Beware Carterscards2006

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Peter- no offense, but i have suspected many ebay users on shilling. Seems to be a very constant issue

And therefore, what? Not even worth discussing, as opposed to Todd's scheming?

[docpatlv]

What difference does it make when Todd suspected trimming, why he sent it to SGC, or what his intentions were? Who gives a @#$%???

The bottom line is Todd bought the card at auction, wasn't happy with the knowledge that the card is potentially trimmed and requested a refund. Any seller worth his salt should have offered one as long as the card was returned in it's original state.

What bothers me more is the complete lack of acknowledgement to the seller's past and legitimate concerns over the possibility of shill bidding.

I don't know vintagetoppsguy or cmiz and am not sure if they have an agenda or just like to read what they type, but I do know Todd and he is a stand-up guy.

Mike

[BlueDevil89]

Just a few thoughts and observations (and I don't care whose side your on and I'm not taking sides with anyone --- at least not publicly).

I do have a complaint with the rationale behind some of the arguments here. Specifically those pointing to the Sellers past financial / legal transgressions and alleged shill bidding practices.

A public case has been presented by the Buyer against the Seller. The Seller has stepped forward and presented a defense. We the jury of public opinion must evaluate those arguments based on their own merit.

While the Seller's past legal history is both interesting and scandalous, it has no bearing on this case whatsoever. Nor do the charges of shill bidding. Though reprehensible as they may be, these considerations have no material impact on the matter of whether or not a TPG card may be returned to a Seller for a full-refund solely based upon a different opinion obtained from another TPG company. No matter what crime the Seller may or may not have committed in the past, it is irrelevant to the case at hand.

Now we've had a very good discussion and debate thus far, apart from the occasional name-calling. Let's keep this a fair-fight, with no hitting below the belt, and let's try to stick to the facts. Remember, neither our relationships with the parties nor our opinions of them based on past direct experiences or indirect knowledge should be given any weight when it comes to deciding this matter.

Much of the thread has been fantastic fun. I do, however, wish it had not been titled "Beware [Seller's Name Here]". I think that the Buyer initiated this thread out of a sense of frustration, and hence the title. I believe that it would have been in the Buyer's best interest to have presented the case in slightly more impartial manner, let's say as a question posed to the community concerning the proper etiquette and legal obligations of a Seller in such a case. The poor communication argument is also just another way of piling on, and has little to do with the main issue, which is, "Does any Seller have a legal or ethical obligation to accept the return of a TPG card simply based on the Buyer obtaining a different opinion from another TPG company?" It's a great question for this community to consider.

I'd also like to know how positions of the community may be changed if the Buyer had purchased a PSA card from the Seller (instead of a GAI card) and had tried crossing that over unsuccessfully? Or visa-versa (let's set our opinions of PSA and SGC aside for a moment and consider them equals for the sake of argument).

[Peter_Spaeth]

The seller's defense was based in large part on a fabricated story about what he had been told about Todd's buying habits. That makes his credibility highly relevant, and thus his history and the evidence of shilling, both of which in my view bear on his credibility, are relevant.