Beware Carterscards2006

[barrysloate]

I see this as a more complicated situation. Sure, Todd is stuck with a trimmed card and I hope the seller would consider returning his money. But...

The seller advertised a GAI 7.5 and delivered a GAI 7.5. I'm not sure there is an implied guarantee that it will crossover favorably to every grading service. Plus, he sent it to you graded and in a 7.5 holder; you would be returning it to him raw and trimmed.

How can any seller survive in this market, when the product he is selling is damaged and he may not even know it? This is just one of many reasons why I hate TPG in its current state and feel the industry needs a major overhaul.

Again, I feel bad for Todd and hope he gets compensated, but it's reasonable to think that the seller did nothing more than list his product, and now because of a grader's incompetence he has to take a huge hit.

[bobbyw8469]

I don't believe a refund is entitiled. Once the card is broken out, all bets are off. The buyer bought a GAI 7.5 and received a GAI 7.5? What if the cards winds up going to PSA where it gets an '8'!?!?!?!?! I am sorry, but I am siding with the seller on this one.

[bobbyw8469]

grader's incompetence

How do we know the grader is incompetent?!?!?! Who is to say who got it right??? I can't tell you how many times cards have received conflicting grades from different graders. The buyer chose to crack the card out himself. That is on him. Once he did that, no refund should be applied. There is no express guarantee that you will received a favorable ruling from grading company to grading company. It is almost like playing the lottery (the crackout game). And yes, SGC is fallible. I had a 1956 Mantle come back SGC "A". Not quite sure why, as the only crime the card had was being offcentered. PSA agreed and graded it PSA 4 (MC). The funny part is, if you sent it back in to SGC, and it got a grade of '8', and turned a $1,000 GAI card into a $3,000+ SGC card, you will feel pretty silly for this "kill the seller" mentality.....

[edhans]

Curiously, I once got a second chance offer from this seller about four hours after the auction ended. Needless to say, I didn't take him up on it.

[3-2-count]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

This is just one of many reasons why I hate TPG in its current state and feel the industry needs a major overhaul.

IMO the above line in Barry's response is the most dead on response I've heard yet. TPG has really become comical and we as collectors should be ashamed of ourselves as we place way to much trust into these guys. This grader says that, that grader says this!! It's just ridiculous. Oh, to answer the question at hand. I to think the buyer got what they purchased which was a GAI graded card. A refund shouldn't be mandatory simply based on what SGC's opinion was. Who says they're even right for cry'in out loud..

[Jim VB]

Did Todd say the card had been cracked out, or did SGC determine it was trimmed prior to opening the case? That may be the deciding factor in this matter. If it's still in the slab, he should return it because it's not the catd advertised (M101-5.)

[barrysloate]

Thanks Tony, and the only thing we know with absolute certainty is that one of the graders got it wrong. We're just not certain which one it was.

[OldSchoolBaseball]

I side with the defendent (SELLER). You bought a graded card from a somewhat reputable grading company (GAI) and took a chance to cross to another company.

How is that the sellers fault? Sometime you hit a homerun changing grades, sometimes you don't.

So the seller has to take back your card and pay to regrade again? You knew what you were getting when you bought GAI.

[iwantitiwinit]

I don't in any way see how any refund here is warranted. Facts: 1) You bid on and bought a graded card. 2) All pertinent facts were disclosed about the card at time of sale, ie. grading company, grade, type of card, No Refunds on graded cards, etc. 3) You received the card offered in the manner that it was offered in a untampered with holder. Fact of law - the transaction ends at this point. No warranties or guarantees were made or implied.

The fact that you chose to submit the card to another grading agency and were then not happy with the result is not germane to the previous argument. It has no bearing on the purchase/sale transaction which again was completed satisfactorily from the point of law.

Personally, I find it surprising that you are making such a fuss about this. It would be interesting to know your motivation for resubmitting the card for grading? Lastly, I wouldn't bother pursuing a lawsuit here, in my opinion you will end up being countersued and most likely be on the hook for at a minimum court costs assuming you have listed all pertinent facts that could be viewed in your favor.

[bcornell]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Personally, I find it surprising that you are making such a fuss about this. It would be interesting to know your motivation for resubmitting the card for grading? Lastly, I wouldn't bother pursuing a lawsuit here, in my opinion you will end up being countersued and most likely be on the hook for at a minimum court costs assuming you have listed all pertinent facts that could be viewed in your favor.

Also "interesting" is why you're anonymous and full of opinions.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bcornell

Also "interesting" is why you're anonymous and full of opinions.

Good point. Per the rules, iwantitiwinit's full name needs to be put out here in the post. Please do that or edit out your comments....or do nothing and I will handle it. Nothing personal and feel free to say what you want to.

Todd- at least you will be able to save on lawyer fees if it goes that far. You have that going for you. Good luck with this poor situation. It certainly was not as advertised, there is no debate on that.

[iwantitiwinit]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

I don't in any way see how any refund here is warranted. Facts: 1) You bid on and bought a graded card. 2) All pertinent facts were disclosed about the card at time of sale, ie. grading company, grade, type of card, No Refunds on graded cards, etc. 3) You received the card offered in the manner that it was offered in a untampered with holder. Fact of law - the transaction ends at this point. No warranties or guarantees were made or implied.

The fact that you chose to submit the card to another grading agency and were then not happy with the result is not germane to the previous argument. It has no bearing on the purchase/sale transaction which again was completed satisfactorily from the point of law.

Personally, I find it surprising that you are making such a fuss about this. It would be interesting to know your motivation for resubmitting the card for grading? Lastly, I wouldn't bother pursuing a lawsuit here, in my opinion you will end up being countersued and most likely be on the hook for at a minimum court costs assuming you have listed all pertinent facts that could be viewed in your favor.

Mea culpa i did not realize that he advertised a M101-5 and you in fact received a M101-4. Given that I retract my entire past statement.

[ChiefBenderForever]

This is a complicated issue. I had assumed card was still in the holder and SGC had not taken it out, if it was seller will have a clear case as to why they won't take it back. My biggest issue at this point is no communication by the seller, by not responding to Todd he made him more upset and things got to this point. This hobby has a lot of gambling aspects to it sometimes and this is one of those cases, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose but this is a huge loss and for the seller to sit silent is not helping out at all.

[pgellis]

I don't think the seller needs to defend himself. A deal is a two part system. The seller gives goods to a buyer for an agreed upon compensation (usually a dollar figure).

Once the seller sells the agreed upon item and delivers it safely to the seller, his part of the deal is done.

In this case, it seems like there were good pictures of the item and there was not any misleading descriptions or fuzzy pictures.

The seller does not have to defend themselves, it seems like he held up his half of the transaction.

[DJR]

.

[nolemmings]

At no time did I state I broke out the card, because I did not. It was submitted as received.

Fact of law - the transaction ends at this point. No warranties or guarantees were made or implied.

Please don't explain to me your "fact of law". I am well aware of my burden of proof, the elements I must show and the evidence to get there. And yes, there was an implied warranty that the card was in fact unaltered, regardless of subjective numeric grade.

It was no coincidence that seller proclaimed the card as being a very early GAI submission. It is widely known that GAI's grading abilities were most respected when Mike Baker was overseeing the grading there, and that he stopped doing so after the company got up and running. This seller's representation was made to give some assurance that the card was graded during "the good years". I am not convinced it was, as the serial number is higher than any other of the handful or so GAI cards I own.

Personally, I find it surprising that you are making such a fuss about this. It would be interesting to know your motivation for resubmitting the card for grading? Lastly, I wouldn't bother pursuing a lawsuit here, in my opinion you will end up being countersued and most likely be on the hook for at a minimum court costs assuming you have listed all pertinent facts that could be viewed in your favor.

Really, you don't see the fuss-- I just got taken for a grand. Tell you what, I'll sell it to you for the ebay price, then I won't fuss anymore. My motivation for regrading is interesting? What difference does that make? You think I wanted to create this situation? Countersued? For what?

And Ed, it is curious that you got a second chance offer from this guy just hours after auction's end. It is also curious that an ebay "buyer" has bid on this guy's product 131 times in 30 days, 97% of his overall bids. I am investigating what other curious items exist for this seller, who promotes himself as #1 in customer service and quality product and who then won't respond to his customers at all.