Moral of story: don't sell an altered card. Sorry that I have to out a fellow member.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Update at 7:39:30 EST this morning. It, however, does not mention the PSA label in the update:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1936-World-W...item1c2765bb4c

So If I purchase a PSA 5 (EX) graded card but I feel that card is in fact EX-MT and should have been graded a 6 (EX-MT) don't I have every right to crack the case and list the card as being in an EX-MT condition and price it according to a EX-MT grade? Would you expect me to detail and disclose in my auction that the card was originally graded a 5 by PSA?

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by markf31

So If I purchase a PSA 5 (EX) graded card but I feel that card is in fact EX-MT and should have been graded a 6 (EX-MT) don't I have every right to crack the case and list the card as being in an EX-MT condition and price it according to a EX-MT grade? Would you expect me to detail and disclose in my auction that the card was originally graded a 5 by PSA?

Yes, you have that right. I see a distinction btw an undergraded scenario and a card that was graded as Altered.

I have a hypo question. What would you make of a seller whose business model was to focus on and purchase cards that are slabbed as Authentic/Altered, crack them out and list them raw with no disclosure.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by HercDriver

I won a lot in REA a couple years ago that contained some T207s that the description said were trimmed. I sent them to SGC to round out a lot for one of their specials, just to get an "A" grade on them. They came back with some pretty nice grades, actually. So if I ever sell them, do I say they are SGC 50, but REA called them trimmed?

Originally Posted by Pup6913

Bought a M116 from TBOB just before Nationals last yr. He sold it as trimmed. Graded a SGC 6. I looked it over and seen nothing wrong and submitted it. Am I supposed to tell the buyer I bought it raw as trimmed but TPG said its a 6 now????

Originally Posted by markf31

So If I purchase a PSA 5 (EX) graded card but I feel that card is in fact EX-MT and should have been graded a 6 (EX-MT) don't I have every right to crack the case and list the card as being in an EX-MT condition and price it according to a EX-MT grade? Would you expect me to detail and disclose in my auction that the card was originally graded a 5 by PSA?

Great stories/thoughts, guys. But you’re letting logic and reason get in the way of a good witch hunt.

[alanu]

I've had cards that were deemed trimmed by one grading service (PSA or SGC) and not by another and in that case don't think any disclosures are necessary, but in this case, unless the card is sent to SGC for grading, I believe full disclosure should be provided.

With that said, for all the PSA/3rd party grading bashers out there (I'm not one of them), why would they care what PSA said about he card.

[Jewish-collector]

I met JMANOS at the 2007 National in Cleveland and he's a really nice guy. Will that help ?

[barrysloate]

Here are my thoughts: Suppose you send a card in for grading, and it comes back trimmed. Then you resubmit it to the same service, or to the other guys, and it now comes back with a numerical grade, and you decide not to disclose this when you sell it. Why is it assumed that you are pulling a fast one?

What if you genuinely believed the card was not trimmed, felt certain the graders got it wrong the first time, and correctly assigned it a number grade upon resubmission. Why should you mention this? Why should the seller be put in the position of having to explain the errors of TPG to his customers? In this example there is nothing pertinent that needs to be disclosed.

[DJR]

.

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Great stories/thoughts, guys. But you’re letting logic and reason get in the way of a good witch hunt.

Witch hunt? Just because you cannot discern that failure to disclose pertinent facts is wrong, doesn't mean that others cannot.

[wonkaticket]

Barry exactly agree 100%.

Ken, did he really keep all that much info back? Said card had funky bottom edge….true he didn't put a big paragraph on how PSA thought it was trimmed he also didn’t scan and post the previous AUTH/Trimmed label but did you really expect him too?

Like I said let me know when we start getting auction house and eBay write ups like I showed above. Otherwise this is just par for the course in this hobby…and if anything this is mini golf compared to what isn’t disclosed to us on a regular basis.

Cheers,

John

[HRBAKER]

Barry,
I agree with your scenario but I see it as different, he had the card resubmitted and it "numbered." For better or worse (I am ambivalent here), that takes his POV out of the equation. In this instance a seller chose to omit what I consider a material fact from the cards past. It may not be altered and he did mention it had a funky bottom.

I'll repeat my question from above; what would we make of a seller whose business model was to focus on and buy slabbed Altered/Authentic cards, crack them out and list them raw with no disclosure. I guess if he deemed that TPGs were mistaken 100% of the time then there is no issue.

John,
I agree this is small potatoes compared to the shenanigans we all suffer (most unknowingly) at the hands of many of the players in this hobby. We all keep going back to the well so I guess at the end of the day it doesn't really matter much.

As a buyer, I would want to know. As a seller, I would have disclosed it. Let's leave it at that.

[Sterling Sports Auctions]

I think everyone on the board now that Jim is here for the profit value, and offers little to nothing on the main board, just hawks the BST as a low cost way of conducting business. I personally don't like to tactic and chose not to deal with him, this just helps to confirm this.

Plus if you are buying an Net54 and selling on Ebay, you better be prepared to defend yourself because there are many on the board watching both ends.

Lee

[barrysloate]

Jeff- I agree, but I wasn't citing Jim out. I was giving a generic example. Jim's situation was admittedly a little different.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Great stories/thoughts, guys. But you’re letting logic and reason get in the way of a good witch hunt.

Wholeheartedly agree. The TPGs opinions are just opinions--how expert is debatable given the pure $hit I've seen get past them.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by markf31

So If I purchase a PSA 5 (EX) graded card but I feel that card is in fact EX-MT and should have been graded a 6 (EX-MT) don't I have every right to crack the case and list the card as being in an EX-MT condition and price it according to a EX-MT grade? Would you expect me to detail and disclose in my auction that the card was originally graded a 5 by PSA?

My only point is that if the card has been submitted and returned with an "Altered" assessment and the seller received both of these from me, both should be listed. At the very least the word "altered" with an explanation of the PSA judgment should be included in the listing.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

My only point is that if the card has been submitted and returned with an "Altered" assessment and the seller received both of these from me, both should be listed. At the very least the word "altered" with an explanation of the PSA judgment should be included in the listing.

I agree with you, Brian.

Simply put, if I bought that card from Jim and then discovered the history you posted, I'd be very mad and I'd be looking to return the card...at the very least.

Yes, grades are opinions. And yes, PSA makes lots of mistakes. But they don't just reject cards willy-nilly. The card came back with the opinion that there was evidence of alteration. That is a very material fact that ought to be disclosed by any ethical seller.

Cheers,
Blair

[4815162342]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=145241

[wonkaticket]

This kind of stuff is all over the place. It seems everybody has his or her way of spinning the facts or leaving them out in this case to make a sale. I agree 100% true and direct honesty would be super but it’s not going to happen sort of like wanting world peace.

Example below not picking on these guys alone but here’s one that stuck out as a scratch head moment…

“we are totally mystified as to why this card did not receive a mid-grade assessment? Steadfastly scouring the card for any possible paper loss or diminutive damage to the surface, we cannot locate any such blemishes, leaving us to only assume there is some microscopic like flaw(s) only evident via a high-powered lens. Yet, if a virtually undetectable flaw is the issue relating to the assigned grade, we would think the card should merit “at least” a VG assessment. Unquestionably, the overall aesthetics are consistent with a VG/EX to EX grade, and one can only ponder the nature of the current grade.”

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=22332

Really totally mystified? It’s a mystery of the greater universe that Hawking himself could lend no rhyme or reason to as to why this card is a 1. There was no way to contact PSA and ask how did this happen…why has this anomaly occurred? There was no powered lens or equipment budget within reach of Goodwin & Company review this card….oh the humanity.

All in all just busting balls here can’t fault them for trying to sell a card it’s their job. However one could easily say also they weren’t too forthcoming or as forthcoming as they could have been either on a card for sale.

Translation of the above original write up. Card has an obvious flaw somewhere but is super nice for the grade and we would like to leave a little room for romance for our bidders so that we can maximize the sale.

Something to consider IMO when getting upset on this Mano’s deal.

Cheers,

John

[HRBAKER]

Good point(s) John.
There is a difference btw disagreeing or romancing away an assessment and failing to mention one.

[glynparson]

of the current seller. Dont know the op.

[wonkaticket]

Jeff,

Agree 100% that’s why I say the term “left out" above and you’re right no argument here.

Sadly in the end both practices are at the core dishonest and ultimately put collectors at risk of being ripped off or taken advantage of, regardless of the fact that it’s a $99 Mano’s super flip special or a multi-thousand dollar card.

100% disclosure when it comes to this stuff is just pie in the sky thinking IMO. It’s a wonderful dream but I just don’t see it going down anytime soon.

All we can do is do what we can point it out to each other and buyer beware....

Cheers,

John

[glchen]

I think you MUST disclose that this card came back from PSA as Altered. Look at this thread here: Link. In this thread, the seller cracked a card out of a SGC 30/2 holder, and then advertised the raw card as EX/EX+. Now are people saying that doing this is perfectly legitimate? After all, it is only a TPG's OPINION that the card is a 2 (Good). Grading is subjective, so if the seller wants to crack it out and advertise the card as Excellent, this is perfectly okay? I say this is dishonest, exactly like the case in this thread.

The case where someone cracked out a card 15 times before finally getting the grade he wanted is different. In that case, a disinterested third party gave their professional opinion on that grade. Sure, they gave a different opinion the 15 times before. However, they don't have a dog in this fight. In this case, the seller has an obvious conflict of interest because he will directly profit from the own grading that he is giving, especially when he knows a TPG gave a different assessment. He should say something along the lines that "PSA gave this card an Authentic/Altered grade. However, I believe the card is not trimmed. Look at the bottom edge closely, and you as the buyer be the judge."

I would add that if you KNOW the TPG is wrong, then you should disclose that. For example, if there is a mark on the card that the TPG misses, you should disclose it.