Scenario~Your Opinions

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Go back and re-read my post Wesley - I didn't say that Lipset was a better grader than SGC. Not sure where you got that. I DO however, respect his right to have his own auction policies, even though you may not agree with them.

I agree with everyone here who has stated that sellers should be "friendly". But if you violate the seller's policies and they are "unfriendly" as a result, does that then relieve you of your obligation and change the policy? No, of course not.

I know a number of board members who conduct business with people they don't like - doing otherwise restricts your opportunities in the hobby. The key think is understanding their policies and learning how to deal with their personalities.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Very well put Scott. Great way to promote the listing Andrew! I bid on it. Damn nice card, I can't wait to get it graded by PRO. Who is bidder nomik32cid? He sure likes alot of neat 1950s stuff, this card, and your E102.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

That card is definitely either trimmed or not trimmed. It can only be one of the two situations. This is true of all cards. Same for the Gretzky Wagner. Does the fact that PSA says it's untrimmed make it so? What if Andrew's card had been encapsulated by SGC? Would that make it un-trimmed? What if they then took it back out of the holder - does it then become trimmed?

Would you prefer that all sellers be held accountable to SGC's judgement, regardless of how they feel about slabbing? Perhaps we should make all sellers slab their cards before selling? Will we make them use PSA, SGC, GAI, or give them a choice? Maybe it would be easier to make Lew Lipset and others sellers of un-slabbed material take a test first - if they pass it, then they are given a license permitting them to sell un-slabbed cards. Or, reputable sellers could simply state their auction policies up front and prospective bidders could read them prior to bidding.

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

Several times a week we rip on ebay sellers who do the exact same thing.

If a card was purchased on ebay and SGC deemed the card to be trimmed, we would expect the seller to stand by his card and offer a full refund. If the seller refuses and insists that his card is not trimmed, we would critique that seller on these forums to no end. If a seller of a trimmed card on ebay uses expletives and threatens a buyer, many would choose not to deal with that seller.

If we want to apply different standards here then so be it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

If Andrew had told the seller he thought it was trimmed, rather than first sending it to a grading company, he probably would have gotten a refund. What more can you ask? The same is true for ebay transactions.

Read the posts, man.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

1/8th inch short or not, that is one beautiful card. I can appreciate a card no matter what SGC, PSA, or Lew Lipset has to say about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Wes, you are a super friend and an unbelievable help to me during my PSA debacle, but I must nicely disagree with you. If an ebay seller sells a card and a grading company says it is trimmed, I am still not convinced that it is trimmed. I need to see it, have several other people I know look at it if I am not sure. Sorry, the grading companies do a decent job but are far from perfect. If I hand carried it to SGC and Scott looked at it while I was there and explained why he thought it was trimmed, well then I would be more likely sold. But you have no way of knowing how FAST that card went through or who looked at it. I am still not a giant fan of the grading though I do think SGC is the absolute best from start to finish. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Any time you debate a seller's (or auction house's) policies, it gives them something to think about and they might consider changing it for future auctions.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

I've been reading the posts about Lipset and the Ewing card and wanted to pipe in with my two cents. The one thing the grading services have done (if nothing else) is re-define the grading system, even if they don't always follow their own definitions. What was once a great looking card with tons of eye appeal slips in grade (and value) because of size differentials, erasures, paper loss because of scrapbook removal, etc. If you are going to sell cards in today's market you have to be aware of the modern grading criteria, whether you have a slabbed or unslabbed card. I have no problem with someone selling a card with disclaimers, such as "exmt but it measures short," or "exmt appearance but a tiny spot of paper loss on the back." I DO have a problem with a card being sold as "definitely not trimmed" and then receiving the card and finding it has been trimmed. I DO have a problem with selling a card and representing a card as being factory miscut when the card has been altered post-production.
I know that Lew will never win any awards for congeniality but when he mentioned the card was 1/8" short left to right, that should have been a huge red flag because there are a lot of vintage cards floating around the hobby, both inside and outside slabs, which were trimmed not to increase their value or aesthetic appearance but because once upon a time the pocket page holders which housed most cards were made to house tobacco isssues and not caramel issues such as E94s and E98s which are bigger and some collectors trimmed them down for convenience sake. Today that practice would make us shudder but it happened often in the good old days.
That said, I think that the Ewing has been arguably altered and a refund should have been issued. If the representation of the card was simply that it was short 1/8" lft to right, I would say no, caveat emptor, you gets what you pay for, etc. BUT when the representation that the card was not trimmed was made, thus implying that the dimensions of the card are the same as when it left the printing presses, I think you have to issue a refund when the evidence shows otherwise. I know Lipset shares the feeling of a lot of us that grading services are not omnipotent but I think a refund was in order in this particular case. I bought an E98 Cobb from Lew in an auction once which he described as vg-ex and which SGC graded as a 30 (good). I happened to mention this to him, not to obtain a refund, but in passing and his reply was terse and sharp. Obviously he can not guarantee any grade and I accept that fact and wouldn't hold him to it, but this case, in my mind is different. When someone as knowledge about vintage cards as Lipset states that a card is definitely not trimmed, it carries weight and assurances. I agree with Wesley that if the seller here were someone else, he would be roasted alive.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

and I agree.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I respectfully disagree. When he bought a card that was advertised as short, but definitely not trimmed, he should have known that there was a good chance ANY reputable grading company would not slab it. That is also the reason he got such a good deal on the front end....and my guestimate is he paid less than half of what that card would have brought if it were not advertised as short ...regards (ps...your cards are going out today)

[Archive]

Posted By: Kieran

Personally, I would give him a little extra so that the guy feels good about selling the cards. Other than that it is not my fault if someone wants to sell me valuable items at a fraction of the cost.

Of course I would make sure to have my CSI team on hand to verify they are real.

"I have had balls thrown at me my whole life. When I turned 30 I started to really hate balls - I didnt like the smell, feel or taste!"

Yogi Berra - 1975

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

The seller advertised it as "definitely not trimmed" because that was his opinion. He also apparently thinks he is a better judge of trimming than the grading companies. Who's to say he's not? If you don't agree, then don't buy from him, but don't tell him you are ignoring his policies and participating in his auctions under your own rules.

If I ever buy a card from this seller, advertised as "definitely not trimmed", and I receive it and feel it's trimmed, ask for a refund (before sending for grading) and he says "no", then I will gladly eat my words. And it's very possible if this is Lew, because I participate in most of his auctions. But if I get a card advertised "definitely not trimmed", and I AGREE, and send it in to a grading company and they say "trimmed", then who am I to say that the grading company knows better than me or Lew? Sorry, but I don't give those guys the same amount of respect some of you do.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Sorry Bob, just because it is short and a grading company says it is trimmed, doesn't mean it is trimmed. If you rely on 1 submission to determine if your cards are trimmed, then shame on you. You are a good friend but I completely disagree with you. I am 100% with Scott Forest on this. If I bought the card, looked at it and decided it was trimmed, I would bet my right arm that Lew takes it back. Sending it to someone who has been looking at cards a few years, sorry, I won't buy just that one opinion. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I'll stick with Tbob on this one. The card is either trimmed or it is not-that is a fact, not an opinion. To state that it definitely is not trimmed is either true or untrue. The question becomes what one should have to show to prove it was trimmed, and that the seller's statement was therefore untrue.

Second, there is no assumption of risk when you are specifically told the card is not trimmed. It doesn't fly to say that once it's disclosed that the card is short it's buyer beware. That might be true if you disclose the shortage and make no statement on trimming or say "sold as is", but once you take it upon yourself to add that it definitely is not trimmed, you have made a representation of fact.

I'm sorry, but I also don't agree that this is just a third-party grading issue. Dan, you really believe that if Joe-Schmoe just-got-into-the-hobby-a-couple-of-years-ago buys this card and tells the seller he thinks it's trimmed that seller says "OK, refund no questions asked, but damned if I'll listen to SGC"? I can't see that no way no how. Or if buyer keeps it to himself that he submitted to SGC and just tells seller that "upon further exam I believe its trimmed" that seller would somehow conclude that a refund should be given? Do you really think it's the mention of the third-party grading company that got the refund request denied? I'm skeptical about that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

No doubt that card is either trimmed or untrimmed. Also, the first girl I slept with was either a virgin or she wasn't. She told me that happened doing gymnastics...hmmm SGC?

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

I do not know if SGC could tell how, er, whether she was trimmed--did you see evidence of trimming? That's a hole nother subject.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

I agree, it is trimmed or not, but why are you so sure it is trimmed? Because SGC says so? I am sorry but I will take Lew's word over any grading service. So Todd, you are saying it is trimmed? That is interesting, I can't say it is or isn't. I am just saying I would need more than one opinion. So far we have had 2 opinions, 1 for and 1 against. A new to the hobby or old in the hobby would have a better chance at a return if it is done right away, that is all I am saying. Months later doesn't seem fair to the seller. When is the return policy void? When the seller passes away? I don't agree with that, after a reasonable amount of time, a week after buyer receives the item, no refund should be issued. Buyer has had sufficient time to look at it by then. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

For instance, we know that the Old Mill Joe Jackson card with the wavy cut was either cut at the factory or it wasn't. One of the two situations is a fact. I thought I had an opinion on that, but there's a factual answer, so how could I? Damn. SGC?!? (Looking up the word 'opinion' in the dictionary didn't help much either ).

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeremy Wagoner

prewarsports has a similar auction advertisement of an e-98 wagner on ebay right now. i think you must assume that the card is not going to grade-right or wrong. atleast that's the way i approach it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

as do I - certainly if a seller has the policy in question, they are going to be more likely to have respect for the opinion of someone they know and who has been around the hobby a while.

Personally, I would never have bid on an item described like the Ewing. "Measures short" implies it won't grade. And I'll back off on something I said previously - "Definitely not trimmed" would make me real, real hesitant to have the balls to ask for a refund in one of Lew's auctions, unless I was sure it WAS trimmed. The point being that whether or not I thought I knew better than him, I'm dead certain he thinks different. Hey, he should - he's been around a lot longer than me, and a helluva lot longer than the graders at SGC, PSA or GAI. And I would never in a gazillion years approach him after the request expiration period with "SGC said..."

I hate to think there might be a day when, as Todd hinted, we see a grading company and Lew Lipset testifying in court over card trimming. I can just hear the judge asking each side to give their credentials "...and you son, please put down the twinkie and pay attention."

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Good point Scott, if you are buying it to get it slabbed and the auction says "short" than don't buy it. I think it is a darn good looking card so I am bidding on it for myself. Since I do not slab my keepers, that works for me. But I betcha if I tried real hard, after several submissions, I could have him entombed in a wonderful slab! ah the rush! Hey, it is good I agreed with Todd on spots, he is a good Joe!

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

but I think you are skirting one of the comments Wes made, that this would be a board roasting had it been Norm Newbie selling the card and saying it was "definitely not trimmed," as opposed to Lew Lipset.
I also find it quite humorous to read posters who are always singing the praises of SGC suddenly do a 180 and question how SGC can tell if a card is trimmed or factory cut short. Quite humorous indeed...

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Bob, if you are talking about me you are WAY off. I call things as I see them with regard to SGC, PSA, or any other grading company...but, yes, I will gladly praise SGC over the other two - hands down. Compared to PSA and GAI, since you asked, they kick ass. But as you know, that is not the issue here. It could be PSA, SGC, GAI, PRO, even Alan Hagar - the seller's policy does not allow for the buyer to take their sweet time sending the card off to a grading company. And another point - I have stated and re-stated (this is the 3rd time) that I haven't even seen the card scan, so I have no opinion as to whether or not it is trimmed, meaning I have no idea whether or not SGC got it right or not. I'm simply supporting the seller's right to hold his own opinions on trimming in higher regard than the youngsters at the slabbing company - a right which I consider very reasonable.

And, yes, I addressed Wesley's point, to the point - go back and re-read my posted reply to that exact comment you are referring to. Wesley avoids the issue of "the policy" and prefers to jump straight to "is the card really trimmed?" as do you. Should we go into more detail? Okay. If an ebay seller said "the card is short, definitely not trimmed, you have 21 days to return it, and I don't accept the opinions of 3rd party graders". Would you wait past the 3 weeks, then send it to SGC, then ask for a return from an ebay seller if SGC said it was trimmed? Would you even bid on it? What would other board members say if you complained on this board about such a thing? I preferred not to risk insulting you or Andrew by surmising, since this is still a friendly debate.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

It is a question of slabbed or not slabbed by SGC. Since no one saw the card when issued and no one saw it trimmed, whether it is trimmed is all opinion. The auctioneer's opinion is not trimmed; SGC's opinion on the day submitted is trimmed. We would attack an ebay seller of no repute for selling trimmed stuff if we believed it to be true; Lew's reputation for card knowledge is such that we (or at least most of us) would accept Lew's opinion over that of any grading service. BTW, why not mention his name; is this like Harry Potter where you can't say "Lord Voldemort"?

Before indicting the seller and given the seller's expertise I'd like to see some other opinions. What do PSA and GAI and even BVG say about it? What do others from this board with expertise in this issue think? You also have to remember that slabbers do not slab good stuff all the time.

Do cards from this set appear short or narrow?

I also have a problem with the delay here. If the seller says there is a return time as a condition of the contract, and the buyer accepts that term as part of the bid, then the buyer has to examine the card and return it within the return period or forfeit the right to return. If this matter came before me as an arbitrator (I used to arbitrate cases for the Los Angeles Superior Court under a program we have here in California) I would not even reach the question of authenticity opinion; the threshhold question of compliance with the preconditions of the contract would prevail.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

That was GOOD.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

Sorry Bob, I am with Scott again. I praise SGC as far as compared to the other grading services, but would take Lew over all 3 combined. If that is humorous, than I am glad I can make you laugh. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

I can't remember the last time I posted a controversial opinion here and someone agreed with me. Dan, do I owe you money?

Anyway, I'm taking another 10 day computer break beginning...now...

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Let me say first that I have no problems with Lew Lipset--I buy and will continue to buy from him as often as I can afford, and sometimes when I can't. Also, my posts in this thread are not based on my belief that the card is trimmed, my belief that SGC must necessarily be right, or that the buyer must win. Instead I am looking at this case generically, for it clearly can apply to others in different situations.

The question of whether the card is trimmed is one of fact. Period. Was the card altered from its state when it left the factory? We can argue all day over how to prove that one way or the other, or over the weight and admissibility of someone's opinion testimony, but if it were shown to be trimmed, then its trimmed, right?

I do not have to see the tree fall in the forest to conclude that it has fallen. I do not have to witness the hacking to observe that the Pro 9 specimen is trimmed. Consider an authenticity question--if a seller were to sell a fake and declare that it is unquestionably real, can he fall back later and say that it was merely his esteemed opinion? That since no one saw the card being created we can't say it's fake. Hell no, you would use some sort of analysis to conclude it was not real. How is that different from a question of trimming?

If the card is trimmed and it was represented to "definitely not be trimmed", then you have a misrpresentation-- a false statement. Contract defenses--you didn't return it within 21 days, you can't rely on third-party grading services, etc, are flat out insufficient to defeat a claim for mispresentation, IF IT CAN BE PROVEN. There are other elements that must be shown, but to say the matter can quickly be disposed of because of some return policy violation is simply wrong, IMO.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Aren't we talking here about an empirical versus a scientific determination?

I, like others, have bought from Lew and will continue to do so. I have never had any issue with what his grade was versus what my grade was based on our own interpretations of the same card, but others on this board have already said that he tends to overgrade things by at least one grade. That seems to imply that he could be wrong about certain things based on characteristics that can be seen with the naked eye. How, then, can he be so sure that a card is not trimmed when that is not always so readily apparent?

I would hope that any grading company would subject the cards they are grading to more than just an eyeball check. Regardless of measured size, if a detailed inspection under high magnification revealed characterisitcs that would indicate edgewear not consistent with how the card would have left the manufacturer, wouldn't that say that that there was a high probablility that the card had been altered after the fact?

I realize that in the end both are just opinions, but if one was based on physical examination and the other was based on mere conjecture, I'd tend to lean towards believing the more scientifically developed one.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Your argument assumes that the card is trimmed and therefore that Lew made a false representation and therefore must refund on it regardless of the contractual preconditions, on the basis of a tort claim. However, as already pointed out, whether the card is trimmed can only be proven by expert testimony given the fact that no one saw the card as issued and no one saw it altered. The question of trimming is debatable; Lew says no, a nameless, faceless person at SGC says yes. None of us have seen it, so we cannot state any view at all with any reliability.

Moving on to the second argument, to establish an extra-contractual basis for liability (i.e., fraud or negligent misrepresentation), you would have to prove that the auctioneer knew the card was altered (fraud) or said it was not altered without any reasonable basis for so stating (neg misrep). Neither scenario applies here; the auctioneer accurately disclosed the size issue and opined based on his firsthand viewing of the card that the card was not trimmed. The buyer's choice of expert says the card is trimmed. I see a dispute between experts, not an actionable misrepresentation.

I again return to the essential issue: slabbing. If you buy a short card at a discount to market and hope to slab it, you are knowingly taking a HUGE risk that the short card will be rejected as a matter of course by the slabber, even if it isn't trimmed.

And finally, while you would not have to see the tree in the forest to determine that it is down, you would have had to see it fall to conclusively determine whether it fell or was pushed. Otherwise, you would have to evaluate the evidence and try to reconstruct the event. You have to be careful of leaping to conclusions about causation when the effect is all that is visible.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Of course I assumed the card was trimmed, for purposes of discussion only, for if it is not, this thread is moot. If the buyer has a good-faith basis to believe the card was trimmed, he gets in the Courthouse. He then has to prove that it was trimmed and certain other elements in order to get the relief he seeks, but that's why we have trials.

You have misstated the law, at least here in Arizona. Again and ad nasuem, I infer and imply nothing as it relates to this particular card. However, a seller cannot escape liability for negligent misrepresentation by simply stating he had a reasonable basis for making his remarks. The test is under the circumstances, should he have known the true facts? As importantly, a buyer can recover for innocent misrepresentation, with an even lesser standard of seller scienter, if he is seeking rescission relief.

Actually, this may not be way far off from Scott Forrest's thread about having acquired some forgeries from a board expert. Not saying that this happened to Scott and this is purely illustrative, but suppose the seller there says these postcards are definitely the real deal, I know they measure slightly off, or that the thickness is a little off, but they are definitely real. Well, let's say they aren't real at all, and much time has passed before Scott discovers this. What, he's screwed? The seller is "saved" from his false statement because of some disclaimer language to the effect "I told you they were short, thin, etc". Sorry, good luck getting that by a Judge in Phoenix.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am stepping knee deep into lawyer territory here but don't you think a case could be made for the following arguments:

1. Card is advertised as short (expert seller says definitely not trimmed though).
2. Card ends up selling in auction for less than 50% of market value due to being short AND advertised as such.
3. Time has expired on return policy

Don't you think the totality of these circumstances would make a good argument for no refund? I would think #2 would win the case?

regards
moderator dude aka sea-lawyer

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I am taking no one's side and I have no opinion as to whether or not the card is trimmed ...

... but, if a card is judged trimmed, the judge still might not award any money or return to the defendant if he paid a deeply discounted price. If you pay $100 for a card that is worth $100, a judge is going to ask "So what's the problem?"

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

The issue has come up before about the "clock is running" refund policy. If you buy a card from any vintage card luminary who is very well known in the hobby and he says the card is not trimmed while you receive the card and instantly can tell that is, would you not want some kind of corroboration of your position. A case in point is a 1915 Cracker Jack I purchased from a well known dealer. It looked exmt but when I received it, I could see the top edge had likely been trimmed and there was a "bat ear" on the right corner. I immediately sent it off to SGC and it came back "trimmed." Since it takes a while to ship, receive, grade, re-ship and re-receive, I was outside the designated time limit. The seller was someone I had bought cards from before and perhaps because of that, he cordially refunded my money upon receipt of the card, although he disagreed with the trimmed assessment. Later I saw the card on ebay along with several other nice Cracker Jacks and there was no disclaimer so I guess he truly felt it was o.k.
I guess the point I am making in my rambling non-legalese way is that, while I think a long delay in asking for a refund and returning the card is certainly unreasonable, I think that a quick reply followed by a reasonable amount of time for a submission and return, is not stretching the parameters of due diligence. For the guy who is just an average card collecting Joe, getting an opinion from SGC to corroborate your own independently formed opinion, seems reasonable.