Quote:
Originally Posted by Swadewade51
�� funny the seller/fraudster said the same thing about why it didn't pass grading when both PSA and SGC didn't give it a number. Neither of you actually know.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
|
You don't know what you're talking about. I've seen the card in person. Have you?
It passed grading at SGC the first time. The seller didn't like the grade, so they sent it to PSA. That's when PSA rejected it. They gave it an N5 designation ("altered stock"), not an N7 which would be for "evidence of cleaning". The reason it was rejected had nothing to do with him cleaning it. The flaw that they were looking at was already there when he bought it. The seller then asked me to examine the card for him because he couldn't find anything wrong with it. I looked at it and showed him what PSA was looking at and I advised him that it would likely pass grading at SGC, but that it wasn't a guarantee. It's a flaw that different graders disagree about how to grade. Based on my opinion, and the fact that SGC had previously graded it as numeric, he chose to sell it raw and guaranteed the buyer a particular grade with SGC. The buyer sent the card to SGC and they graded it as altered. I scolded the seller, who then owned up to his mistake and promptly refunded the buyer. I then learned that it was actually a partial trade deal and that he had cracked open one of the buyers cards already, before the deal was finalized, and I scolded him again. After refunding the buyer, he regraded it, and it passed grading again.
Calling the seller a "fraudster" is ridiculous. He made some stupid choices, then owned up to his mistakes and promptly refunded the buyer. That's not what fraudsters do.