Omnious sign in market?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Yes, Greg Morris has been using "set-break" in titles long before the loophole.

I believe you that the "set break" in the title loophole was real though. I just hadn't seen any proof. I am also a little confused as to why someone would want to use the loophole, unless they are selling inauthentic cards. I mean, does the seller care that much that their card has to go somewhere to get authenticated? Sorry, there may already be a thread explaining why the seller cares that I missed....

I imagine it varies, of course. My friend was worried about 1) an item getting rejected because the graders don't know what to do with odd and esoteric stuff (cabinet cards, CDV's, rare items that aren't 'catalogued') that he sometimes sells, 2) buyers whining about shipping speeds with an extra few days delay and hurting his star ratings and 3), the clause that the item must not only be real but "as described"; though he described honestly what he might call "G-VG condition" CSG might call G, and thus could reject and nix a deal both parties wanted to complete. I think there was also a "this is stupid, so I want to opt out because it's dumb" element.

1) has been a concern for me as a buyer too, personally. Doesn't matter for T206's, Goudey and Topps, but if one is buying obscurities in non-Baseball sports that the grading firms don't know much or at all, it might be a problem. I have not heard of 3) being a real problem, but of course we didn't know that clause would have little to no enforcement back then.