Fraudosynthesis

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Aha. I was taking about a different eBay seller. But yeah those eBay star ratings are pretty much worthless. They just have little interest in banning anyone who generates revenue for them except in the most extreme cases.

There you go Jason, now you get it. He'd been on the forum here for a while, and has been all over Ebay for years. Not sure how he sells things now, but one of his usual Ebay things in the past was to list items at some absolutely ridiculous prices that no one in their right minds would ever pay. He always appeared to be looking for some uninformed newbies he could take advantage of. If you ever contacted him to ask a question that he perceived and took the wrong way, look out. He would start sending you a series of harassing emails through Ebay, attacking your intelligence and knowledge, and basically accusing you of having attacked, insulted, and denigrating him. He was well-schooled and extremely adept at knowing Ebay's rules and policies on communications, and would always be just this side of going over the line in his posts to get himself in trouble with Ebay. I wondered if his tactic wasn't to try and get someone answering him back in such a manner that he could then immediately report them to Ebay so he could get them banned/kicked off.

He would sell some stuff apparently at real reasonable prices as well, so as to actually have some sales and get positive feedback. But for the stuff he'd put up on Ebay at ridiculous prices, or that there was some issue with the item or description (like this supposedly yellow ink error card that Darren originally posted), send him a question and ask about it or voice your concern, and look out.

If you are really adventurous and up for a challenge, go to that Ebay listing Darren posted and contact the seller and tell him you think he erred in the description of that card and it isn't an actual printing/ink error, but looks more like fading from having been left out in the sun too long, and therefore isn't worth the price he's asking. I really wouldn't advise it though. LOL

[BobC]

Interesting follow-up to the Ebay auction Darren pointed out, and a possible insight into the seller's latest marketing tricks. Because I took a look at the original Ebay auctions for toppsaholics' sun faded '75 Topps card of Bench, I am sooooo lucky to have now received a special 70% off offer to now buy the PSA 8 sun damaged card for only $500. A quick Ebay search shows normal 1975 PSA 8 Topps Bench cards sell for about $100-$150, so neat gimmick by the seller to try and trick someone into still drastically overpaying for a now damaged card.

Just seeing a seller offering such a huge discount should be an immediate red flag a seller is way out of line in their pricing, and/or up to some deceptive marketing technique. In other words, you probably want to be very careful with such sellers, or stay away from them entirely.

[JollyElm]

And here he goes again...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/12538831824...UAAOSwOzleVIGR

GREEN TINT PSA 6 EXMT MISSING INK ERROR 1962 TOPPS #320 HANK AARON GRADED *TPHLC

s-l1600-3.jpg

Only a cool $5,695.00 for this one of a kind beauty. Both a green tint and missing ink variation card that you can build a dream on.

I gotta say, though, how can you NOT admire the craftsmanship involved with these inventions? He actually covers the label with something before soaking it in the sun, so the bright red remains unscathed (but be sure to ignore the bleached out areas plaguing the rest of the holder from spending too much time catching rays). Well played, well played, indeed.


Thought experiment:
If you slathered a holder in high-SPF sunscreen and left it on the beach, would the card inside fade??

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And here he goes again...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/12538831824...UAAOSwOzleVIGR

GREEN TINT PSA 6 EXMT MISSING INK ERROR 1962 TOPPS #320 HANK AARON GRADED *TPHLC

Attachment 522860

Only a cool $5,695.00 for this one of a kind beauty. Both a green tint and missing ink variation card that you can build a dream on.

I gotta say, though, how can you NOT admire the craftsmanship involved with these inventions? He actually covers the label with something before soaking it in the sun, so the bright red remains unscathed (but be sure to ignore the bleached out areas plaguing the rest of the holder from spending too much time catching rays). Well played, well played, indeed.


Thought experiment:
If you slathered a holder in high-SPF sunscreen and left it on the beach, would the card inside fade??

I would bet they got put out in the sun BEFORE they got graded. He is far from the only seller to sell such cards at a huge mark up. One of the hobby "icons" usually has several listed.

[commishbob]

LOL @ a 'green tint' Aaron.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would bet they got put out in the sun BEFORE they got graded. He is far from the only seller to sell such cards at a huge mark up. One of the hobby "icons" usually has several listed.

Would PSA really ignore sun damage like on this Aaron card, or the earlier Bench card? You would think if they were submitted to them with sun damage/fading that they would at least throw a qualifier on the flip.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Would PSA really ignore sun damage like on this Aaron card, or the earlier Bench card? You would think if they were submitted to them with sun damage/fading that they would at least throw a qualifier on the flip.

I have seen several faded cards sent in and none of them ever got a qualifier from PSA or given a worse grade from SGC for the fading. What one of the many beyond silly qalifiers would PSA use so they could give the card a higher grade than it really deserves?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I have seen several faded cards sent in and none of them ever got a qualifier from PSA or given a worse grade from SGC for the fading. What one of the many beyond silly qalifiers would PSA use so they could give the card a higher grade than it really deserves?

Great question, and now that you've asked/mentioned it, not sure. Never have heard of or seen a qualifier for sun damage before, though it is pretty well known what leaving a card out in direct sunlight over a period of time can, and will, do to it. Initially a "PD" qualifier popped into my head, but then quickly realized sun damage/fading has got nothing to do with a printing defect issue.

In thinking more about it, this does seem to point to a not often or ever widely discussed issue of how TPGs overall seem to ignore the effects of time and aging, and what it can do to a card and its presentation. The TPGs tend to stick to a strict technical grading of cards, ignoring aging and other natural issues. Makes a ton of sense from their standpoint though as if they do grade and encapsulate a card, they can't completely control how that card will fare once in that holder. Images and paper/cardboard can deteriorate over time, even if a card is encapsulated.

By a TPG ignoring such aging/fading issues in giving cards a technical grade, I can see it being a kind of a CYA move on their part. By not setting a precedent of grading cards like that, they don't unintentionally set themselves up for potential liability issues down the road if the image on an encapsulated card were to deteriorate over time, and the graded card's owner came back at the TPG on their supposed grading mistake guarantees. I know that TPGs rarely, if ever, seem to pay anyone for grading errors. But being proactive and not factoring in natural aging and deterioration in their grading standards and criteria seems a savvy move on their part to further reduce or protect against any such potential liability.

N172 Old Judge cards immediately come to mind as the poster children for such thinking. Very often you'll come across OJ cards where the image is so faded and blurred over time that you barely even see or make out the player and/or printing on the card at all. Yet it may still have a 3-4-5, or possibly even higher, technical grade. Meanwhile, another OJ with a sharp and beautiful image and printing gets a 1 or a 1.5 technical grade because there's glue residue, or some paper loss, on the OJ's blank back. I'll take those kind of 1's and 1.5's all day long.

Just another reaffirmation of the old saying, "Buy the card, and not the holder!"

[BobC]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

And here he goes again...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/12538831824...UAAOSwOzleVIGR

GREEN TINT PSA 6 EXMT MISSING INK ERROR 1962 TOPPS #320 HANK AARON GRADED *TPHLC

Attachment 522860

Only a cool $5,695.00 for this one of a kind beauty. Both a green tint and missing ink variation card that you can build a dream on.

I gotta say, though, how can you NOT admire the craftsmanship involved with these inventions? He actually covers the label with something before soaking it in the sun, so the bright red remains unscathed (but be sure to ignore the bleached out areas plaguing the rest of the holder from spending too much time catching rays). Well played, well played, indeed.


Thought experiment:
If you slathered a holder in high-SPF sunscreen and left it on the beach, would the card inside fade??

His gimmick is even better than that though. He shows the card as originally listed at $8,500, but is now offering some lucky buyer a whopping 33% discount, down to $5,695. Meanwhile, a quick Ebay search of undamaged '62 Topps cards of Aaron shows a normal PSA6 of this card will likely sell in the $400 range. Neat marketing trick, huh?