Ebay seller returned cracked out slab

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Does it matter to anyone that the seller also described it as Near Mint?

1933 GOUDEY LOU GEHRIG #160

GAI 7 GRADED

VERY RARE

NEAR MINT

GREAT CORNERS AND NICE EYE APPEAL

SMOKE FREE HOME

Nah he is quoting the flip i assume...

However i got this list below from blowout of grading places in the past you can see below.

Does everyone really think that these 'grades' really matter from all of these guys that you couldnt return a card that was cracked out.



AAA
AAI ( American Authentication Inc)
ADVANCEDGRADING.COM
AGS (Advanced Grading Specialists)
ALL STAR GRADING
ASA (Accugrade Sportscard Authentication)
ASGC (All Star Grading Company)
BCCG (Beckett Collectors Club Grading)
BCG
BEARSTATS GRADING SERVICES
BGS (Beckett Grading Service)
BGUM (Beckett Game Used Memoabilia)
Blue Chip
BRG (Best Rate Grading)
BSVA

Capital Grading
CCS (Card Collector Services)
CEX (Certified Express)
CGA (Card Grading Authenticators)
CGS (Champs Grading Service)
CLG
Compugrade
CPG (Certified Pro Grading)
CSA (Certified Sports Authentication)
CSC (Sports Card Grading Service)
CSG
CTA
EGS (Express Grading Service)
FGA
FGS (Finest Grading Service)
GAI (Global Authentication Inc.) (Bankrupt)
GAI (Global Authority Inc) (new owners of GAI)
GEM
GEM Elite
GEM-Sports
GGI (Gem Grading Inc.)
GGS (Gem Grading Services)
GMA
GRA
GRADEMYCARDS.COM
GRADING UNLIMITED
IGX
IKON
ISA
KSA (Kressler Sports Authentication)
MAJOR LEAGUE GRADING
MAP
MGS (Masters Grading Services)
MGS (Mint Grading Service)
NASA (North American Sportscard Authentication)
PCCG (Pro's Choice Card Graders)
PCG (Professional Card Graders)
PGC (Premier Grading Certification)
PGC (Premier Grading Company -same as above?)
PGC (Pro Grade Certified)
PGI
PGS (Professional Grading Service)
PRE-Grading Service (uses screwdowns)
Premium Sports Grading
PRO (Pro Sports Grading)
PSA (Professional Sports Authenticator)
PSA (Pacific Sports Authority)
PSG (Pristine Sportscard Grading)
PTG
RGA
SBC (Superlative Baseball Card Certification)
SCD Sports Collectors Digest (SCD) folded and was sold to Sports Card Direct (SCD)
SGC (Sportscard Guaranty)
SNAGGLETOOTH
SPA (Authenticated)
Sportscard Grading Association
STADIUM CLUB GRADING
SWG (Southwest Card Grading)
TCG
TFA (The Final Authority)
TGA
UGS
USA (Ultimate Sportscard Authority)
Verisleeve (Sticker on Card Saver)
VGR (Venture 21)
VGS
VSA
VSG Vanguard
WCG (World Class Grading)

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Nah he is quoting the flip i assume...

So I can sell an altered card as NEAR MINT, as long as I am quoting someone else?

Well that is interesting to know.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The flip didn't say great corners and eye appeal.

But there are distinct issues here, I think. Yes, the seller inadvertently misrepresented the card by embellishing, in my opinion. He went beyond just selling it as is. I think he implied it was not altered. And as a result, the buyer would be entitled to a return for not as described. But in my opinion the buyer forfeited that with the crack out -- not as open and shut a question as some are making it, I don't think, but I still come out that way.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Suppose the buyer had asked the seller if it was OK to crack it out to have it reviewed because it's so difficult to cross a card in another company's holder. Would the seller really have said no, if you do I won't take it back, thereby suggesting he had no confidence in the card he just touted and sold? Something to consider.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The flip didn't say great corners and eye appeal.

But there are distinct issues here, I think. Yes, the seller inadvertently misrepresented the card by embellishing, in my opinion. He went beyond just selling it as is. I think he implied it was not altered. And as a result, the buyer would be entitled to a return for not as described. But in my opinion the buyer forfeited that with the crack out -- not as open and shut a question as some are making it, I don't think, but I still come out that way.

Peter, suppose a card doctor flattened and trimmed the corners of an asset in such a way that the only way the alterations could be detected was to measure the thickness (and its variations at the corners) and edges, and then somehow gets it into a high grade slab...

Does that mean he gets away with it? Because the only way his fraud can be discovered is the very thing that would void a return.

Isn't there some allowance regarding this holder, considering the fact it is grossly misleading and basically concealing a fraud? Wouldn't the buyer reimbursing the seller for the cost of a re-slab be an appropriate solution?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Peter, suppose a card doctor flattened and trimmed the corners of an asset in such a way that the only way the alterations could be detected was to measure the thickness (and its variations at the corners) and edges, and then somehow gets it into a high grade slab...

Does that mean he gets away with it? Because the only way his fraud can be discovered is the very thing that would void a return.

Isn't there some allowance regarding this holder, considering the fact it is grossly misleading and basically concealing a fraud? Wouldn't the buyer reimbursing the seller for the cost of a re-slab be an appropriate solution?

Although I understand both sides of this, and obviously you are not immoral lol, I think at least in the case of a slabbed card, the only workable rule is that the buyer can't crack it out and then demand a return. It's far from perfect, but I think you need a hard and fast rule or you open the doors to an awful mess and to dishonest buyers manipulating the system.

Yes, that means the buyer is stuck with an altered (maybe, probably) card. But the buyer could have tried to get an agreement with the seller in advance, among other things.

This is not to condone for one minute the resale in the slab, without disclosure, of a card that has failed to cross over, especially if it's not PSA or SGC.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Although I understand both sides of this, and obviously you are not immoral lol, I think at least in the case of a slabbed card, the only workable rule is that the buyer can't crack it out and then demand a return. It's far from perfect, but I think you need a hard and fast rule or you open the doors to an awful mess and to dishonest buyers manipulating the system.

Yes, that means the buyer is stuck with an altered (maybe, probably) card. But the buyer could have tried to get an agreement with the seller in advance, among other things.

This is not to condone for one minute the resale in the slab, without disclosure, of a card that has failed to cross over, especially if it's not PSA or SGC.

Peter, First, thanks for the civility and thoughtful reply.

As I have said, I see both sides. You have me leaning your way based on the above - that being, the can of worms it would open if lots of people were buying cracking and returning slabs. I get that. Also the general idea that in order to return a product it should be in the same condition received. Also the fact that buying a slabbed GAI 7 card means you are buying a card deemed to be near mint by GAI, and therefore, as a buyer, you have to decide for yourself how much trust you put in that.

But I sure hate thinking about the huge smiles on the faces of card doctors and those who work with them, as they read this thread.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Although I understand both sides of this, and obviously you are not immoral lol, I think at least in the case of a slabbed card, the only workable rule is that the buyer can't crack it out and then demand a return. It's far from perfect, but I think you need a hard and fast rule or you open the doors to an awful mess and to dishonest buyers manipulating the system.

Yes, that means the buyer is stuck with an altered (maybe, probably) card. But the buyer could have tried to get an agreement with the seller in advance, among other things.

This is not to condone for one minute the resale in the slab, without disclosure, of a card that has failed to cross over, especially if it's not PSA or SGC.

I agree and it should be obvious that buyers should not be allowed to crack cards out of any holders and return them for a refund.

No one is going to sell a GAI graded card with a guarantee it will cross.

Any card in a GAI holder worth more than a grand or two has already failed to cross over. Multiple times probably. Is a disclosure really necessary for something so obvious?

Expecting sellers to disclose failed cross over attempts for any card is not realistic. It won't happen.

[Republicaninmass]

Hard to believe it's even a debate.


Just shows the feeling of entitlement of certain people.

Whether or not the buyer knew about GAI history or not, cracking the slab (or maybe psa did if he didnt put min grade) the item as sold is not whole.

Back when I started, I saw all these PRO graded 9s and 10s and at the price thought I'd have a guarantee of a psa 5 or better. When they cam back trimmed I was upset, but realized I should have put "min grade" and they would have been returned as whole, slabbed cards.


Please provide your Ebay ID if you feel the seller is 1% at fault so I can block you, however I'm positive I wont miss your income.

[nsaddict]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So I can sell an altered card as NEAR MINT, as long as I am quoting someone else?

Well that is interesting to know.

The card pictured is a "7". The description matched the card sold. And are you really suggesting PSA is credible in their opinion? I'm putting the odds at 50/50. Have you not seen what's been going on in the last 5/6 months? The buyer was a snake to crack it out period! And if you were the seller you'd be ok with getting back the card cracked out?

I'd be curious to see a poll on this topic?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So I can sell an altered card as NEAR MINT, as long as I am quoting someone else?

Well that is interesting to know.

You can sell the card with flip saying near mint and say its near mint. No returns on third party graded cards is a pretty common saying in the industry

[KaBooM]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So I can sell an altered card as NEAR MINT, as long as I am quoting someone else?

Well that is interesting to know.

C'mon. He was just restating the "NM" grade ascribed to the card by the grading company. I routinely do the same thing when I resell graded cards. Who on here has sold a graded "Near Mint 7" card and then advertised such as being "EX-MT" or lower?

[KaBooM]

I'm late to this thread but my $0.03:

#1 The seller did make a fairly big mistake by "accepting the return" before confirming as to whether the card had been broken out of the slab. This could very well have driven EBay's position to side with the "buyer". As a consumer, the more interesting precedent would be if the seller first insisted upon reasoning, photographic verification, etc. and then when discovering the slab had been broken, "rejected" the return. Would eBay have made the same ruling under this fact pattern?

#2 I routinely buy "PSA/SGC NM 7" commons from the late 50s/early 60s and break them out of the holders to simply take the newly acquired raw card and upgrade my existing raw card as I strive for a more centered raw card and may have minimum graded standard (of 8) on cards that I'll keep slabbed. While I am careful and usually successful, the cracking process in not foolproof and there have been a few times whereby the cracked raw card may have ended up with a slight ding or two. Before and after pictures may not capture this and for an 80 year old card the seller shouldn't be forced to take it on faith that the now raw card hasn't been degraded slightly in the cracking process.

#3. If one is selling an "off-brand" (for me that's simply non PSA/SGC) card on eBay, one should stipulate very clearly that under no circumstances will a cracked card return be accepted. IOW, the buyer is taking the full off-brand risk. May not be bullet proof with eBay and won't protect you in all scenarios but in concert with item #1 would have put this seller on better footing with eBay.

#4. I don't necessarily agree that the seller should have or would have already dabbled in the cross-over game with PSA/SGC. Early on when I started upgrading a lot of my raw stars with graded 7/8s I bought some off brand cards because they looked nice and were cheaper. I stopped doing that very early on and have weeded those cards out of my collection (other than 1 Beckett card that I still have) well before the latest "trimming scandal". So I find it entirely plausible that the seller may have felt the same and simply wanted to recoup roughly what he paid for the card knowing that GAI cards are inferior from a valuation standpoint.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by KaBooM

C'mon. He was just restating the "NM" grade ascribed to the card by the grading company. I routinely do the same thing when I resell graded cards. Who on here has sold a graded "Near Mint 7" card and then advertised such as being "EX-MT" or lower?

His full description was:

1933 GOUDEY LOU GEHRIG #160
GAI 7 GRADED
VERY RARE
NEAR MINT
GREAT CORNERS AND NICE EYE APPEAL
SMOKE FREE HOME

The "Great corners and nice eye appeal" wasn't GAI talking. But I get what you're saying. I don't think the seller was aware of any alterations.

When this thread started I was 60% on the side of the buyer because I'm tired of hearing about all the people, who pay big money thinking they are getting quality assets, learning later the asset was doctored. And I thought, well, in this instance the doctoring was caught, so good, that card never did deserve to be in a "7" holder.

But after this discussion, which I thought was worthwhile, I have come to decide that it would be too big a can of worms if people could routinely buy graded cards, crack them out, then return them. So now I'm more like 60% behind the seller I suppose. Reluctantly. I wish we had heard from the buyer in case there was more to his side of the story.

While some people brought chainsaws to the thread (I was called "Operating with a broken moral compass", Insane, Asinine, a Nerd, Stupid, and Ridiculous in one post alone,) others respectfully and articulately voiced their views, as you have,.

In the end I agree that if you buy a slabbed card, as a buyer you need to take your precautions up front (ask questions, trust the grading service, or be willing to risk the gamble,) and if you want to return a purchase it must be still sealed in its original slab undamaged, just as purchased.

[KaBooM]

I won't share details since the sellers don't want to provide a "playbook" to other fraudster buyers, but eBay's always side with the Buyer policy has completely gotten out of hand. I guess that they have overreacted and don't want to be liable for selling knock off/damaged goods so they deem that the less vulnerable path is to always side with the buyer. 2 examples:

#1. Buyer wants return due to damaged holder. Returns worthless common in lieu of original card. Seller still chasing eBay to provide redress.

#2. Buyer buys "sealed unopened box". Upon opening all packs and failing to pull desired high value rookie demands refund and eBay sides with Buyer.

In both instances sellers were legitimate high volume sellers with significant transactional flows.

[bigfanNY]

Just now I came across a 1935 Goudey Ruth graded GAI 7.5 The seller also notes that SGC has determined that the card is trimmed. To be honest if SGC can determine trimming then PSA should also be able to determine trimming in the case. And that would change my perspective on this thread. I sided with buyer because I do not think it is ok to sell altered cards in a case. And I still think that.
But in this case the buyer could have left the card in the GAI case and submitted to PSA. Then seller would have refunded money and got his card and case intact and offered it for sale just like the Ruth.
In the end Seller loss was not the $5k vs what he can sell a raw trimmed 33 Gehrig for. It is what he would have sold GAI 7 listed as trimmed vs raw Gehrig listed as trimmed. Which is much less in dollar terms.
Jonathan

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Just now I came across a 1935 Goudey Ruth graded GAI 7.5 The seller also notes that SGC has determined that the card is trimmed. To be honest if SGC can determine trimming then PSA should also be able to determine trimming in the case. And that would change my perspective on this thread. I sided with buyer because I do not think it is ok to sell altered cards in a case. And I still think that.
But in this case the buyer could have left the card in the GAI case and submitted to PSA. Then seller would have refunded money and got his card and case intact and offered it for sale just like the Ruth.
In the end Seller loss was not the $5k vs what he can sell a raw trimmed 33 Gehrig for. It is what he would have sold GAI 7 listed as trimmed vs raw Gehrig listed as trimmed. Which is much less in dollar terms.
Jonathan

Do we know if PSA said the alteration on the Gehrig was a trim? Perhaps it was something more subtle, that only came to light after being cracked out. Again, info from the buyer would be helpful.....

If an altered card remains in a "7" holder, it's likely that somewhere down the line, a seller will (conveniently) forget to mention the alteration.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Just now I came across a 1935 Goudey Ruth graded GAI 7.5 The seller also notes that SGC has determined that the card is trimmed. To be honest if SGC can determine trimming then PSA should also be able to determine trimming in the case. And that would change my perspective on this thread. I sided with buyer because I do not think it is ok to sell altered cards in a case. And I still think that.
But in this case the buyer could have left the card in the GAI case and submitted to PSA. Then seller would have refunded money and got his card and case intact and offered it for sale just like the Ruth.
In the end Seller loss was not the $5k vs what he can sell a raw trimmed 33 Gehrig for. It is what he would have sold GAI 7 listed as trimmed vs raw Gehrig listed as trimmed. Which is much less in dollar terms.
Jonathan

True, regarding the actual dollar loss...

But regarding the portion of your statement in bold... PSA cannot even detect trimming (or lack thereof) with cards residing outside of the slab. This has been documented over and over again, with new examples pouring in on a daily basis. And many of the trimmed cards (residing in numbered slabs) are missing huge portions of their original borders. So I would not put too much stock in their ability to detect trimming, whether inside or outside of the holder.