Would you pay $100 for a PSA 3 N172, sight unseen?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I've bought and sold sight unseen and, with someone you know, there's always an implicit or stated assumption on both sides that any major problems will be mentioned. Any legitimate seller would clearly note the problem with this PSA3, and the buyer would consider the seller dishonest if he didn't. So, yes I would buy a PSA3 N172 sight unseen.

It reminds me of the eBay seller who was selling the 1949 Leaf Gene Hermanski card with a PSA label that incorrectly said it was a 'Hermansk' error. Anyone looking at the card saw the card said Hermanski not Hermansk. It didn't matter what the label said, the seller has to sell it as a regular Hermanski (This seller was offering it as a Hermansk error in title and description). And, if he offers it as a Hermansk error because that's what the label sells, why would the collector beleive the descriptions for any of his author auctions. In another lot if he says he got the photo signed in person by Willie Mays, why should a collector beleive him? Even if he really did get it signed by Mays, why should a collector beleive him? The collector who saw the 'Hermansk' offering will consider the seller to either be an idiot or a liar, and most collectors wish to avoid purchasing from dealers who are idiots and/or liars. So trying this type of stunt can hurt the seller more than anyone else.