Beware Carterscards2006

[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.