Beware Carterscards2006

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by edhans

As Barry said earlier, sellers need to stand behind their product. Many sellers, including some prominent auction houses, like to hide behind third party graders. This auction carried an implicit warranty that the card was authentic and unaltered. If Todd fulfils that burden of proof that the card is trimmed, he is entitled to a refund. All of the other stuff about GAI and SGC, -4 or -5 and cracked or not cracked is irrelevant.

I disagree about the cracked and not cracked out part. Who is to say someone can't crack out a card and replace it with a trimmed example? This is getting a bit off topic, but if I buy a card slabbed and crack it out I am doing that knowing that there is no chance I am going to get a refund.

[edhans]

Obviously Todd would have to prove that the card he purchased was altered. Clearly this would be more difficult if the card were cracked out.

[Ease]

(Donning flame-retardant suit...) IMO, advanced collectors know high$ GAI is risky. OP is obviously an advanced collector and knows this, took a chance, and got burned. Have the minerals to take it like a man.

[glchen]

If the card has been cracked out of the slabbed, no return should be allowed. If the card has not been cracked out, the seller should in, good faith, accept the return on the card. Typical ebay sellers typically do not accept returns on graded cards for PSA, SGC, GAI, or Beckett. I don't think this seller is out of bounds here. I purchased a GAI card from Heritage Auctions last year. I tried to cross the card to both PSA and SGC at 1/2 grade lower than the card. The card did not cross. That's life, I took a gamble and have to live with the consequences. Saying that, I really don't think the card has been cracked out of the slab. SGC or PSA would not crack the card out of the slab unless it met the crossover grade. If they crack out the card, that means it met the minimum grade. That's the whole point of crossovers, so that submitters won't get burned if the card does not meeting minimum grade. The TPG would only crack the card if the submitter put Authentic as the crossover grade. Therefore, I think the card is still in the slab, and if Todd discusses with carterscards, they should take the card back. I've purchased cards from carterscards before, and have never had a problem with them. I've asked questions for them, and they've been fairly prompt in coming back with answers. I think they're an honest seller for the most part, as compared to the other ebay sellers out there. In a way, I think they're just a "mass clearinghouse." I saw that they once listed Babe Ruth cards that were obvious reprints. It was something like Reach and Spalding Ruths or something (and not the Spalding Champions). These are the cards that dishonest sellers often list. I sent them a question and asked why'd they'd risk their reputation by listing these kinds of cards when their other stock were fairly high quality. The seller responded to me quickly and what he said was:

"I got these cards in a large deal. To be honest, I know very little about them. I know they are not worth big money but I honestly did not know what to do with them. I guess the best way to answer your question is you kind of get what you get with these things. I know there are collectors so that is the ONLY reason I listed them. Thanks so much for the question and have a great day!!!"

Not really the best answer, but that's how some sellers are.

In regards to the shilling, it definitely does look very suspicious. Shilling is huge problem on ebay and probably even other auctions. I'm not going to say that instance pointed out is not shilling, but some buyers have favorite sellers. They look at those sellers more often, and then bid on them more often which is why they have skewed percentages. Saying that, that case pointed out looks very, very bad.

[mantleman]

I don't believe the seller should have to accept the return. Exit ethics, enter common sense. He did not grade the card, GAI did, so his beef should be with GAI. The buyer:

#1 knew the card was mislabelled

#2 had suspicions of trimming

#3 was weary of "Very early GAI submission"

If he had this many red flags he should have never bought it in the first place.

I am not a powerbuyer, so dropping a grand on a card is a huge deal for me, those would have turned me off right away.

I agree with Eric Schaeffer on this one. Man up!

Andy

[pwilk17]

Buyer knew he was buying a GAI slabbed card - end of story. If buyer paid $1000 for a Pro slabbed card, should he be entitled to a refund if PSA says it is trimmed? If buyer buys an SGC slabbed card and then Pro says it is trimmed, should he get a refund? Not a chance

[richieb315]

If card came back a grade or 2 higher as he thought would he return it to the seller. Let the seller know Gai graded it wrong. I dont think so. Took a chance and it didnt work out. Move on.

[pwilk17]

Carters has 2996 positive feedback (quite an achievement in itself on ebay these days where one guy who pays $2 for a card leaves negative feedback because the post office got it to him in 4 days instead of 3), does absolutely nothing wrong and is now going to get first negative feedback for this - what a shame

[bcornell]

Originally Posted by pwilk17

Carters has 2996 positive feedback (quite an achievement in itself on ebay these days where one guy who pays $2 for a card leaves negative feedback because the post office got it to him in 4 days instead of 3), does absolutely nothing wrong and is now going to get first negative feedback for this - what a shame

Did you read the posts where it points out that he shill bids his own auctions? I'll withhold my own sympathy for someone who deserves it.


Bill

[cozmokramer]

Forget about the seller... maybe GAI should just buy the card back for what it sold for and remove it from circulation in its current holder?

[vintagecpa]

A seller is responsible for the card they sell.....period. If I sell an altered card that is already slabbed, it is my responsibility to fight the grading company, not the poor sap that bought it from me.

Also, stating you don't accept returns holds about as much legal weight as putting a sign on your front porch stating "Not responsible for accidents". The bottom line is you are responsible regardless of any sign you post.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by cozmokramer

Forget about the seller... maybe GAI should just buy the card back for what it sold for and remove it from circulation in its current holder?

Does GAI have enough money to do that?

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Does GAI have enough money to do that?

I believe the GAI that graded that card no longer exists as a corporate entity. There is a company out there, using the initials GAI, and Mike Baker is in charge, but I believe it's actually a different name on the corp.

[edhans]

I think the auction carried an implicit warranty that the card was a GAI 7.5. Which it was.

So sellers now have the right to knowingly sell fake or altered cards that mistakenly end up in TPG holders? I think not. If the seller sold an altered card without adequate disclosure, he is liable for damages. It is irrelevant what any grading service's opinion is. The seller did not disclose that the card wasn't in it's original state. That seems like a material breach of contract to me.

[carrigansghost]

Now Ed, you know that the seller knew this was altered? Let us stick to the facts known. I have a sign onmy door that states,"Never mind the dog, he's cool, the owner will be pissed" and I will back it up 100%.

Rawn

[pgellis]

Who says that the SGC grader is correct here? There is an assumption that SGC did not take it out of the holder (which is still not 100% verified yet), so who's to say that they are correct? Are they right all the time? Especially looking at a card inside a holder?

A lot of people are assuming SGC is always right. I know they have a much better image, but I wonder what PSA would say.

[mdschulze]

The grade, grader, or grading company's liability isn't the issue here at all. If the buyer bought ANY item and decided he didn't want it for ANY reason, he/she should be able to get a full refund, period (unless the buyer damaged the item)! We could be talking about a shirt here instead of a card and it shouldn't change the buyer/seller ethics. JMO

[pgellis]

Originally Posted by mdschulze

The grade, grader, or grading company's liability isn't the issue here at all. If the buyer bought ANY item and decided he didn't want it for ANY reason, he/she should be able to get a full refund, period (unless the buyer damaged the item)! We could be talking about a shirt here instead of a card and it shouldn't change the buyer/seller ethics. JMO

You use the shirt example, so I will use the car example. Can you purchase a vehicle and then drive it home and decide the next day that it isn't for you and then you can just bring it back to the dealer for a full refund? Answer: NO

[Peter_Spaeth]

If the condition of the item is unchanged, and a buyer is unhappy and promptly requests a refund, a good seller should accomodate as a matter of good business practice.

As a legal claim, while I am sympathetic to Todd and have been there myself on more than one occasion, I think Todd has a tough time if all he has is a second opinion that the card is trimmed, because the seller did not (in my view) impliedly warrant that other TPGs would share GAI's opinion, and (as far as I know) Todd did not ask for that guaranty. The seller sold the value of GAI's opinion. If he was selling SGC's opinion it might have been worth more. That said, Todd is a good lawyer and I am sure he has good counterarguments to this analysis.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by mdschulze

The grade, grader, or grading company's liability isn't the issue here at all. If the buyer bought ANY item and decided he didn't want it for ANY reason, he/she should be able to get a full refund, period (unless the buyer damaged the item)! We could be talking about a shirt here instead of a card and it shouldn't change the buyer/seller ethics. JMO

People are forgetting the fact that this was NOT a purchase, it was an auction. If it was a BIN, I might agree that the buyer has a right to change his mind and return. However, allowing returns on an auction is not fair to the other bidders who could have won the auction and would have been completely happy with the card.

[mdschulze]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

People are forgetting the fact that this was NOT a purchase, it was an auction. If it was a BIN, I might agree that the buyer has a right to change his mind and return. However, allowing returns on an auction is not fair to the other bidders who could have won the auction and would have been completely happy with the card.

Good point! If I were the seller, I would gladly accept the return, refund the money, then relist. This would probably save a neg feedback mark as well.

[nolemmings]

Well this sure has been fun. I started out warning you of a seller who was unresponsive, which was followed by evidence (and I have more)showing him to be questionable, and now I see it's back on me. That's fine, I'll deal with it in my own way, and I thank those who have supported me, although again, that was not my purpose in posting.

Peter, sorry to disagree, and I repeat my statement that SGC is in many ways irrelevant here. If I stand here before you and swear that card was trimmed and can prove it, then the seller sold me an altered card, not measuring up to the minimum expected in the hobby, regardless if I ever sent it to SGC for a second opinion. The seller at least implicitly warranted that the card was authentic and unaltered, and if I can prove otherwise, he is on the hook as far as I'm concerned. It wouldn't matter if it was an SGC card that was trimmed, or PSA (gasp). If I can prove it was altered, seller loses, unless at a minimum he can show he expressly disclaimed alterations and had no knowledge. Again, that is because anyone buying a graded card has a reasonable expectation that it is authentic and unaltered--unless expressly stated otherwise. I'm confident the law will back me up on that. So assume for argument it was an SGC card and PSA said it was trimmed-- if I can convince a trier of fact that the card was altered, under these circumstances I should win. That may rock some people's world, but that is how it would play out, IMHO.

Now the reason no one ever analyzes this more fully, in my opinion, is because they immediately leap to the conclusion that I cannot "prove" a card was trimmed unless some certain number of experts backs me up-- I love the earlier post stating that it's currently tied at 1-1. Cards are rarely worth the trouble and expense of litigation, and many here are not lawyers. They lick their wounds and chalk it up as a lesson, often blaming themselves. Me, I don't lay down. If you sold me an altered card, I will do what I can to undo your damage, simple as that. If a court does not believe I have proved my case, then I lose--no surprise there. I'll take my chances, and I have a pretty fair idea of what I am doing.

I hope to later post as to what I think should happen in the marketplace, but I recognize that few people ask my opinion and that I will not likely be a great influence on the matter in the long run. At this point, I would only state that when I sell, I offer a minimum 20 and sometimes 30 day return privilege, no questions asked, so long as the card is returned in the condition I shipped it. I would extend that even longer if reasonable or if that's what becomes normal in the marketplace, because I stand behind my sales. IMO, sellers need to learn that this is good business practice, and that if you've avoided it thus far it is more likely because people did not want to incur the hassle than any kind of legal or moral notion that you are in the right to get away with selling crap. The law will catch up with you eventually, and ever-growing consumer protections will make right what is right.