Ebay seller returned cracked out slab

[Goudey77]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Again folks here keep saying buyer "took advantage of ebay policy" But all he did was click a button and ask for a refund. The SELLER CLICKED OK SEND IT BACK. WITHOUT CONTACTING THE BUYER AND ASKING ANY QUESTIONS. We cannot know if buyer would have said ok if seller said he would not refund. We will never know if buyer would have negotiated with the seller. Based on ebay rules Buyer thought spending $5k on an altered card. ( please don't say can we really believe PSA, most of us on this board trust them when they say altered) and started the process to talk with seller. Seller chose not to talk and pressed button for buyer to send it back.

Quit justifying the technicalities of a return policy for a moment and look at the moral aspect. The buyer damaged the goods and took advantage. Bottom line this is a scummy individual.
If you can look at yourself in the mirror and say all of the actions taken by the purchaser is acceptable then you are part of the growing problem in this hobby of thieves and tricksters. (Not directed toward the person I quoted but this is just a response to the way of thinking). None of it is justified.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

Quit justifying the technicalities of a return policy for a moment and look at the moral aspect. The buyer damaged the goods and took advantage. Bottom line this is a scummy individual.
If you can look at yourself in the mirror and say all of the actions taken by the purchaser is acceptable then you are part of the growing problem in this hobby of thieves and tricksters. (Not directed toward the person I quoted but this is just a response to the way of thinking). None of it is justified.

If we were talking about a different (highly vilified) seller, we might agree that doctored cards in high-grade holders is the problem in this hobby of thieves and tricksters.

A doctored card was outed. The seller can no longer use GAI's misrepresentation of it to sell it as near mint. I don't blame this seller of anything, but he is not entitled to get another shot at selling a now known doctored card at a near mint price, and that is all he has lost, with that cracked holder.

I do think the buyer should owe the seller for a new holder.

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I do think the buyer should owe the seller for a new holder.

Curious how you would feel about this whole thing if the seller sends it to SGC and it comes back with a numerical grade?

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Curious how you would feel about this whole thing if the seller sends it to SGC and it comes back with a numerical grade?

This has been bought up before if it had come back with a number grade I would side with the seller 100%.. I like to think the buyer would not even have asked for a refund if it came back with a number. My point is 100% if you sell altered cards you should refund buyer.
Now if the Seller sends it in to SGC and it comes back with a 6 or a 7 is the seller obligated to tell any future buyers that PSA said it was altered?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Curious how you would feel about this whole thing if the seller sends it to SGC and it comes back with a numerical grade?

We have been operating with limited and at times confusing information. My assumptions here are that the doctoring is not just a nuanced opinion (like the card being 1/64 inch too narrow) but something fairly obvious. The reason I assume this is that it would have been in PSA's best financial interest to have been able to give it a numeric grade and collect those grading fees. It was against their best interest to determine it to be altered.

Certainly if my assumptions are wrong, or if someone adds new information not known before, then the conclusions easily might change. As I have said before, even if PSA gave it a low numeric grade, I would be 100% with the seller. The issue is the doctoring (fraud) that somebody performed on that thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

We have been operating with limited and at times confusing information. My assumptions here are that the doctoring is not just a nuanced opinion (like the card being 1/64 inch too narrow) but something fairly obvious. The reason I assume this is that it would have been in PSA's best financial interest to have been able to give it a numeric grade and collect those grading fees. It was against their best interest to determine it to be altered.

Certainly if my assumptions are wrong, or if someone adds new information not known before, then the conclusions easily might change. As I have said before, even if PSA gave it a low numeric grade, I would be 100% with the seller. The issue is the doctoring (fraud) that somebody performed on that thing.

As previously mentioned, PSA gets paid for its review, not contingent on the result.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The ad hominem stuff from a couple of recent posters really doesn't add anything to the discussion.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

We have been operating with limited and at times confusing information. My assumptions here are that the doctoring is not just a nuanced opinion (like the card being 1/64 inch too narrow) but something fairly obvious. The reason I assume this is that it would have been in PSA's best financial interest to have been able to give it a numeric grade and collect those grading fees. It was against their best interest to determine it to be altered.

Certainly if my assumptions are wrong, or if someone adds new information not known before, then the conclusions easily might change. As I have said before, even if PSA gave it a low numeric grade, I would be 100% with the seller. The issue is the doctoring (fraud) that somebody performed on that thing.

Not only does PSA collect its fee.... they are probably being more stringent than ever with their grading. Given the thousands of visible "mistakes" they've made, and the new cards that are exposed daily, their wonderful management team has surely instructed the troops to be tougher with their grading standards... at least until the heat is off.

People here are giving way too much credence to PSA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Not only does PSA collect its fee.... they are probably being more stringent than ever with their grading. Given the thousands of visible "mistakes" they've made, and the new cards that are exposed daily, their wonderful management team has surely instructed the troops to be tougher with their grading standards... at least until the heat is off.

People here are giving way too much credence to PSA.

Yeah that's the typical response from PSA -- crush the innocent collectors.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Not only does PSA collect its fee.... they are probably being more stringent than ever with their grading. Given the thousands of visible "mistakes" they've made, and the new cards that are exposed daily, their wonderful management team has surely instructed the troops to be tougher with their grading standards... at least until the heat is off.

People here are giving way too much credence to PSA.

Does that mean that in this case, the buyer paid PSA the full fee of grading a $5,000+ card, and only received the card back, in a sleeve, with the authentic-altered designation?

I was under the assumption, perhaps wrongly, that the fee paid by the buyer was smaller, but had it been a true high-grade card, PSA would've been asking for a higher fee to slab it with the decent numeric grade.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Does that mean that in this case, the buyer paid PSA the full fee of grading a $5,000+ card, and only received the card back, in a sleeve, with the authentic-altered designation?

I was under the assumption, perhaps wrongly, that the fee paid by the buyer was smaller, but had it been a true high-grade card, PSA would've been asking for a higher fee to slab it with the decent numeric grade.

The fee is for the review at the designated service level, whether or not the card is rejected.

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Does that mean that in this case, the buyer paid PSA the full fee of grading a $5,000+ card, and only received the card back, in a sleeve, with the authentic-altered designation?

I was under the assumption, perhaps wrongly, that the fee paid by the buyer was smaller, but had it been a true high-grade card, PSA would've been asking for a higher fee to slab it with the decent numeric grade.

In general, you pay the fee for the value of the card regardless of whether it receives a grade or not. There have been cases where a card was submitted at a lower tier level, but when graded the card reached a value significantly above that lower tier level and PSA required the submitter to pay the higher tier level price. However, this is the exception rather than normal.

[Goudey77]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If we were talking about a different (highly vilified) seller, we might agree that doctored cards in high-grade holders is the problem in this hobby of thieves and tricksters.

A doctored card was outed. The seller can no longer use GAI's misrepresentation of it to sell it as near mint. I don't blame this seller of anything, but he is not entitled to get another shot at selling a now known doctored card at a near mint price, and that is all he has lost, with that cracked holder.

I do think the buyer should owe the seller for a new holder.

How you can justify damaging an item is beyond disbelief...
You don't buy GAI, SGC, BGS and PSA slabs thinking you can submit/review to another TPG then use the results as grounds for returning an item in raw form.

You are buying the item as is.

I can usually buy cards in SGC holders for less than PSA. Does that mean I should return them if they don't cross over?

Your moral compass is completely broken sir. This is the type of insanity that goes on among fellow collectors and the very reason this hobby will collapse from asinine behavior.

I have a love hate relationship with the hobby. I love the cards. I don't love the nerds and stupidity that this hobby seems to attract.

Ridiculous discussion period. I thought most of you are better than this.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

How you can justify damaging an item is beyond disbelief...

This is a double-negative. You are actually saying it is believable.

Originally Posted by Goudey77

Your moral compass is completely broken sir. This is the type of insanity that goes on among fellow collectors and the very reason this hobby will collapse from asinine behavior.

I have a love hate relationship with the hobby. I love the cards. I don't love the nerds and stupidity that this hobby seems to attract.

Ridiculous discussion period. I thought most of you are better than this.

I don't think a guy who buys an asset described by the seller as near mint, great eye appeal, sharp corners which turns out to be doctored should be stuck with it and I am:

Operating with a broken moral compass
Insane
Asinine
a Nerd
Stupid
Ridiculous

Well, at least the art of civil discourse is alive and well.

[JollyElm]

If nothing else, this thread is a nice tutorial for explaining how great the 'ignore' function on this site is. Click.

[Goudey77]

Unbelievable

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If we were talking about a different (highly vilified) seller, we might agree that doctored cards in high-grade holders is the problem in this hobby of thieves and tricksters.

A doctored card was outed. The seller can no longer use GAI's misrepresentation of it to sell it as near mint. I don't blame this seller of anything, but he is not entitled to get another shot at selling a now known doctored card at a near mint price, and that is all he has lost, with that cracked holder.

I do think the buyer should owe the seller for a new holder.

Yeah the same holder as before..just contact GAI