![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Lee Behrens
I would like some opinions from you all on a situation that has arisen. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: warshawlaw
I think the seller is handling the situation honestly. If the cards are trimmed a full refund is appropriate, but I don't think you should get a refund of the grading fees or any extras because the listing does say that the cards are short, which is a GIANT red flag to me. It also sounds like you got a very discounted price on ex-mt T206 cards based on that red flag; I'll buy them at that price per unit all day if they are really ex-mt because I can slab them and easily double my money. If they are not trimmed or you are not sure if they are trimmed, then what you are saying is that you don't believe the opinion of the grading service you chose. If so, the seller doesn't owe you anything, again because he disclosed the condition issue and you are apparently in disagreement with the service. IMHO asking for a discount or rebate is fair for an undisclosed condition issue when you want to keep the cards; if the issue is disclosed and you missed it, you really cannot complain. Send 'em to GAI; if they make it back at all, they will probably be 7's |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: petecld
Lee, |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Lee Behrens
I would like to clarify that the $45 refund I asked for is based what trimmed cards actually would go for not the fact that I am trying to recover grading fees. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: john/z28jd
I think its just a misleading dealer and youre lucky to have the chance to get anything back.Its as bad as people who use PSA as a keyword to get more people to view their auctions when the card has nothing to do with PSA but if you read the auction and decide to bid you cant be mad when you dont get a PSA card. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: al davis
the seller seemed quite professional and honest in his listing and in his dealing with you. just admit that you made a mistake in not reading the listing. RTFM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
Burying something as important as a card being trimmed at the end of a action listing, at the end of the shipping and refund policy no less, is highly suspect, to say the least. This is something that should he in the main body of the description. This in NOT imformaiton that you have find buried somwhere else in the acution's fine print. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Howie
What difference does it make? The seller's 2nd line was "I'll accept back any ungraded card, no questions asked" and the seller was willing to give a refund when asked. Remember, in his mind there were underbidders who may have read the rules and were willing to pay what they bid for the cards based on reading the full description. So the seller loses out by giving a partial refund of $45, but he was even willing to do that to make the buyer happy. There's no question that the auction was deceptive, either by accident or on purpose. The seller offered refunds in two ways to the buyer. I don't understand what the problem is. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: hankron
I'd say overall, the seller disclosed a variety of important information and I have problems with the sellers being responsible for grading fees, especially as the buyer could return them right away if he felt there was was something wrong. However, I agree with Lee that the grade should not have been given in the title or, if it was, the disclaimer that the cards were short, and not worth having graded, should have been prominantly displayed with the card's description and not after the section on the return policy and shipping cost. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Scott Elkins
as, you are a great person to deal with! First, the seller stated he gives refunds on ungraded cards - so, he should. Second, ANYTHING listed as short, I simply assume it is trimmed and ungradeable. Hope everything works out for you Lee. And, I am sure you learned to go by my philosophy mentioned earlier from now on. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Julie
READ. EVERY. WORD! (and feel lucky if what the words say cover it all!) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: hankron
I'm sorry folks, but if an eBay description of a card says "This card is Near Mint" but burried three paragraphs below in the shipping options and insurance charge is "(This card really is grade poor and will be rejected by PSA)", I would be pissed and each and every person reading this thread would be pissed. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: hankron
"Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb Authgraphed baseball. Comes with an LOA from PSA/DNA and Mike Gutierrez. Also comes with appraisel from Sotheby's for $50,000, signed by Sothby's President. This ball was once displayed at a special event at the Babe Ruth Museum in his hometown of Baltimore, and comes with a museum program and letter from the special event's curator both proving this provenance. Bill Mastro told me in person at the 2004 National Convention in Cleveland that this was one of 2-3 finest Ruth/Cobb signed ball's he's seen. Lifetime No Questions Asked Money Back Guarantee. Shipping is fully insured for no extra charge. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Trae R.
Literally Laughing Out Loud, Hank - Good one. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jeff Lichtman
There's not even a question that Lee is in the right here. First, the seller agreed to take back all ungraded cards. Second, he suggests that the reason he didn't get the cards graded is because they were slightly short--but he doesn't say that they're trimmed! He's sort of giving the buyer a clue that the cards may be trimmed but won't come out and say it, most likely due to the fact that it will lower his ultimate sales price. This one isn't even close. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
It appears to me, Lee, that you voided the warantee. That the seller continues to extend courtesy to you is a testament to his belief that the buyer is always right. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
Gilbert, you are misreading what the seller is saying. The seller is refering to cards that he is selling, not what is done after the the card leaves his possesion. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Jay Miller
Lee--I understand your point about the Ex/mt in the title but, despite that, I think the seller has been more than fair. I would take the full refund and leave it at that. Your grading fees are your expense. If you had bought a card from Lelands or pretty much any auction house, had it graded, and it came back trimmed the most you could expect back (if anything) would be what you paid for the card. The grading fees would not be returned. As to the confusing grade given the cards consider how many major auction houses grade cards as EX-neglecting back damage. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
One person misreads what Lee wrote and now everyone thinks he wanted his cost of getting the card rejected by a grading company refunded. THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WROTE!!! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Gilbert Maines
Jay: Since you have assumed the position of interpreter here, perhaps you can tell me if I understand the request for opinions correctly. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: runscott
The seller seemed to go beyond what was necessary. The most obvious part of this that is being overlooked, is that the seller noted that they were short, but Lee could not tell they were trimmed and sent them to SGC anyway. So if Lee wasn't sure, then why is he holding the seller accountable for judgement that he himself couldn't make, especially when the seller appears to have a more accurate ruler than Lee and spelled out the results in his listing? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Lee Behrens
I did not want to chime in any more, but some of the responses came up with there own concusions without reading throughly. Scott's last response seemed to understand the facts the best. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: runscott
...for putting up with our criticism. You and Jay are better at that than most of the rest of us, which is good because you will learn more than we will! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Howie
You're out the grading costs and shipping costs no matter what you do. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
I really doubt that if Lee relisted these cards that they would sell for anywhere near what he originally paid for them since the fact that the trimming was burried in the shipping and return policy, but openly disclosed in the description. People seem to keep forgetting this fact. Yes, it was mentioned in the auction, but listing something that significant in the shipping and refund is questionable at best. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: runscott
But please provide a link to the auction - my searches couldn't find it. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: jay behrens
Lee provided a cut and paste from the auction in a previous post. I have no clue what exact auction it is in as I don't think a link was ever provided. Lee made the claim, and I doubt he would do it if it was not the case. It's too easy to check. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: runscott
No one's accusing Lee of anything - I'd just like to see the auction description. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Lee Behrens
Scott, That is a cut and paste of the auction description. I have purposely left the sellers name out because he has 100% feedback and has been willing (not overly happy about)to agree to my settlement. I just felt it would be fair to impose the question to the board whether I was off base in asking for the $45, if I was than I would not accept the $45 and move on. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: petecld
The only reason I can think of for ANYONE in your situation to keep the cards and be happy with $45 back is that they want to sell the cards as "ex/mt but short" and hope some greedy fool thinks they aren't trimmed - or doesn't read the "short" portion of the description - and bids like they are true "ex/mt" cards. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: three25hits
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Howie
My thinking is that everybody else that bid on the cards read and understood the item description. After all you have four EX/MT T206 cards that sold for a total of only $125.00 If any of the other bidders thought they were EX/MT then they should have sold for more than $31.25 each. Dozens of other potential bidders had to have seen those auctions and would've eagerly bid more than $31.25 each for EX/MT T206 cards unless they noticed something funny about the auctions. If you run them and clearly point out that although they measure pretty close but SGC returned them as trimmed, the cards would sell for close to the same as they did before. If they're worth $20 to Lee as trimmed then $31 or so like before to another buyer isn't unusual or out of line. If they sell for about what they did before then with the $45 credit you got you might get close to being even with what you paid for trying to grade them. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Todd
Maybe its because I can't stand trimmed cards (other than maybe the really scarce or some cards held for learning experience purposes), but I would return these and take him up on his money back no questions asked policy. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Opinions please | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 41 | 09-15-2008 08:01 AM |
Opinions | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 02-15-2007 07:23 PM |
Opinions please...... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 02-12-2006 10:20 PM |
I would like some opinions. | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 33 | 11-14-2005 07:42 PM |
Want opinions | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 10-06-2005 02:29 PM |