Ebay seller returned cracked out slab

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I do think the buyer should owe the seller for a new holder.

Curious how you would feel about this whole thing if the seller sends it to SGC and it comes back with a numerical grade?

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Curious how you would feel about this whole thing if the seller sends it to SGC and it comes back with a numerical grade?

This has been bought up before if it had come back with a number grade I would side with the seller 100%.. I like to think the buyer would not even have asked for a refund if it came back with a number. My point is 100% if you sell altered cards you should refund buyer.
Now if the Seller sends it in to SGC and it comes back with a 6 or a 7 is the seller obligated to tell any future buyers that PSA said it was altered?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by x2drich2000

Curious how you would feel about this whole thing if the seller sends it to SGC and it comes back with a numerical grade?

We have been operating with limited and at times confusing information. My assumptions here are that the doctoring is not just a nuanced opinion (like the card being 1/64 inch too narrow) but something fairly obvious. The reason I assume this is that it would have been in PSA's best financial interest to have been able to give it a numeric grade and collect those grading fees. It was against their best interest to determine it to be altered.

Certainly if my assumptions are wrong, or if someone adds new information not known before, then the conclusions easily might change. As I have said before, even if PSA gave it a low numeric grade, I would be 100% with the seller. The issue is the doctoring (fraud) that somebody performed on that thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

We have been operating with limited and at times confusing information. My assumptions here are that the doctoring is not just a nuanced opinion (like the card being 1/64 inch too narrow) but something fairly obvious. The reason I assume this is that it would have been in PSA's best financial interest to have been able to give it a numeric grade and collect those grading fees. It was against their best interest to determine it to be altered.

Certainly if my assumptions are wrong, or if someone adds new information not known before, then the conclusions easily might change. As I have said before, even if PSA gave it a low numeric grade, I would be 100% with the seller. The issue is the doctoring (fraud) that somebody performed on that thing.

As previously mentioned, PSA gets paid for its review, not contingent on the result.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The ad hominem stuff from a couple of recent posters really doesn't add anything to the discussion.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

We have been operating with limited and at times confusing information. My assumptions here are that the doctoring is not just a nuanced opinion (like the card being 1/64 inch too narrow) but something fairly obvious. The reason I assume this is that it would have been in PSA's best financial interest to have been able to give it a numeric grade and collect those grading fees. It was against their best interest to determine it to be altered.

Certainly if my assumptions are wrong, or if someone adds new information not known before, then the conclusions easily might change. As I have said before, even if PSA gave it a low numeric grade, I would be 100% with the seller. The issue is the doctoring (fraud) that somebody performed on that thing.

Not only does PSA collect its fee.... they are probably being more stringent than ever with their grading. Given the thousands of visible "mistakes" they've made, and the new cards that are exposed daily, their wonderful management team has surely instructed the troops to be tougher with their grading standards... at least until the heat is off.

People here are giving way too much credence to PSA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Not only does PSA collect its fee.... they are probably being more stringent than ever with their grading. Given the thousands of visible "mistakes" they've made, and the new cards that are exposed daily, their wonderful management team has surely instructed the troops to be tougher with their grading standards... at least until the heat is off.

People here are giving way too much credence to PSA.

Yeah that's the typical response from PSA -- crush the innocent collectors.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Not only does PSA collect its fee.... they are probably being more stringent than ever with their grading. Given the thousands of visible "mistakes" they've made, and the new cards that are exposed daily, their wonderful management team has surely instructed the troops to be tougher with their grading standards... at least until the heat is off.

People here are giving way too much credence to PSA.

Does that mean that in this case, the buyer paid PSA the full fee of grading a $5,000+ card, and only received the card back, in a sleeve, with the authentic-altered designation?

I was under the assumption, perhaps wrongly, that the fee paid by the buyer was smaller, but had it been a true high-grade card, PSA would've been asking for a higher fee to slab it with the decent numeric grade.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Does that mean that in this case, the buyer paid PSA the full fee of grading a $5,000+ card, and only received the card back, in a sleeve, with the authentic-altered designation?

I was under the assumption, perhaps wrongly, that the fee paid by the buyer was smaller, but had it been a true high-grade card, PSA would've been asking for a higher fee to slab it with the decent numeric grade.

The fee is for the review at the designated service level, whether or not the card is rejected.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The fee is for the review at the designated service level, whether or not the card is rejected.

So based on this it looks like he may have paid $200, and then if PSA graded it at a value higher than $4,999 they would've asked for $500 to slab it, right?

Or maybe he thought the card was as represented and paid $500 up front.

Just trying to understand how this works.

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Does that mean that in this case, the buyer paid PSA the full fee of grading a $5,000+ card, and only received the card back, in a sleeve, with the authentic-altered designation?

I was under the assumption, perhaps wrongly, that the fee paid by the buyer was smaller, but had it been a true high-grade card, PSA would've been asking for a higher fee to slab it with the decent numeric grade.

In general, you pay the fee for the value of the card regardless of whether it receives a grade or not. There have been cases where a card was submitted at a lower tier level, but when graded the card reached a value significantly above that lower tier level and PSA required the submitter to pay the higher tier level price. However, this is the exception rather than normal.