![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
First off, PSA is anything but infallible. They are the ones who’ve mistakenly numerically graded those thousands of PWCC and other altered cards. They have made more “mistakes” and issued more false numerical grades than anyone. So why is their word the word of God? It’s amazing that despite the mountain of indisputable evidence, people are still hypnotized by them. Secondly, the card was sold with a proper description in a GAI Holder. It was not returned in the same state. You cannot tamper with an item and then return it, when you failed to realize the desired personal gain. Lastly, the apparent narrowing of the card towards the bottom is due to the way and the angle by which it was photographed. It is called a parallax view, and is a common phenomenon when photographing at an angle. The portion closest to the camera lens will appear larger than the portion that’s further away. If the card was scanned in a more traditional manner, you’d see that it is symmetrical. Bottom line is that the buyer took advantage of the system, at the expense of the seller. I hope his name is disclosed, for the sake of our collecting community. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
You crack, no give back.
No disclosure (of buyer), no pity. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just a hypothetical question, If the card came back as a PSA 5 it would have been worth what the buyer paid according to the PSA pricing of the card, so if the card had come back with a grade of 5 or less would the buyer still have tried to return the card knowing he would not have made any profit on a similar or higher PSA grade for the card?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am going to side with the seller on this one. If you purchase a slabbed card, you are getting both the card and the slab it is in. As a buyer, you are accepting the grading company's opinion of the card that appears on the slab. The fact that it is in a GAI slab makes no difference; you are accepting GAI's opinion. By cracking it out and sending it to another company for their opinion, you are forfeiting your right to return the card to the seller, as per ebay's rules, in that the merchandise is no longer in the condition in which it was sent. If you are wary of GAI, then steer clear. In short, the buyer received exactly what he paid for.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
And we all are assuming that GAI is incorrect and PSA is correct. Maybe the opposite is true. Not saying it is, I am simply taking a contrarian approach. Forgive me, but I may have read somewhere on this site about the odd mistake PSA makes. Finally, I have to say a lot of what is going on here frustrates me about some people on this site. A new guy with 21 previous posts comes on here, tells his story about how the product he sold that was returned altered, and in certainly less valuable state. He is reaching out to see if he is nuts, or what should be the protocol. Regardless of the holder, he sold a product. What he gets back is (ballpark) 50% understanding him, and 50% accusing him of trying to pull a fast one. The truth is we truly don't know what his motives are, and we truly don't know what the buyers motives are (myself included). It's all conjecture. Then, after being grilled, as a new poster he is trying to play by the rules and is unsure whether he should post the buyers eBay ID. He gets crucified for that too, like he's hiding something. Frankly some of the replies from the conspiracy theorists to the newbie are shameful. Likely nobody knows this guy at all, yet yet many of us are incredibly judgmental. If I were in his position, I'd probably go radio silent too, and not read or post here again. I'll probably get crucified too for this post, but I am OK with my position. I'm old and comfortable with that.
__________________
Successful transactions on Net54 with balltrash, greenmonster66; Peter_Spaeth; robw1959; Stetson_1883; boxcar18; Blackie |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Last edited by Gobucsmagic74; 11-12-2019 at 07:30 AM. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think a lot of people here, if they want to be consistent on principle, need to revise some of their posts in the dozens of threads involving sellers peddling altered cards in high-grade TPG holders.
I am not saying the OP knew that was the case. Now that the card is out of its holder, second, third, fourth opinions can be rendered. If it is in fact altered, then the buyer avoided being taken and that is a good thing for everybody, especially future owners of that card. As was noted by many, in previous posts, grading/authenticating cannot be done very accurately when a card is in a holder, so cracking it out was required to reveal the true condition of the card. Disclaimers: 1. Had PSA said it was unaltered, but low grade, I would side with the seller. Numeric grade is opinion. Altered is a different story. 2. If GAI's standards were such that an altered card could still receive a "7" grade, then I would side with the seller. 3. If it turns out the card is not conclusively determined to be altered, I would side with the seller. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's the highest-graded card you've cracked out of a slab? | trdcrdkid | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 25 | 08-23-2015 07:08 PM |
Resolving an issue with slab being cracked through mail | wilkiebaby11 | WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics | 3 | 09-03-2014 10:55 AM |
highest value slab you've cracked? | chaddurbin | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 31 | 05-11-2012 07:12 PM |
Opinions on cracked slab from auction.... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 14 | 05-15-2008 10:59 AM |
I have never cracked open a psa, gai, sgc slab before..... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 09-02-2006 10:32 PM |