Beware Carterscards2006

[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.

[pgellis]

I think one question that could be instrumental that hasn't been answered yet is:

Is the card still in it's GAI holder or has it been busted out?

[DJR]

.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by DJR

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

That doesn't mean that SGC didn't break it out when examining it. My question should be restated then:

Is it still in it's original GAI holder?

[FrankWakefield]

That doesn't mean it is still in the holder. That just says it was submitted in the holder.


Edited to add that what Phil just said I was saying at the same time...

[nolemmings]

Thanks Bill and Leon.

Frank, I don't need the card to be graded by SGC "in the first place". I have cards from these sets in all 5 company holders, including one "PRO" that I know to be authentic and unaltered, albeit overgraded. The holder means nothing to me so long as the card is good. Similarly, I didn't care about the numeric grade, and I submitted this with a request for a minimum 60. I didn't/don't need just a nm example of this card-- I would take one in most grades and my collection of this set spans from grades 2 to 8, depending on back.

I submitted this card because I was concerned about its being trimmed--while some don't mind altered cards, I do, and certainly so at the non-altered price. I submitted it within 24 hours of receiving it, and requested the 24 hour turnaround time, both out of fairness to the seller--if I was going to seek a refund I wanted to do so timely.

I believe the seller wanted bidders to have some faith in this being a GAI card from the Baker era; if so, he is no dummy as to the hobby. He not only advertised it as a "very early GAI" card in big bold letters immediately following the card's identification, he even paid extra to include that in the listing line. Why place such importance on this attribute unless you expected people to consider it significant?

[oldjudge]

Sellers need to stand behind what they sell, period. I agree with Todd 100%.

[rhettyeakley]

I see both sides on this one, kinda tricky especially if the card is no longer in the GAI holder.

Todd, you knew you were getting an M101-4 when you bought it (I assume) since you know as much as anyone about this issue did you not? You know the Sporting News back isn't found on M101-5's, despite what was in the description.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Sellers need to stand behind what they sell, period. I agree with Todd 100%.

He sold him a GAI graded card, not a SGC graded card.

[FrankWakefield]

Todd, when you say "The holder means nothing to me so long as the card is good." I have difficulty believing that... I think the holders do mean something to you. Here are some holders that meant nothing to me...




If you're leaving the card in the holder then the holder does mean something to you.




Now I do think that you should be able to undo the deal, return the card, and get your money back. But I still think if you're wanting an SGC card, buy one. If you are buying from a seller who has no returns and all of that 'guarantee' language you need to have your eyes open and pay attention.

[chaddurbin]

todd's not stupid to crack out a 1k gai card, and sgc would never crack out a card w/o the submitter's consent.

obviously seller should do the right thing and refund and not stick the buyer with a trimmed card. todd has alot experience with those Ms and if he suspects it's trimmed i'll take his/sgc words over GAI. from my experience tho i woulda asked the seller beforehand with gai/beckett slabs would they guarantee it'll cross unaltered to SGC...if not i stay away.

[barrysloate]

What riles me most about this, and it has nothing to do with Todd's dilemma, is that one company calls it NR MT+, and another calls it trimmed. And we've all seen far too many situations like this before.

How can TPG continue this way? This just isn't fair to collectors. I accept that no company gets it right all the time, but I have a right to demand a higher level of proficiency and a greater consensus among the various companies. If there are five grading companies out there and they each have their own distinct grading criteria, then the system doesn't work.

[T205]

If this card would have came back from SGC graded and slabbed would you still seek a refund? Did you know at the time you sent the card into SGC to have it cross graded that it wasn't the card type the seller had in his auction?
If you did, and you wanted to see what the grade was when it came back from SGC and it ended up unfavorable for you then all of the sudden now you want a refund? To me it seems very unfair.

How long did you wait for a response from the seller? Sometimes people don't have access to the internet 24/7 or they just simply don't respond right away. Did you give him enough time to respond?

As mentioned before you seem very knowledgable about this particular issue yet you still bought the card knowing that it was the wrong card listed in that acution. There is a picture of the back of that card. The question that I got is what was your true intentions once you bought this card?

In my opinion I would think the sellers responsibility ended when you sent the card in to SGC.

Just my 2 cents.

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Thanks Bill and Leon.

Frank, I don't need the card to be graded by SGC "in the first place". I have cards from these sets in all 5 company holders, including one "PRO" that I know to be authentic and unaltered, albeit overgraded. The holder means nothing to me so long as the card is good. Similarly, I didn't care about the numeric grade, and I submitted this with a request for a minimum 60. I didn't/don't need just a nm example of this card-- I would take one in most grades and my collection of this set spans from grades 2 to 8, depending on back.

I submitted this card because I was concerned about its being trimmed--while some don't mind altered cards, I do, and certainly so at the non-altered price. I submitted it within 24 hours of receiving it, and requested the 24 hour turnaround time, both out of fairness to the seller--if I was going to seek a refund I wanted to do so timely.

I believe the seller wanted bidders to have some faith in this being a GAI card from the Baker era; if so, he is no dummy as to the hobby. He not only advertised it as a "very early GAI" card in big bold letters immediately following the card's identification, he even paid extra to include that in the listing line. Why place such importance on this attribute unless you expected people to consider it significant?

I just noticed that the auction ended on February 1. Above in bold you say that you submitted within 24 hours of receiving it and you don't yet have it in your hands.
Assuming that you paid for it timely, you probably received the card no later than February 7th or so. If you submitted it "within 24 hours of receiving it" and you "requested 24 hour turnaround time" (which I don't believe to be an actual SGC option - they have 48 hour turnaround), then how is it possible that you don't have the card back in your hands yet?

[richieb315]

Send it off to PSA and get a there opinion. GAI says not trimmed. SGC says trimmed. PSA ?. If it was to get a number grade from PSA who do we believe.

[Mikehealer]

Phil
SGC next day special, it's on their home page this month.
http://www.sgccard.com/
Thought you might be interested.

Originally Posted by pgellis

I just noticed that the auction ended on February 1. Above in bold you say that you submitted within 24 hours of receiving it and you don't yet have it in your hands.
Assuming that you paid for it timely, you probably received the card no later than February 7th or so. If you submitted it "within 24 hours of receiving it" and you "requested 24 hour turnaround time" (which I don't believe to be an actual SGC option - they have 48 hour turnaround), then how is it possible that you don't have the card back in your hands yet?

[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]

.

[FrankWakefield]

If you're buying an M101-5 and you get a -4, then you should be able to return the card and get your money back.

If it says 'no returns', if they have 'GUARANTEED' in big red letters, a fellow should have some concern about dealing with the folks.

And if a fellow wants an SGC graded card, then he should be buying an SGC graded card in the first place.

I'd like to have one of those Stengel cards. I'd want one that is a bit worn, a soft corner or two, one that hasn't ever been slabbed, one that costs a fraction of that, and one that I'm not afraid to hold.

It is a mess. Wish you well with it.

[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.