Beware Carterscards2006

[3-2-count]

Hey, I remember that card!!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Hi, Tony. Yip, that was the card I got from you. I was being a bit sarcastic in my post to make a point, but in reality I believe it's a 7 (actually thought it might get a 7.5) and SGC just missed it this time around. I will probably crack it out and send it back in again. My point was that I just think it's ridiculous to hold a seller accountable for a TPGs mistake (if it even was a mistake).

BTW, Tony is an absolute pleasure to deal with and has a lot of really nice cards for sale on his website (see his signature line).

[painthistorian]

Bottom Line- If card is NOT cracked out by SGC or anyone else, Todd, you can return it...stating that all sales are final is useless in the eyes of paypal or e bay, if you state that there was snot on the case, it is Not as described and e bay will instruct a seller to take the card back as long as you send it back with PROPER signature confirmation or registered. I would advise showing your postal official the card in the holder prior to shipping so the seller cannot state otherwise. Unfortunately, e bay always sides with the buyer, I cannot tell you how ridiculous some of the chargebacks we have received, but we just take the item back, period...better not to have case recorded which hurts a DSR.
If SGC cracked it out, you are out of luck...Best wishes
However, from a moral standpoint, I also bid on that card, it is a great card, you took a shot. We all know a percentage of GAI cards were altered but many were not.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

One other concern about Carter is Ed's statement:

"Curiously, I once got a second chance offer from this seller about four hours after the auction ended. Needless to say, I didn't take him up on it."

What exactly was he going to sell Ed?

Lee

[teetwoohsix]

If I were the seller of the card, and this situation happened to me, I would ultimately come to the conclusion that this situation could easily be taken care of by accepting the return and refunding the $$. Why?

Because I wouldn't want to leave a customer this dissatisfied- especially if he is willing to spend over 1k on a card. And I am not 100% certain the seller knew it was trimmed, or, meant to scam. I have bought v/g graded GAI cards that I've submitted to SGC and they either A) crossed to same grade or B) got a bump up- so I doubt SGC is just discriminating because of the slab it's in.

So I am in the middle on who is right or wrong, just have an opinion on how it should be handled from here.

Good luck on the outcome Todd- I hope it works out for you.

Sincerely, Clayton

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

I have bought v/g graded GAI cards that I've submitted to SGC and they either A) crossed to same grade or B) got a bump up- so I doubt SGC is just discriminating because of the slab it's in.


Sincerely, Clayton

Well, I try to stay out of these type of skirmishes, but..............didn't Spence just buy into SGC and bring his own people over?

It's already been revealed in pretty obvious fashion that Spence and his people are in fact discriminating based on what authentication a piece is accompanied by.

GAI apparently has a bad reputation with autographs. It wouldn't shock me if GAI cards become the next target of.............."well if it's in that holder.......it must be bad".


Anyways. My simple take on the matter. If it's still in the holder....refund. If it's not........then don't.

[mdschulze]

I'm one of the ones who said "the customer is always right" (98% of the time), and I conduct business in that manner (for the record, I own 3 businesses and have not bankrupted yet). It's one thing for a customer to ask for a 100% refund for a service that was provided but not for an undamaged, tangible item that was purchased. In this scenario, what does the Seller stand to lose by refunding the Buyer's money? Issue the refund, get your undamaged item back, then offer a "second chance" to the next highest bidder or just relist the item. No harm done and everyone's happy.

Look at the negative exposure the Seller has gotten already just with this thread. I think a business is more likely to suffer financially from negative exposure (such as this) than to issue a refund every now and then. The Seller is not losing money... he can still sell the undamaged card and keep a positive reputation all the same. JMO!

[oldjudge]

So if I won a SGC numerically graded card from a Brockelman & Luckey auction and sent the card to PSA (in the SGC holder) and it came back as trimmed, should Leon give me my money back?
anyone?

Absolutely, and I believe that, as upstanding guys, that Scott and Leon would. They would then return the card to the seller (losing only the buyers commission) and the seller would have to take it up with SGC.

[leaflover]

I agree. If it is still in the holder....Refund! If not still in the holder, then it's a problem.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Well, I try to stay out of these type of skirmishes, but..............didn't Spence just buy into SGC and bring his own people over?

It's already been revealed in pretty obvious fashion that Spence and his people are in fact discriminating based on what authentication a piece is accompanied by.

GAI apparently has a bad reputation with autographs. It wouldn't shock me if GAI cards become the next target of.............."well if it's in that holder.......it must be bad".


Anyways. My simple take on the matter. If it's still in the holder....refund. If it's not........then don't.

Ahhh, great point and one that I overlooked. And I had been reading those threads- just hadn't thought of them when I posted.

I also agree with what you say- if it's still in the holder-refund. If not,....then don't (but at least try to work it out so everyone involved is satisfied * had to add that ).

Sincerely, Clayton