Ebay Authentication is a Comical JOKE.

[jp1216]

Looked at the images on the eBay listing. They were high enough resolution to see imperfections on the slab. The front looks fine to me and only a couple small scratches on the back. I've seen much, much worse. I'm surprised it was 'rejected' but glad you and the buyer worked it out.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/122579220930

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by jp1216

Looked at the images on the eBay listing. They were high enough resolution to see imperfections on the slab. The front looks fine to me and only a couple small scratches on the back. I've seen much, much worse. I'm surprised it was 'rejected' but glad you and the buyer worked it out.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/122579220930

To me, the bigger issue here is that ebay is likely very inconsistent on how this rule is or is not applied across the board. I'm pretty sure that not every slab with a noticeable scratch is rejected the same as if the card were fake. To me this goes back to the ancient problem heading of ebay not ever caring to be category experts. We don't know, so we will farm out the question to someone else. And when they do this, the results are inevitably inconsistent.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by jp1216

Looked at the images on the eBay listing. They were high enough resolution to see imperfections on the slab. The front looks fine to me and only a couple small scratches on the back. I've seen much, much worse. I'm surprised it was 'rejected' but glad you and the buyer worked it out.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/122579220930

This…is…the…actual….problem. It has damage that doesn’t show in the listing.

The slab looks like it only suffers from minor issues in the images. It was deemed to have “significant” damage/scratching by the authenticator that was not apparent in the images.

That slab is very old and very large. Really tough to protect it from contact all those years unless it was the absolute treasure of your collection.

[jp1216]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

It has damage that doesn’t show in the listing.

You know this for a fact?

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by jp1216

You know this for a fact?

I will say I don’t “know it”, but…I guarantee it.

You have to sheen plastics like that at an angle under light to see most surface issues. A straight on view will not show the totality of it.

[jp1216]

I did notice the card is slightly outside of the frame when zoomed in. That could have been the issue too. I don't guarantee it, however.

[maniac_73]

They should at least give you a choice whether to keep it or return it.

[JollyElm]

Not sure if it adds anything to the conversation or actually shows the culprits, but I did take this pic in Dan's basement a while back when he had me over for tea...

1934DemareeDieCut160GrimmMICE.jpg

[Exhibitman]

The program is a mixed bag. I like the idea, especially with raw cards, both, as a buyer and a seller. I recently purchased a rare/expensive card from Argentina (no eBay auth. program) and believe me, i sweated whether the card would be good (it was). So the program alleviates some of that anxiety for buyers. I also (usually) like it as a seller because it chops the legs out of buyer's remorse returns and transportation mishap returns from the authenticator to the buyer. On the whole, i think it is a positive. The screw-ups are basically what Dan experienced with the holder condition or what I recently experienced, which was a 'not a card' rejection even though SGC grades the damn card.

They could fix most of the issues by simply allowing the buyer to decide if he or she wants the card despite the alleged issue before sending it back.

Or just put "set break" in the listing and bypass the program entirely. Or throw in a common and list it as two cards.

As for the bitch-slap battle over whether this is worth comment, yeah, it is. Dan wasn't selling a cranberry sparkle shiny crap card that the buyer could just buy elsewhere, it was a tough card, and the deal interference w/o buyer input is frustrating as heck.