Ebay seller returned cracked out slab

[ullmandds]

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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So you'd be fine with that?

How would u know?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Mark17

No. Why so evasive in responding to my question?

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

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?

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"

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by jayshum

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.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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

Sorry, my bad. I meant altered not fake.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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

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?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

#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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jayshum

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"

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.

[bobbyw8469]

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.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

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.

[icurnmedic]

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!

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by Prof_Plum

So maybe the question is of what value does the packaging of an item have relative to the actual item value. Clearly you can return many items (watches, electronics, etc) after you've damage the package. In contrast, when it comes to collectibles, the package has actual value and destroying the package reduces the value of said collectible. But somewhere in between is a large gray area.

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.

Originally Posted by t206fanatic

only potentially compelling argument not siding wholly w the seller I've seen is:

do the sellers of cards in crapslabs (non PSA/SGC) have any responsibility for checking to see if the card inside is altered? Peter asked a number of times if the seller had attempted to have the Gehrig crossed over, without response.

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?

[mq711]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

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.

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?

[Aplyon86]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aplyon86

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.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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

This is actually Toppsaholic's business model.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

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.

[Aplyon86]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aplyon86

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.

[Aplyon86]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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

[Rhotchkiss]

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

[Aplyon86]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

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

Peter/Mark and anyone else supporting the seller 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 seller? 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.

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.

[perezfan]

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.

[Rhotchkiss]

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).

[nsaddict]

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!

[CobbSpikedMe]

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.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

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.

[Aplyon86]

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

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by nsaddict

What was the time factor from sell date to return date? Imagine if everyone started doing this. The buyer could never lose only gain. Wtf?

Originally Posted by toolifedave

About 1 week

Ben,

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

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by Aplyon86

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

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.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by CobbSpikedMe

Ben,

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

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

[CobbSpikedMe]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Maybe I am confused. Ebay says it sold Oct 14th and OP's first post was Nov 7th. That is 3 weeks of time and I am sure all of that could easily happen in 3 weeks.

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