Ebay seller returned cracked out slab

[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.

[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.

[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 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!