Ebay Authentication - It Gets Personal

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I can see where this would get super frustrating. Agreed that buyers should have an option to opt out of the authenticity guarantee. Some of the vintage cards I have seen thus far in CSG slabs are waaaaaay overgraded. I wouldn't want them casting judgement on raw cards that I bought online.

Do you have links you can share for the overgraded CSG slabs you've found? I've come across a couple, but not a lot. They've been pretty on point from most of what I've encountered.

[Jim65]

The authenticators aren't supposed to reject cards that are off grade from what the seller claims (VGEX instead of EX or EX instead of EXMT) They are looking for hidden undisclosed damage and flaws, wrinkles, trimming, erasures, etc. If those flaws are disclosed or clearly shown in the photos, as long as the card is authentic, its supposed to pass.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

The authenticators aren't supposed to reject cards that are off grade from what the seller claims (VGEX instead of EX or EX instead of EXMT) They are looking for hidden undisclosed damage and flaws, wrinkles, trimming, erasures, etc. If those flaws are disclosed or clearly shown in the photos, as long as the card is authentic, its supposed to pass.

They are looking for undisclosed damage or a lying grade. I doubt they will go so literal as to reject a EX+ they think is EX, but they are absolutely rejecting cards with overstated grades. List a card as gem mint and disclose the crease, watch what happens.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So here's a good one. I recently bought a PSA graded Pedro Martinez autograph card, standard Leaf issue, was clearly fine, PSA REJECTS it and ebay refunds me. PSA tells the seller the case was cracked. He gets it back it's not cracked at all. But here is where it gets even stranger, they send him a note telling him when he RELISTS it, to use a higher resolution scan, when his scan was already outstanding. The whole thing makes no sense, and why are they telling him to relist it if they just rejected it?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So here's a good one. I recently bought a PSA graded Pedro Martinez autograph card, standard Leaf issue, was clearly fine, PSA REJECTS it and ebay refunds me. PSA tells the seller the case was cracked. He gets it back it's not cracked at all. But here is where it gets even stranger, they send him a note telling him when he RELISTS it, to use a higher resolution scan, when his scan was already outstanding. The whole thing makes no sense, and why are they telling him to relist it if they just rejected it?

If the seller is honestly relating what happened to you … uh… Wow.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

If the seller is honestly relating what happened to you … uh… Wow.

I think he is. He isn't asking me to buy the card again or anything, so no reason to make anything up.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think he is. He isn't asking me to buy the card again or anything, so no reason to make anything up.

I suspect that it was an ebay rep who actually told him to use higher resolution scans next time, just hoping that it might resolve whatever issue it was that they couldn't figure out. Regardless, it's still bonkers. This whole ebay authentication thing is a clusterF.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Do you have links you can share for the overgraded CSG slabs you've found? I've come across a couple, but not a lot. They've been pretty on point from most of what I've encountered.

Sorry Travis, somehow missed your reply. I was talking most recently about a card I saw in person. It was a '63 Topps Ernie Banks at my LCS in a CSG 2.5. It looked pretty decent and I was actually considering buying it, when I noticed a cut and not small area of paper loss on the surface on the bottom right. It should have been pretty obvious to a grader. No way that card should have been more than a 1.

Others, like with shopping online - I seem to see some discrepancies with cards in upper midgrade that have questionable corner wear for the grade assigned.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Sorry Travis, somehow missed your reply. I was talking most recently about a card I saw in person. It was a '63 Topps Ernie Banks at my LCS in a CSG 2.5. It looked pretty decent and I was actually considering buying it, when I noticed a cut and not small area of paper loss on the surface on the bottom right. It should have been pretty obvious to a grader. No way that card should have been more than a 1.

Others, like with shopping online - I seem to see some discrepancies with cards in upper midgrade that have questionable corner wear for the grade assigned.

Ya, paper loss on the front should probably be a bit harsher than that. Although I'm somewhat of the mind that PSA & SGC do this wrong as well sometimes, but it's the standard of the industry, so might as well uphold the it.

The corners thing is mostly where I've seen CSG overgrade cards, but I'm not sure I've seen them overgrade for that at a higher rate than what I've seen from PSA or SGC. As an example, here's a Jackie card in a 6 holder that I came across recently. Beautiful card, but if I sent that in, I'd be crossing my fingers for a 4, and PSA probably gives it a 3.5 nowadays (once upon a time, they would have given it a 5). Basically, all the TPGs are seemingly all over the place with respect to corners.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Sorry Travis, somehow missed your reply. I was talking most recently about a card I saw in person. It was a '63 Topps Ernie Banks at my LCS in a CSG 2.5. It looked pretty decent and I was actually considering buying it, when I noticed a cut and not small area of paper loss on the surface on the bottom right. It should have been pretty obvious to a grader. No way that card should have been more than a 1.

Others, like with shopping online - I seem to see some discrepancies with cards in upper midgrade that have questionable corner wear for the grade assigned.

Ya, paper loss on the front should probably be a bit harsher than that. Although I'm somewhat of the mind that PSA & SGC do this wrong as well sometimes, but it's the standard of the industry, so might as well uphold the it.

The corners thing is mostly where I've seen CSG overgrade cards, but I'm not sure I've seen them overgrade for that at a higher rate than what I've seen from PSA or SGC. As an example, here's a Jackie card in a 6 holder that I came across recently. Beautiful card, but if I sent that in, I'd be crossing my fingers for a 4, and PSA probably gives it a 3.5 nowadays (once upon a time, they would have given it a 5). Basically, all the TPGs are seemingly all over the place with respect to corners.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Snowman

As an example, here's a Jackie card in a 6 holder that I came across recently. Beautiful card, but if I sent that in, I'd be crossing my fingers for a 4, and PSA probably gives it a 3.5 nowadays (once upon a time, they would have given it a 5). Basically, all the TPGs are seemingly all over the place with respect to corners.

Yeah, no way that Jackie realistically has 6 corners. So what you are saying is what has always more or less been true about professional grading: The subjective scale based on eye appeal waxes and wanes, and standards fluctuate over time. This is why all TPG's to me at the end of the day still smack of at least some type of gimmick.

[Leon]

I just received another graded, ebay authentication item. In the long run this has to be more than a $10 cost basis, with the great packaging, service and shipping. I am not going to like it either. I don't need anyone to tell me this is real.
.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Leon

I just received another graded, ebay authentication item. In the long run this has to be more than a $10 cost basis, with the great packaging, service and shipping. I am not going to like it either. I don't need anyone to tell me this is real.
.

Super pick up, Leon - congrats! I've never had a Grieners Bread in my type collection, and if I has seen the eBay listing, it would have cost you more!