Who is responsible?
csakers
Posts: 239 ✭
I am seeking your opinion regarding an eBay issue:
- I came across auctions for 1993 Finest Promo Refractor cards (3 separate auctions) from a trusted seller - I have purchased hundreds of cards and spent thousands of dollars over the years with this seller - no previous issues.
- The pictures were not very clear, so I wrote requesting verification that the cards were indeed the Refractors (I explained they would be going directly to PSA for grading) and I am unsure of how the Promo Refractors look.
- I received a reply from the seller stating they were positively the Refractor versions.
- I fought and paid top dollar for the three cards.
- The day I received the cards in the mail, I packaged them for PSA - I had to pay the top grading/shipping prices (a little over $160 for the three cards), due to the value of the Promo Refractors.
- When I received them back from PSA in graded form, it turns out they were merely the regular issues - NOT the Refractor versions.
- I contacted the seller, who refunded my entire PURCHASE prices upon receiving the three cards back.
- He did NOT refund my return shipping, nor acknowledged the fact that the three cards are now PSA graded.
- Over the last couple months, I have attempted to get him to accept responsibility for the PSA charges and return shipping (and the fact that I returned items in better than purchased condition with the PSA grading).
* I have offered to accept credit toward future purchases, due to the years we have worked together.
- To this day, he refuses to make a decision in writing. He states a desire to simply discuss the matter over the phone. I have explained I do not have the available time during normal hours to call him and simply want an answer.
So, what is your opinion? Should this seller accept responsibility since I requested BEFORE purchasing and sending to PSA? I only purchased the cards based upon his information and answer to my question. Is this simply a buyer issue?
Thanks for helping,
Chris
- I came across auctions for 1993 Finest Promo Refractor cards (3 separate auctions) from a trusted seller - I have purchased hundreds of cards and spent thousands of dollars over the years with this seller - no previous issues.
- The pictures were not very clear, so I wrote requesting verification that the cards were indeed the Refractors (I explained they would be going directly to PSA for grading) and I am unsure of how the Promo Refractors look.
- I received a reply from the seller stating they were positively the Refractor versions.
- I fought and paid top dollar for the three cards.
- The day I received the cards in the mail, I packaged them for PSA - I had to pay the top grading/shipping prices (a little over $160 for the three cards), due to the value of the Promo Refractors.
- When I received them back from PSA in graded form, it turns out they were merely the regular issues - NOT the Refractor versions.
- I contacted the seller, who refunded my entire PURCHASE prices upon receiving the three cards back.
- He did NOT refund my return shipping, nor acknowledged the fact that the three cards are now PSA graded.
- Over the last couple months, I have attempted to get him to accept responsibility for the PSA charges and return shipping (and the fact that I returned items in better than purchased condition with the PSA grading).
* I have offered to accept credit toward future purchases, due to the years we have worked together.
- To this day, he refuses to make a decision in writing. He states a desire to simply discuss the matter over the phone. I have explained I do not have the available time during normal hours to call him and simply want an answer.
So, what is your opinion? Should this seller accept responsibility since I requested BEFORE purchasing and sending to PSA? I only purchased the cards based upon his information and answer to my question. Is this simply a buyer issue?
Thanks for helping,
Chris
I only need 18 cards to complete the Don Mattingly Master collection. Help would be great!
0
Comments
I'd say its probably fair for you to have assumed the risk on the cost of PSA grading.
I take it you sent them in on higher service level $$$ based on the assumption they were refractors?
saucywombat@hotmail.com
However, technically he might not be responsible for your grading fees or return shipping, unless he agreed that if the cards came back different from his description, he would pay for your fees.
Seems to me that in a "couple of months" the two of you could find time to discuss over the phone.
I would leave him 3 negatives, if you can, and move on.
Customer service is becoming a thing of the past.
I leave quite early for work and arrive home very late from work. The times I have actually been available, he has been "on vacation" and not available to discuss. Thus, the reason why I would like him to simply make a decision in writing (either accept my offer or decline - at least he would make a decision).
As far as customer service is concerned, I completely agree with your thoughts! There appears to no longer be such a thing, as the sellers do not seem to care about keeping customers. I do not know how they can afford to lose customers on a regular basis, but it must be nice.
I hate to not work with this seller any longer, but it is the principal of the issue that bothers me.
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
That being said, if it was me I'd make sure you were happy.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
What should happen if item is lost or damaged in return ?
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
I am not familiar with what the Promo Refractors are supposed to look like, which is why I depended upon his confirmation they were actually Refractors. I did not discover they were Refractors until PSA graded them as the regular issues and mailed them back.
I agree the seller should reimburse the return shipping for a wrong item, as well.
Additionally, not only did I return the purchased items, but they had been upgraded from regular cards to PSA graded cards. Now, the seller is able to turn around and sell the PSA graded cards for a premium WITHOUT having to pay for the actual grading/shipping fees.
<< <i>Griffins:
I am not familiar with what the Promo Refractors are supposed to look like, which is why I depended upon his confirmation they were actually Refractors. I did not discover they were Refractors until PSA graded them as the regular issues and mailed them back. >>
You can't blame him for you being an uninformed collector of what you collect.
Commissions
Check out my Facebook page
<< <i>Bishop:
I agree the seller should reimburse the return shipping for a wrong item, as well.
Additionally, not only did I return the purchased items, but they had been upgraded from regular cards to PSA graded cards. Now, the seller is able to turn around and sell the PSA graded cards for a premium WITHOUT having to pay for the actual grading/shipping fees. >>
You should have cracked them out.
Commissions
Check out my Facebook page
Does a cell phone work at your work location? Call the man up and discuss the issues because it looks like you are SOL otherwise.
When I received the package from the seller, I simply moved the cards into another package with the PSA grading form and mailed it out to PSA. I did not undo his packaging, as he had confirmed they were the Refractor versions. With all the past experiences, I had no reason to doubt his information.
I would understand your perspective better had I not asked ahead of time and received confirmation from the seller. Is this not the point of the question avenue on eBay? Otherwise, should sellers simply be able to say whatever they wish and not be responsible for their answers?
As to your second post: I have no idea what you mean by "you should have cracked them out." Do you mean, I should have broken the PSA cases before sending the cards back to the seller? If so, would this not damage the cards and give him/eBay reason to not refund my purchase price?
<< <i>Stingray,
When I received the package from the seller, I simply moved the cards into another package with the PSA grading form and mailed it out to PSA. I did not undo his packaging, as he had confirmed they were the Refractor versions. With all the past experiences, I had no reason to doubt his information. >>
To me, this is where you went off the track, if you made no personal inspection of what you had, that leaves you, in my view, totally dependent on your relationship with the seller
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Griffins:I am not familiar with what the Promo Refractors are supposed to look like, which is why I depended upon his confirmation they were actually Refractors. I did not discover they were Refractors until PSA graded them as the regular issues and mailed them back. >>
That's understandable, if you are new to the set. However, when I'm not familiar with a set I'm starting to collect I pick up a few graded examples to study before moving forward. I got burned on some raw Cracker Jacks years ago and learned a similar lesson the hard way.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
<< <i>Stingray,
When I received the package from the seller, I simply moved the cards into another package with the PSA grading form and mailed it out to PSA. I did not undo his packaging, as he had confirmed they were the Refractor versions. With all the past experiences, I had no reason to doubt his information. >>
Gotcha!!
You can't see them when you first look, but after some one shows you, and you "get it," you can't figure out how other people can't see it.
Once you can see a refractor, you know when you have one in your hand. But a lot of people just can't seem to see them.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
I do not wish to involve any names, but you are onto something (please do not mention the name of the suspected seller, as that is not my intention of this post).
I fully understand my not continuing to do business with him will not put him out of business, I do know it has taken a hit on the final bid prices for quite a few of his cards that I would have tried to purchase.
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
In my opinion, the seller was wrong but rectified the main wrong by refunding you the sale price. Yes, he /she should have covered postal fees for the return, but that is relatively trivial, and I assume is not the primary issue with you.
As for the responsibility on the grading fees, I'm afraid it is on you for not knowing what you were really sending in. The seller should, however, be willing to pay a lower grading level (whatever is commensurate to the real card value) for the grading that was done.
It's too bad PSA forces one to pay the higher fees for higher valued items, then not contact the submitter if they note the item is not truly valued what was submitted to offer to either send them back ungraded or grade them at a lower cost. They are the ones who made out big at your expense. Whenever it was along the line they knew they were not grading what you thought you were submitting, you should have gotten a call to clarify.
SMB
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
<< <i>I am in the exact same boat as U dude. I wont mention any names, but those in the know......know >>
Wes Spece?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You've bought from me some in the past and I sure as hell would've done the right thing if my error caused you any type of inconvenience. Not just because it's the best business move, but because I screwed up and the right thing to do is make it right with you.
Lee
<< <i>Unfortunately, Griffins and grote are correct- the seller is responsible for refunding the original purchase and nothing more. However, the correct move would be to keep a regular customer who spends good money happy so he doesn't go posting about his bad experience online, thereby persuading other consumers to not give the seller their business. A marketing guru such as Ri........., I mean the seller, should know better. The fact that he 'confirmed' to you they were refractors (there's no chance he even looked, he just assumed his employee didn't screw up the listing) makes him look not only incompetent, but lazy.
You've bought from me some in the past and I sure as hell would've done the right thing if my error caused you any type of inconvenience. Not just because it's the best business move, but because I screwed up and the right thing to do is make it right with you.
Lee >>
Almost dropped a name there!!
You have always been a wonderful seller and I look forward to continued business with you in the future, as I continue building my collection!
I was hoping to continue working with the other seller, which is why I was offering a type of compromise. However, I do not like all the "run around" with not making a decision with regard to my solution. Wanting to talk on the phone would be fine, but to "not be available" when I have called is not acceptable.
Thanks again for being one of the reliable sellers!
<< <i>It's too bad PSA forces one to pay the higher fees for higher valued items, then not contact the submitter if they note the item is not truly valued what was submitted to offer to either send them back ungraded or grade them at a lower cost. They are the ones who made out big at your expense. Whenever it was along the line they knew they were not grading what you thought you were submitting, you should have gotten a call to clarify.
SMB >>
I completely agree! For PSA to have graded the cards as the regular Finest issues, they had to know I was mistaken in marking them to be the Refractor versions. With the huge difference in grading prices between the regular and Refractor versions, then I believe PSA should have contacted me BEFORE moving forward with the grading. I assume PSA saw a golden opportunity to increase profits, which is why the contact was not made regarding the error.
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
Thanks for letting me know!
____________________
baseball:
I can assure you I am NOT the seller in this case.
I completely agree with your thoughts, as I do not understand why one must pay more for grading fees as the value of the card increases. I have no problem with the shipping/insurance charges increasing, as the value increases (this makes sense). I assume PSA simply sees this as another opportunity to cash in on their standing within the hobby. If you do not agree with their grading fees, especially in relation to card value, then to whom would you turn for your grading needs?
I think they should have a standard grading fee and offer variances for the type of service. . .plain and simple.
They've paid me back for a card or two in the wrong holder in the past, and I know others have been compensated as well.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
Just to be clear, I'm entirely happy with PSA, just some of their pricing seems a little wonky.
Sometimes things change as well- I know standards tightened on '59 Bazooka's in regards to how much of the dotted line shows, and at least a couple of cards were bought back. That all goes into the cost of doing business, which is paid for by submission fees.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
<< <i>Everyone makes mistakes, and CLCT has a fund for buybacks. . .That all goes into the cost of doing business, which is paid for by submission fees. >>
Griffins:
I am glad they have such a program in place. However, this still does not explain why I never received any type of communication from PSA in this situation. When someone submits three cards valued more than $2,000 (and pays corresponding grading fees) and it turns out they are only valued at $53.00, that is a HUGE difference in value and corresponding grading fees. Rather than move forward with simply grading and mailing them out, someone should have made contact to ensure I knew the difference. Obviously, I was under the impression (from the information received from the seller) that they were not ordinary cards.
This is where it appears PSA simply took advantage of the situation to pad their pockets (or the buyback fund).
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
PSA did NOT refund any portion, which is why I feel they simply padded their pockets with the difference. Again, PSA had to know I believed the cards were the Refractors. Otherwise, I would not have listed them as Refractors on the form and would not have paid the premium grading fees. When they determined the cards were simply the regular issue promos, I should have been contacted, notified of the difference, and asked if I wanted to move ahead with the grading of the cards. PSA never contacted me. PSA simply graded the cards as the regular issue cards and returned them to me.
No notice.
No double-checking with me.
No refund of any portion.
This is the other issue I have, as I paid $163.07 to have three regular cards graded.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I don't believe PSA (or PCGS) should be in the habit of questioning whether the cards (or coins) submitted by the submitter are worth the service level and fees that submitter has voluntarily decided to use. IMO, PSA should remain as neutral as possible in this process. If the submitter was mistaken in thinking the cards are much more valuable that they really are, that is on the submitter. Same concept would apply to very valuable cards submitted to PSA that turn out to be altered or trimmed. You are paying for a professional opinion at the service level you select. As long as PSA renders a correct opinion in the turnaround time promised (or approximately so), the amount you pay to receive said opinion is irrelevant. I can empathize with your disappointment, but PSA is not at fault here. >>
Have to respectfully disagree here. PSA raises it's fees if a card is more valuable (some have raised valid points as to if this in itself is proper, but that is a different debate), so actually the submitter in this case was not asking for more than the minimum service to grade the cards, he just was incorrect at their value. For years this wasn't a problem until some cards became difficult to tell if it was a "super rare" valuable issue or merely a common.
They are the experts, and if a card is sent in at the wrong service level REQUIRED by PSA, the difference should be refunded, just as PSA will charge you more if you try to send in that high dollar rookie card and get it graded at a too low service level. If you mistakenly sent in one of these new reissued rookie cards thinking it was an actual rookie would you still feel the same? A stretch I know.
My Father used to say "You can't have your cake and eat it too" I think this would apply here. When PSA determined the cards were not high value cards, the RIGHT thing to do would be to refund the difference. I am not saying they are required to do it, but they SHOULD refund the difference.
The submitter took the "high road" by being honest and he got over charged for his honesty. I guess in the future you should send in the Refractors and pay for regular grading?!?!?!?
Tough situation for the OP. Kinda got screwed from all sides IMO.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't believe PSA (or PCGS) should be in the habit of questioning whether the cards (or coins) submitted by the submitter are worth the service level and fees that submitter has voluntarily decided to use. IMO, PSA should remain as neutral as possible in this process. If the submitter was mistaken in thinking the cards are much more valuable that they really are, that is on the submitter. Same concept would apply to very valuable cards submitted to PSA that turn out to be altered or trimmed. You are paying for a professional opinion at the service level you select. As long as PSA renders a correct opinion in the turnaround time promised (or approximately so), the amount you pay to receive said opinion is irrelevant. I can empathize with your disappointment, but PSA is not at fault here. >>
Have to respectfully disagree here. PSA raises it's fees if a card is more valuable (some have raised valid points as to if this in itself is proper, but that is a different debate), so actually the submitter in this case was not asking for more than the minimum service to grade the cards, he just was incorrect at their value. For years this wasn't a problem until some cards became difficult to tell if it was a "super rare" valuable issue or merely a common.
They are the experts, and if a card is sent in at the wrong service level REQUIRED by PSA, the difference should be refunded, just as PSA will charge you more if you try to send in that high dollar rookie card and get it graded at a too low service level. If you mistakenly sent in one of these new reissued rookie cards thinking it was an actual rookie would you still feel the same? A stretch I know.
My Father used to say "You can't have your cake and eat it too" I think this would apply here. When PSA determined the cards were not high value cards, the RIGHT thing to do would be to refund the difference. I am not saying they are required to do it, but they SHOULD refund the difference.
The submitter took the "high road" by being honest and he got over charged for his honesty. I guess in the future you should send in the Refractors and pay for regular grading?!?!?!?
Tough situation for the OP. Kinda got screwed from all sides IMO. >>
I have graded MANY cards that were worth well over the service level maximum (i.e. $100 for the monthly special) and have never had PSA raise its grading fee for that card.
You can send in a 1988 Donruss card at walk through if you wish to. That doesn't mean PSA should tell you, "No, you can't because this card is worth only $1.00." The system works better when the grading company remains as neutral as possible. Furthermore, even if you declare the value of each card at $1,999 PER CARD, it should cost you only $35 per card to submit under Express level. You are paying a premium as much (if not more) for the expedited 5-day turnaround time promised at that service level, as the value of the card
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't believe PSA (or PCGS) should be in the habit of questioning whether the cards (or coins) submitted by the submitter are worth the service level and fees that submitter has voluntarily decided to use. IMO, PSA should remain as neutral as possible in this process. If the submitter was mistaken in thinking the cards are much more valuable that they really are, that is on the submitter. Same concept would apply to very valuable cards submitted to PSA that turn out to be altered or trimmed. You are paying for a professional opinion at the service level you select. As long as PSA renders a correct opinion in the turnaround time promised (or approximately so), the amount you pay to receive said opinion is irrelevant. I can empathize with your disappointment, but PSA is not at fault here. >>
Have to respectfully disagree here. PSA raises it's fees if a card is more valuable (some have raised valid points as to if this in itself is proper, but that is a different debate), so actually the submitter in this case was not asking for more than the minimum service to grade the cards, he just was incorrect at their value. For years this wasn't a problem until some cards became difficult to tell if it was a "super rare" valuable issue or merely a common.
They are the experts, and if a card is sent in at the wrong service level REQUIRED by PSA, the difference should be refunded, just as PSA will charge you more if you try to send in that high dollar rookie card and get it graded at a too low service level. If you mistakenly sent in one of these new reissued rookie cards thinking it was an actual rookie would you still feel the same? A stretch I know.
My Father used to say "You can't have your cake and eat it too" I think this would apply here. When PSA determined the cards were not high value cards, the RIGHT thing to do would be to refund the difference. I am not saying they are required to do it, but they SHOULD refund the difference.
The submitter took the "high road" by being honest and he got over charged for his honesty. I guess in the future you should send in the Refractors and pay for regular grading?!?!?!?
Tough situation for the OP. Kinda got screwed from all sides IMO. >>
I have graded MANY cards that were worth well over the service level maximum (i.e. $100 for the monthly special) and have never had PSA raise its grading fee for that card.
You can send in a 1988 Donruss card at walk through if you wish to. That doesn't mean PSA should tell you, "No, you can't because this card is worth only $1.00." The system works better when the grading company remains as neutral as possible. Furthermore, even if you declare the value of each card at $1,999 PER CARD, it should cost you only $35 per card to submit under Express level. You are paying a premium as much (if not more) for the expedited 5-day turnaround time promised at that service level, as the value of the card >>
Slightly different here, submitter didn't decide to go with a high service level but the minimum. Perhaps that would have been a better choice for him had it been offered.
In your case of having MANY cards graded that were over the maximum, I guess dear old Dad was wrong! Enjoy your cake.
I am feeling a little sorry for the OP, he didn't do well here on all fronts.
Huh? The OP mistakenly believed the cards were very valuable and declared them as such on the submission form. How is that PSA's fault? People sub cards they mistakenly believe as valuable all the time when they are not. PSA doesn't adjust the service level due to a submitter's misconception, nor should they. Once again, as a submitter, you are paying as much for the expedited turnaround time as the value (or lack thereof) of the card.
If anything, the OP has a valid beef with the seller who led him to believe the cards were valuable when they weren't. Simply put, PSA did what they were paid to do. This dispute nothing to do with them.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.