked out the card. I can see the counterarguments, but I would rule against the buyer on this point-- somewhat reluctantly.

2. Ebay should not force the seller to accept the return.

3. The seller's posts have not been a model of clarity, and to me it's not a good look when he doesn't answer pertinent and repeated questions.

4. The seller should identify the buyer.

5. I suspect the seller would have resold the GAI card without disclosure of the PSA review, and if true that bothers me.

6. The whole thing is really a no-win situation for the hobby.