Ebay seller returned cracked out slab

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'm surprised nobody has really explained the timeline.

Seller to buyer to PSA to buyer ….three trips through the post office, plus time at PSA even giving the benefit of the doubt that the buyer could turn the card around and remail the same day.

And all that happened in one week?
Even with express mail, three days are used up in transit.
Yes, PSA has faster times for higher value items, but does anyone have recent experience with the time it takes to even get logged in?


I just don't see that as probable.

I wondered about that very thing early on in this thread. It doesn't add up to me.

The OP has held back some info. For example, unless I missed it, the person who purchased the card on eBay hasn't been identified. Additionally, the unnamed buyer hasn't come on here (so far as I know) to fill in any details.

So, we're left to wonder, discuss, and piece things together using incomplete information. Along the way, this thread has generated approximately 200 responses. Two opinions have been shared repeatedly:

1. Case was cracked open - the sale should be final
2. Card was altered but sold as near mint - buyer should get a refund

To me, neither position is entirely right or entirely wrong. That is what makes this such a fascinating discussion. It's also what may lead to a most remarkable scenario.

Both buyer and seller can argue that they deserve to keep their money. Ultimately, both of them may get to do just that.

The buyer already got their refund through eBay. The seller can (and likely will) fight that through PayPal or their bank. One possible outcome is this:

Buyer gets to keep their refund
Seller eventually gets paid
At least one company foots the bill as the cost of doing business

And, of course, seller still has the card...we think.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I wondered about that very thing early on in this thread. It doesn't add up to me.

The OP has held back some info. For example, unless I missed it, the person who purchased the card on eBay hasn't been identified. Additionally, the unnamed buyer hasn't come on here (so far as I know) to fill in any details.

So, we're left to wonder, discuss, and piece things together using incomplete information. Along the way, this thread has generated approximately 200 responses. Two opinions have been shared repeatedly:

1. Case was cracked open - the sale should be final
2. Card was altered but sold as near mint - buyer should get a refund

To me, neither position is entirely right or entirely wrong. That is what makes this such a fascinating discussion. It's also what may lead to a most remarkable scenario.

Both buyer and seller can argue that they deserve to keep their money. Ultimately, both of them may get to do just that.

The buyer already got their refund through eBay. The seller can (and likely will) fight that through PayPal or their bank. One possible outcome is this:

Buyer gets to keep their refund
Seller eventually gets paid
At least one company foots the bill as the cost of doing business

And, of course, seller still has the card...we think.

Thank you, Eric!!

While some on these threads have been frightened by this conversation:

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Based on all the information out there at this moment and the proven ineptitude of basically all of the major third-party graders... It is downright scary to me the opinions of many of you that side with the buyer here.

And others have said that an opposing view is evidence of a personality disorder:

Originally Posted by Goudey77

Nothing surprises me anymore. This hobby has some real shocking perspectives from all walks of life. I think it’s mostly mid life crisis personality disorders.
There is truly a mental disorder aspect to the madness. I don’t know how legitimate businesses take any of the alleged claims seriously.

I’m almost embarrassed to call myself a collector these days.
I don’t take a negative stance very much but this instance kind of did it.
Ok rant over.

You, Eric, have nicely, and in a respectful, non-insulting way, summarized this discussion by pointing out that there are two perspectives that each have some validity.

The point of a discussion like this isn't to "win" it, but to share perspectives. When someone says that such a discussion makes them "almost embarrassed to call myself a collector these days", or that the discussion itself is "downright scary" that's disappointing.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Thank you, Eric!!

While some on these threads have been frightened by this conversation:



And others have said that an opposing view is evidence of a personality disorder:



You, Eric, have nicely, and in a respectful, non-insulting way, summarized this discussion by pointing out that there are two perspectives that each have some validity.

The point of a discussion like this isn't to "win" it, but to share perspectives. When someone says that such a discussion makes them "almost embarrassed to call myself a collector these days", or that the discussion itself is "downright scary" that's disappointing.

I agree that this is a weird thread with 2 types.

1) plain and simple the item returned was not the item sold and buyer should not get a refund for returning an altered product.

2) people making all sorts of excuses on why someone can buy an item alter it and return it for a full refund. This one really bafles me but I doubt there is any subject we all agree on.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I agree that this is a weird thread with 2 types.

1) plain and simple the item returned was not the item sold and buyer should not get a refund for returning an altered product.

2) people making all sorts of excuses on why someone can buy an item alter it and return it for a full refund. This one really bafles me but I doubt there is any subject we all agree on.

Ben, if you buy a Rolex watch that has elaborate packaging, open it, and discover fraud, are you saying you cannot return it because it is opened?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Bill, if you buy a Rolex watch that has elaborate packaging, open it, and discover fraud, are you saying you cannot return it because it is opened?

Mike that doesn't even make sense, plus it is totally irrelevant to what really happened.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Mike that doesn't even make sense, plus it is totally irrelevant to what really happened.

Biff,
It is quite similar. Maybe the buyer could've returned the card and added $20 for the cost of the cracked holder. Would that be fair?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Biff,
It is quite similar. Maybe the buyer could've returned the card and added $20 for the cost of the cracked holder. Would that be fair?

George, you can add all the if's and but's you want, plain and simple the buyer altered the item and should not get a refund. Go to Walmart or where ever you shop and buy a coat. Then cut off the sleeves and try and return it. How is that different?

[BabyRuth]

Let's lighten it up a bit
I love threads that talk about GAI Gehrigs and Rolex

[Prof_Plum]

So maybe the question is of what value does the packaging of an item have relative to the actual item value. Clearly you can return many items (watches, electronics, etc) after you've damage the package. In contrast, when it comes to collectibles, the package has actual value and destroying the package reduces the value of said collectible. But somewhere in between is a large gray area.

Perhaps for future GAI sales, one should sell the holder, not the card inside. For example, I have this near mint intact GAI 7 holder for sale, $3000...and I'll throw in the card for free. If the buyer should brake the GAI holder in hopes of getting the card in a PSA holder, he can't ask for his money back because he paid for the intact GAI holder.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Prof_Plum

So maybe the question is of what value does the packaging of an item have relative to the actual item value. Clearly you can return many items (watches, electronics, etc) after you've damage the package. In contrast, when it comes to collectibles, the package has actual value and destroying the package reduces the value of said collectible. But somewhere in between is a large gray area.

Perhaps for future GAI sales, one should sell the holder, not the card inside. For example, I have this near mint intact GAI 7 holder for sale, $3000...and I'll throw in the card for free. If the buyer should brake the GAI holder in hopes of getting the card in a PSA holder, he can't ask for his money back because he paid for the intact GAI holder.

I'm not sure if you are being tongue-in-cheek or not, but actually, I think this is a really good idea and solve the problem. If this was the case, I would totally support the seller's right to not have to accept the return. And in this scenario, the card could be outright counterfeit, not just altered, and it would make no difference.

I find your idea to be an elegant solution. Then it's a clear "buyer beware" deal and both buyer and seller understand this up front. Sort of like buying a grab bag where the contents are unknown at time of purchase.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by Prof_Plum

So maybe the question is of what value does the packaging of an item have relative to the actual item value. Clearly you can return many items (watches, electronics, etc) after you've damage the package. In contrast, when it comes to collectibles, the package has actual value and destroying the package reduces the value of said collectible. But somewhere in between is a large gray area.

Exactly. If I have a Lionel train car from the 1930's and it's in the original package, and I remove it from said package, it devalues the item. Same thing with an unopened Star Wars figurine from 1977. A CGC graded comic book. And a slabbed card.

Originally Posted by t206fanatic

only potentially compelling argument not siding wholly w the seller I've seen is:

do the sellers of cards in crapslabs (non PSA/SGC) have any responsibility for checking to see if the card inside is altered? Peter asked a number of times if the seller had attempted to have the Gehrig crossed over, without response.

So is there now an unwritten rule that no GAI cards are allowed to be sold by anyone going forward, unless the seller gets a second opinion from the Dalai Lama of card grading, PSA?

[mq711]

The seller's listing advises its a GAI 7 but further "opinions" its very rare and NM condition. Thus, even though the buyer brought a listed GAI 7 card the part of the lister's post, that it was in NM condition was determined to be "not as advertised." I think this is where it becomes a hobby gray area.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I buy a new automatic watch on ebay in its factory packaging. I unpackage it, wind it, wear it for a day and discover it's badly defective. Can I not return it, because it's no longer in its factory packaging?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Exactly. If I have a Lionel train car from the 1930's and it's in the original package, and I remove it from said package, it devalues the item.

And if, in doing so, you discover that several parts are not original but instead modern replicas, some parts are repainted, and so on.... Then what? You just caught a fraudulent item. You're saying you have no recourse?

[Prof_Plum]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Exactly. If I have a Lionel train car from the 1930's and it's in the original package, and I remove it from said package, it devalues the item. Same thing with an unopened Star Wars figurine from 1977. A CGC graded comic book. And a slabbed card. ...

Except these examples aren't the same, which is why I suggested there is a huge gray area when putting a value on the packaging. The Lionel train car and Star Wars figure package was part of the original retail item. The CGC grading and GAI holder are embellishments added after market items.

Adding to the complexity of the issue in this case is the value of the card. I mean, if the slab was merely a GAI 1 or 2 and the buyer broke it before return of the card I doubt there'd be nearly as much discussion. So as I somewhat t.i.c. suggested earlier in the thread, in the future sell the slab, not the card.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Prof_Plum

Except these examples aren't the same, which is why I suggested there is a huge gray area when putting a value on the packaging. The Lionel train car and Star Wars figure package was part of the original retail item. The CGC grading and GAI holder are embellishments added after market items.

Adding to the complexity of the issue in this case is the value of the card. I mean, if the slab was merely a GAI 1 or 2 and the buyer broke it before return of the card I doubt there'd be nearly as much discussion. So as I somewhat t.i.c. suggested earlier in the thread, in the future sell the slab, not the card.

You are really selling the slab AND the card in the slab. Its like a christmas pack extra value. Its the mystery of whether the GAI will hold up to its grade is the 'value' If it was some XYZ company with zero history of competence, the slab is meaningless.

However there are collectibles to this day that are in GAI slabs in auctions that sell for thousands of dollars such as wax packs etc. XYZ company doesnt have any

The 'mystery' is now gone from this collectible because the slab is gone. People pay more for mysteries/gamble

Example- People pay 40 dollars for a slot in a set break when average value of cards will be 3 dollars. Its the mystery!

Example Xmas packs- Its the mystery!

Meeting someone online whos video is always broken on computer or phone which prevents a live view of the person and all you have to rely on are pictures which could be feasible excuse in 1994 but not in 2019. Its the mystery (not from prior experience)