Moral of story: don't sell an altered card. Sorry that I have to out a fellow member.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by JMANOS

Card measures fine it has a goofy cut, I dont think the card is altered at all. I have alot of 1948 Leaf that have the same issue. Sorry my opinion.

Jim,

The card was submitted by a previous owner and was returned by PSA "Altered." This is not in the listing. When you purchased the card, I sent you the container with the card with the PSA Altered label.

[phikappapsi]

Seems pretty clear cut. The guy traded for an altered card here, threw away the evidence/TPG grade and is trying to turn it around for a profit without full disclosure.

Even if "your opinion" is that the card isn't trimmed, the unethical approach to trying to swing a quick buck is what appears to have most of the board more upset.

[calvindog]

Seems a bit fishy to me but I find that all resellers of PSA or SGC-determined trimmed cards always believe that the card was not trimmed when they resell it. Interesting.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Seems a bit fishy to me but I find that all resellers of PSA or SGC-determined trimmed cards always believe that the card was not trimmed when they resell it. Interesting.

PSA did not say the card was trimmed. They said it was altered. That could mean a number of things such as re-colored. If JMANOS is qualified (and by qualified I mean through years of experience) to determine that the card is not altered and TRULY BELIEVES that, then he has a right to sell it as he wishes.

Come on guys, these are the same folks that slabbed a laser copy of a Ty Cobb cut autograph as authentic. Some of our board experts determined that the cut was not authentic. So should Donovan have been allowed to still sell it even though PSA determined that it was authentic? In other words, why does PSA's opinion count on this card in question, but it doesn't count on the Ty Cobb autograph?

Keep drinking the Kool Aid, folks!

[Robextend]

The solution seems simple in these cases, list the facts and state your opinion.

Disclose that the card was deemed trimmed by PSA, however say that you feel the card is not trimmed (and for whatever reason) and let the buyer decide.

I think that would be most fair for all parties.

[Brian Van Horn]

Update at 7:39:30 EST this morning. It, however, does not mention the PSA label in the update:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1936-World-W...item1c2765bb4c

[markf31]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Update at 7:39:30 EST this morning. It, however, does not mention the PSA label in the update:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1936-World-W...item1c2765bb4c

So If I purchase a PSA 5 (EX) graded card but I feel that card is in fact EX-MT and should have been graded a 6 (EX-MT) don't I have every right to crack the case and list the card as being in an EX-MT condition and price it according to a EX-MT grade? Would you expect me to detail and disclose in my auction that the card was originally graded a 5 by PSA?

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by markf31

So If I purchase a PSA 5 (EX) graded card but I feel that card is in fact EX-MT and should have been graded a 6 (EX-MT) don't I have every right to crack the case and list the card as being in an EX-MT condition and price it according to a EX-MT grade? Would you expect me to detail and disclose in my auction that the card was originally graded a 5 by PSA?

Yes, you have that right. I see a distinction btw an undergraded scenario and a card that was graded as Altered.

I have a hypo question. What would you make of a seller whose business model was to focus on and purchase cards that are slabbed as Authentic/Altered, crack them out and list them raw with no disclosure.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by HercDriver

I won a lot in REA a couple years ago that contained some T207s that the description said were trimmed. I sent them to SGC to round out a lot for one of their specials, just to get an "A" grade on them. They came back with some pretty nice grades, actually. So if I ever sell them, do I say they are SGC 50, but REA called them trimmed?

Originally Posted by Pup6913

Bought a M116 from TBOB just before Nationals last yr. He sold it as trimmed. Graded a SGC 6. I looked it over and seen nothing wrong and submitted it. Am I supposed to tell the buyer I bought it raw as trimmed but TPG said its a 6 now????

Originally Posted by markf31

So If I purchase a PSA 5 (EX) graded card but I feel that card is in fact EX-MT and should have been graded a 6 (EX-MT) don't I have every right to crack the case and list the card as being in an EX-MT condition and price it according to a EX-MT grade? Would you expect me to detail and disclose in my auction that the card was originally graded a 5 by PSA?

Great stories/thoughts, guys. But you’re letting logic and reason get in the way of a good witch hunt.

[alanu]

I've had cards that were deemed trimmed by one grading service (PSA or SGC) and not by another and in that case don't think any disclosures are necessary, but in this case, unless the card is sent to SGC for grading, I believe full disclosure should be provided.

With that said, for all the PSA/3rd party grading bashers out there (I'm not one of them), why would they care what PSA said about he card.

[Jewish-collector]

I met JMANOS at the 2007 National in Cleveland and he's a really nice guy. Will that help ?

[barrysloate]

Here are my thoughts: Suppose you send a card in for grading, and it comes back trimmed. Then you resubmit it to the same service, or to the other guys, and it now comes back with a numerical grade, and you decide not to disclose this when you sell it. Why is it assumed that you are pulling a fast one?

What if you genuinely believed the card was not trimmed, felt certain the graders got it wrong the first time, and correctly assigned it a number grade upon resubmission. Why should you mention this? Why should the seller be put in the position of having to explain the errors of TPG to his customers? In this example there is nothing pertinent that needs to be disclosed.

[DJR]

.

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Great stories/thoughts, guys. But you’re letting logic and reason get in the way of a good witch hunt.

Witch hunt? Just because you cannot discern that failure to disclose pertinent facts is wrong, doesn't mean that others cannot.

[wonkaticket]

Barry exactly agree 100%.

Ken, did he really keep all that much info back? Said card had funky bottom edge….true he didn't put a big paragraph on how PSA thought it was trimmed he also didn’t scan and post the previous AUTH/Trimmed label but did you really expect him too?

Like I said let me know when we start getting auction house and eBay write ups like I showed above. Otherwise this is just par for the course in this hobby…and if anything this is mini golf compared to what isn’t disclosed to us on a regular basis.

Cheers,

John

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Great stories/thoughts, guys. But you’re letting logic and reason get in the way of a good witch hunt.

Wholeheartedly agree. The TPGs opinions are just opinions--how expert is debatable given the pure $hit I've seen get past them.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by markf31

So If I purchase a PSA 5 (EX) graded card but I feel that card is in fact EX-MT and should have been graded a 6 (EX-MT) don't I have every right to crack the case and list the card as being in an EX-MT condition and price it according to a EX-MT grade? Would you expect me to detail and disclose in my auction that the card was originally graded a 5 by PSA?

My only point is that if the card has been submitted and returned with an "Altered" assessment and the seller received both of these from me, both should be listed. At the very least the word "altered" with an explanation of the PSA judgment should be included in the listing.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

My only point is that if the card has been submitted and returned with an "Altered" assessment and the seller received both of these from me, both should be listed. At the very least the word "altered" with an explanation of the PSA judgment should be included in the listing.

I agree with you, Brian.

Simply put, if I bought that card from Jim and then discovered the history you posted, I'd be very mad and I'd be looking to return the card...at the very least.

Yes, grades are opinions. And yes, PSA makes lots of mistakes. But they don't just reject cards willy-nilly. The card came back with the opinion that there was evidence of alteration. That is a very material fact that ought to be disclosed by any ethical seller.

Cheers,
Blair

[4815162342]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=145241

[x2drich2000]

Taken by itself I don't see any problem with not disclosing that the card came back altered from PSA. The grade/determination assigned by PSA is their opinion. It is not fact. We have all heard of cases where PSA has deemed a card trimmed but upon resubmitting it has been graded numerically. Should a seller have to disclose if a card is resubmitted and receives a higher grade the 2nd time? The description indicates something is not right with the bottom border, so the buyer is aware. Furthermore, the seller also provides a 14 day return policy giving recourse if the buyer is not satisfied.

What does bother me though is looking at this card combined with the sellers overall feedback. Feedback percentage is 96.7% positive and most of the negative comments seem to be related to items not sent. To me that is concerning.

dj

[HRBAKER]

The card was sold twice, both times with the caveat that it was deemed "altered" by a recognized TPG. Even if the determination was made in his opinion that the assessment was wrong, it should have been mentioned bc it is material and then he should have said based on "ya ya ya" I disagree and do not believe that the card is altered but has an abnormal cut, etc. That's setting the bar at a fairly low level I think.

As a buyer, what would you want to know? And yes, TPGs make mistakes (often egregious) and he may be right about the card.

[wonkaticket]

No dog in this fight.

However I will say that if you guys expect total disclosure and honesty in this hobby don’t hold your breath. All you can do is educate yourself as best you can to what you collect and buyer beware.

I have yet to see any of the below descriptions on cards for sale or auction…let me know when you see them pop up.

“Here is a BLANK graded PSA 8/SGC 88 card of BLANK I finally got this card into this PSA/SGC holder after cracking and submitting it at least 12 times from its previous grades of EXMT-NM, please bid accordingly”

“Here is a BLANK graded PSA 8 card of BLANK amazing card had tiny pencil mark which I erased and told nobody about lucky the graders didn’t catch it but wanted to be honest bid accordingly”

“Here is a BLANK graded SGC 88 card of BLANK card was soaked out of old time album managed to get all glue residue off card lucky the graders didn’t catch it but wanted to be honest bid accordingly”

“Here is a BLANK graded PSA 7 card of BLANK great card and tough too! Card was in an AUTH holder when I got it in lot #345 in the last BLANK auction. Thought it looked good submitted it a few times and here you go bid accordingly”

“Here is a BLANK graded PSA 6/SGC 80 card of BLANK super rare card! As a huge submitter/auction house I personally walked this card into the grading company for review…after hearing the news this card would grade lower than we wanted. We went to lunch with the principles of the company and explained how this would make my consignor unhappy and could cost them and me business. The grading company then decided to do me a solid and give the card the much needed bump to get us and our consignor where we needed to be. Again we here at BLANK auction house wanted to be honest please bid accordingly”

I do laugh with all the shilling and crooked stuff in this hobby we seem to fixate on the little fish while the sharks swim around fairly free to bite our asses if you will.

Just my two cents….

On this situation I no doubt agree a tad shady and not forthcoming but not world shattering or unexpected.

Cheers,

John