I'm late to this thread but my $0.03:
#1 The seller did make a fairly big mistake by "accepting the return" before confirming as to whether the card had been broken out of the slab. This could very well have driven EBay's position to side with the "buyer". As a consumer, the more interesting precedent would be if the seller first insisted upon reasoning, photographic verification, etc. and then when discovering the slab had been broken, "rejected" the return. Would eBay have made the same ruling under this fact pattern?
#2 I routinely buy "PSA/SGC NM 7" commons from the late 50s/early 60s and break them out of the holders to simply take the newly acquired raw card and upgrade my existing raw card as I strive for a more centered raw card and may have minimum graded standard (of 8) on cards that I'll keep slabbed. While I am careful and usually successful, the cracking process in not foolproof and there have been a few times whereby the cracked raw card may have ended up with a slight ding or two. Before and after pictures may not capture this and for an 80 year old card the seller shouldn't be forced to take it on faith that the now raw card hasn't been degraded slightly in the cracking process.
#3. If one is selling an "off-brand" (for me that's simply non PSA/SGC) card on eBay, one should stipulate very clearly that under no circumstances will a cracked card return be accepted. IOW, the buyer is taking the full off-brand risk. May not be bullet proof with eBay and won't protect you in all scenarios but in concert with item #1 would have put this seller on better footing with eBay.
#4. I don't necessarily agree that the seller should have or would have already dabbled in the cross-over game with PSA/SGC. Early on when I started upgrading a lot of my raw stars with graded 7/8s I bought some off brand cards because they looked nice and were cheaper. I stopped doing that very early on and have weeded those cards out of my collection (other than 1 Beckett card that I still have) well before the latest "trimming scandal". So I find it entirely plausible that the seller may have felt the same and simply wanted to recoup roughly what he paid for the card knowing that GAI cards are inferior from a valuation standpoint.
|