To me all the conjecture is beside the point. The buyer (by all circumstantial evidence an educated one if you insist on some conjecture!) bought a card from a TPG of ill-repute. For no reason other than hoping to hide information from a different TPG he cracked the card before submitting it. There is NO NEED to crack a card for cross-over and by doing so he has, in my opinion, violated any good faith bargaining position with the seller. He takes advantage of ebay's insanely liberal return policy and returns an item that is materially different from the one he received.
If the ONLY way to cross something over was to crack it I might feel differently. For the people comparing this situation to PWCC where they were active participants in massive fraud, I don't see it without some more damning evidence than what we have so far.
I have bought GAI First Graded cards to flip. I will concede Peter's point that I bought them to resubmit and I have a GAI first graded T206 in my possession right now that isn't going for cross-over because there's no way it's not trimmed. Ethically I don't feel right passing the card along even WITH disclosure, but legally I can't imagine someone being able to make a material change to a piece of property and then being allowed to return it with the seller forced to refund. I can't think of a great analogy because I can't think of any other type of sale where this would be an option!
|