SMH at the "authenticator"
 

They just refused to authenticate a PSA GRADED Butterfinger Ruth -- their own slab lol. According to them, the seller listed it in the wrong category, and it's not really a baseball card. Apparently this happens a lot though not consistently.

So they didn't refuse to authenticate the slab. :doh:

They refused to pass the sale because of a defect in the listing. Whether we agree that the listing contains an error or not isn't the issue. But part of the authentication process is to make sure the item sold is the same that is listed in the details. It seems nitpicky in this scenario, but can be very important for other listings from sellers using deceptive listing practices to scam buyers. The solution is simple, find out the problem they have with the listing and correct it. Small cost for complete transparency in listings between buyers and sellers.

Definitely common that anything that doesn't look like a 1952 Topps or 1990 Donruss, in terms of size and having stats, etc. on the back gets bounced for not really being a sports card.

And sometimes they'll push it right on through, in spite of being oversized or having a blank back.

Kind of silly to me, but even so, at least now the buyer can't claim that you never sent it. Of course, now you have to help the buyer to settle down because they're convinced that this message from eBay means that they're getting a fake.

Not that simple. The seller will lose visibility if they list it as something other than a baseball card. Of course, it's in the pop report as .... a baseball card. The whole thing is ridiculous.

It's definitely ridiculous that they so narrowly define what constitutes a sports card for purposes of the AG program.

Then sell somewhere else. But using an extreme example to discredit an otherwise helpful program is disingenuous. If the seller believes it's a card and the decision was incorrect, contact ebay and discuss it.

But again, they didn't refuse to authenticate their own slab as you claimed (another disingenuous statement). They merely stated the description and the item don't match. Like I said, you don't have to agree with that (I don't), but that's not the point.

They did not reject it, that is say it was not authentic, but they certainly refused to authenticate it. You can be as contrarian as you want, but there is nothing disingenuous about my statement. And that it is an extreme example does not make it any less ridiculous, declining to authenticate a card listed in their pop report as a baseball card because it's not a baseball card.

And did I criticize the program overall? Straw man. No I did not.

While the authentication program is helpful this is clearly a mistake on their part and should be corrected.

I still have no idea why "We found this issue, would you like to complete the transaction?" isn't an option to the buyer in so many cases like this.

So many issues with the program could be solved with this step...

As Nicolo posted, this is common and has been happening for a while. Autograph cards can trigger them too, even when they've previously authenticated them themselves.

Again, they didn't refuse to authenticate it. It never got that far. Their process first determines if the listing and item match. Only then does it go through the authentication process.

And yes, using an extreme, outlying, and subjective example to call them ridiculous is disingenuous. That's not being contrarian, that's being rational. Yes, an exteme example of strange facts absolutely makes it less ridiculous than had they actually refused to authenticate their own slab. YOU are being contrarian here, not me.

Like I said, I would classify it as a card, but it's not ridiculous for some employee to think otherwise. And rather than ranting on a message board about it, the prudent thing to do is contact them and discuss it. My experience is that they will often change the decision of some low level employee (or more likely a computer) decision and pass it through. But that would make too much since. How could you express your hatred for them if you acted rationally?

My experience is that they do. Peter is doing nothing more than blind ranting here. I have had several cards fail authentication for these types of reasons (including condition of raw cards) and they contact me and ask if I still want it.

It is really annoying where they outright REJECT an item -- usually SGC lol -- because the holder has a trivial scratch. I've seen this repeatedly. In that case for sure the buyer should have the option.

In my experience that does not happen when they reject a card for a supposed holder scratch or tiny chip. It gets rejected and returned. Blind rant indeed. LOL you're funny.

Then your experience is vastly different from mine. I've had them give me the option many times.

Here's a card with a significant scratch they gave me the option to pass through authentication:


https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...8451ba0602.jpg

Maybe they run the raw card section differently, I dunno. It used to be handled by a different authenticator (CGC) but now it's all PSA.

I'm 0 for 2 in this area and I need my cards to start going to the authenticators who extend this courtesy. One was a case scratch, the other an issue with the description...both graded cards. I did end up making an off-site deal with the case scratch seller, so he actually made out a bit ahead without EBay getting their cut.

Meanwhile, they just authenticated for me (as a buyer) a card where the guy sent a different serial number than the one listed. How hard was that to check?

Exactly

Timothy, did you mean to say SENSE instead of SINCE in the penultimate sentence of your post?

Obviously. It was a typo. A common occurrence when typing on a phone. Do you feel better pointing it out?

Val is one of the classiest people on this board. I am sure he was just trying to be helpful. Was there any need for your snarky, indeed ugly, response?

Seriously? Pointing out a typo hours after the fact is classy? What was the point in drawing attention to it? There is no possible way I actually meant "since" as that doesn't even make a sentence. And the context of the sentence is beyond clear that the intended word was "sense." So there can be no other reason to point it out than a negative one. And that behavior deserves snark to me. What does it matter to you anyway? You're the king of snark around here.

Val is in his 80s. There is no way he posted with any negative intent towards you. Get off your high and mighty horse, lose the attitude, and apologize to him.

Pound sand, pal.

As if a person in their 80s can't be rude.

I notice you didn't give a valid reason for pointing out the obvious typo. :coffee:

Good day. I'm done talking to you (which I'm pretty sure I won't be the first around here to do).

Right, Val chose this moment to be rude for the first time in his posting history. Got it, "pal."

I have an exhibit with PC back sitting at Authentication for a week. My guess is that they aren’t going to classify it as a card.

Lately when I have a postcard, I list it as a postcard in first category and pay the .50 or so to list it as a sports card in second category. This way i don’t have the authenticity issues.

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that is a rational response!