Ebay seller returned cracked out slab

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Mark17

A valid reason to crack a card, especially out of a GAI holder, is to verify authenticity. If you sell me a card claiming it to be authentic and of high grade, and I discover (with the help of a [more reputable*] grading service, that is altered and therefore worth a fraction of what it was represented to be, then it would not be reasonable for you to basically tell me:

"Well, you discovered I sold you a misrepresented, altered card for much more money than it is actually worth. But since you needed to break it out in order for that inspection to have been made, you have now made it impossible for me to foist it onto another buyer in that "7" holder. So, since I cannot sell that altered card for $5,000+ to some other victim, YOU are stuck being my victim."


* Debatable, admittedly. But GAI has to be less reputable than PSA I would think.

Then this argument holds no water. Im sorry...you want to crossover....you keep it in the case. The seller sold a GAI graded card. He did not get a GAI graded card back. If I was on the jury, I would be on the sellers side.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Then this argument holds no water. Im sorry...you want to crossover....you keep it in the case. The seller sold a GAI graded card. He did not get a GAI graded card back. If I was on the jury, I would be on the sellers side.

You are assuming he was trying to cross over. He may have been trying to authenticate. Whatever his motivation, he discovered the card was doctored. I'll bet there are a lot of big smiles at PWCC headquarters right now, seeing how many people think that when a buyer buys a high graded card but receives a doctored one instead, he should be stuck with it, period.

And that, when trying to determine authenticity/alterations, the card must remain in the plastic brick.

Look, I basically agree that returns must be the same item in the same condition. But when deception in the form of alteration (not on the part of the seller, but alteration nevertheless) is discovered, THAT is where it's no longer an apples to apples argument.