I don't get it
Seller discloses what he believes to be an alteration and there is no focus on the merits of the claim--instead he is called mentally imbalanced. Better I guess if he would just pass the buck and let the next poor schlep deal with the card.
Seller is asking what he paid for the card, and what was one increment more than some other bidder was willing to pay in a prior auction. The card, if unaltered, supports the price. If altered, is does not. If altered, it should be graded "A", or, if the alteration is removed, it might grade 3. Either way, it drops as much as a grand in value.
It appears seller was unable to obtain a refund from his auctioneer, and unable to get compensation from SGC. He is unhappy about that. I would be too. So he tries to get his money back, and states his observations about what he perceives to be a flawed card. Is this designed to leverage some relief? Maybe. Is it wrong? No. Frankly, I'm not sure I would not have done the exact same thing.
If there is no alteration and seller is wrong on that point, the next buyer will get a decent deal on a great card after full disclosure, and the market is unharmed. If the seller is right and kept his mouth shut, another bad card gets passed along through the hobby like the "Old Maid" in the children's card game. Auctioneer and SGC are apparently willing to stand behind their reputations on the card. Seller apparently is also. Time will tell.
|