Ebay seller returned cracked out slab

[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.

[pokerplyr80]

Ted I agree with everything you said except I would put the buyer at fault some where around 95% and the seller 5% for not asking any questions before accepting the return.

My ebay ID is the same as it is here.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Ted I agree with everything you said except I would but the buyer at fault some where around 95% and the seller 5% for not asking any questions before accepting the return.

My ebay ID is the same as it is here.

5% is cool! Just remember, ebay rules are you pretty much have to take the card back