Heads Up on PWCC Auction for a 1993 SP Jeter Graded 9 MT
DotStore
Posts: 702 ✭✭✭✭
Heads up on a PWCC Auction for a 1993 SP Jeter graded 9 MT
This card has a line running the entire length of the card from Top to Bottom. I can only describe it as looking like the foil is raised without any glue under the foil to adhere it to the card underneath.
It is eBay Item# 401782065432
Here are some pictures of the flaw. I took these pictures and provided them to PWCC when I returned this card to them.
1
Comments
Yikes
Isn't this the card that was returned to pwcc for just this issue? If so, Brent knows there is a problem and refused to be forthcoming with that defect. Shady shady business practices
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I remember the thread about that card too, though I don't know if its the same one.
I actively collect Kirby Puckett. I have collections of Michael Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Roberto Clemente, Dwight Gooden, Tom Seaver, Errict Rhett and Evan Longoria.
Does it have a low end sticker attached to it though?
Looking to BUY n332 1889 SF Hess cards and high grade cards from 19th century especially. "Once you have wrestled everything else in life is easy" Dan Gable
Yes this is the same card. I provided a description of the defect and these pictures to PWCC when I returned the card. They relisted it after knowing the line is on the card, and their opinion/description for the auction (same as when I bought it)
The offered SGC 9 is simply stunning with glistening surfaces and clear imagery. Shows rock-solid corners with blemish free borders and wonderful registration. A sound investment commodity which commands attention.
This defect should be disclosed by the seller. Disappointing for sure.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
Just to play devil’s advocate, what do you think PWCC’s responsibility is in this regard more generally? If they receive a card on consignment that just looks like a crappy example of the grade, should they disclose that?
In fact, they actually refused to auction a card of mine that had a defect they felt was not appropriate for the grade, so they do in fact do that. I was kind of surprised when they did it with my card, because PSA graded it that way, and as everyone here points out, PWCC is not in the grading business.
I’m just not sure what PWCC’s role should be in determining whether a TPG’s grade is accurate.
Seeing how they talk up the good points of high grade examples and use their nifty little designations, if they choose to sell a card with a defect, then yes it should be mentioned. Unfortunately dollar signs cloud some seller's vision.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
But every card has defects. That is the purpose of A TPG grading it. I do think their stickers are stupid, but I’m not sure how it is their responsibility to second guess TPG’s grade.
True but imo, if they're going to talk up the good points, then in order of fairness, bad points should be mentioned as well. I'm referring to the raw Jeter the op mentioned.
I can see how graded cards would be more of a challenge. I guess the best course of action would be to not offer their opinion at all since the card was already graded.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
I thought the card in question was graded.
If they are going to give an “auction house” like description talking up the card, then I can see how they should mention the defect once it has been pointed out to them. They would be better off simply stating the card’s grade and letting the scans speak for themselves.
If I feel a graded card I’m selling is over graded, I’ll mention that in the listing. I always try to reduce the possibility of a return or unsatisfactory buyer experience.
Not sure how this card received a 9 to begin with. I’ve received 5s and 6s on a few glossy cards where I’ve missed a very thin line across the card much less noticable than this.
My mistake. I didn't realize it was graded. Looking at the pics, it looked raw to me
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
I bet Moser can fix it...
Here's the picture of the card that PWCC Provides in their auction listing.
>
Thanks....brain fart on my part. You even listed it as graded in the tittle and I breezed right by it.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Here's the thing. If they had just always stood by the caveat emptor policy of "We are not third party graders", then I really wouldn't have a problem with this card being relisted. I expect the card was like this when graded and not subsequently damaged or tampered with. You accept the return out of good business practices (or ebay rules if you want to go down that path), and relist as the 9 it got.
But PWCC started the whole hypocrisy of adding stickers and designating things high end, and in fact passing judgement on the TPGs. So if you are going to do it on the upside, you have to do it on the downside too. They dont get to have their cake and eat it too.
I felt that way two weeks ago, by the way. Now, if you are buying from PWCC, its CAVEAT EMPTOR in all caps, bold, underline. And threads like this are necessary and appreciated.
Ha!
PWCC is feeling more like a used car salesman by the day. Flowery, love story item descriptions but nary a word about obvious defects.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I guess I’m the only one that thinks if PSA saw the defect and still thinks the card’s a PSA 9, then selling it as a PSA 9 is not wrong. And this is coming from somebody who hates PWCC and publicly pledged to never spend a penny with them. But that doesn’t mean I think they’re wrong in this case.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
PWCC is no different than any other money grubbing misinformation laden profit or bust business. Doesn’t matter if it’s cards, gutters, or cars. The only items I’d entertain bidding on of theirs would be BBCE wrapped stuff. Nothing else.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
I agree. I have no problem with them selling this as a 9 without bringing up the defect. But, I don't believe they should write a stunning review of the card. If they want to sell it as a 9 with no description, I am fine with that.
>
Successful transactions on the BST boards with rtimmer, coincoins, gerard, tincup, tjm965, MMR, mission16, dirtygoldman, AUandAG, deadmunny, thedutymon, leadoff4, Kid4HOF03, BRI2327, colebear, mcholke, rpcolettrane, rockdjrw, publius, quik, kalinefan, Allen, JackWESQ, CON40, Griffeyfan2430, blue227, Tiggs2012, ndleo, CDsNuts, ve3rules, doh, MurphDawg, tennessebanker, and gene1978.
Playing devils advocate here for those saying it's ok not to mention anything... if you buy an iPhone or some other electronic do you expect it to be brand new as described or if it had been returned do you expect that to be mentioned / sold differently (i.e. open box).
I expect a reputable company to do any of the following:
1. Mention it in the listing
2. Send it to SGC for re-evaluation
3. return it to the consignor as is with the note about the scratch
Any relevant information they are aware of and decide not to disclose as it will hurt their price isn't moral in my opinion.
If I was selling something to someone, I would certainly tell them everything about the item they were spending their hard earned money on. Every customer deserves to know every flaw from top to bottom. Anything else is unacceptable.
.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Do TPG review cards they've graded and change a 9 to an 8.5?
if the owner paid for a 9 do they get compensated?
So a seller who is offering a PSA 6 card should describe in detail every flaw that contributed to that grade?
I disagree that it is up to the seller to disclose everything on a graded card. Even then, cards in the same identical numbered PSA grade are not always equal (buy the card not the holder). If the card is ungraded then it is much different, but still not completely up to the seller to be a card grading expert. High resolution pictures are a fairly normal expectation, but not the description.
Bottom line, if the card is graded, the seller is pretty protected that the grade is what it is, especially on ebay. Buyers can only stretch the truth and say "not as described" with a graded card with no write-up, but PWCC leaves his company somewhat vulnerable to this because the description is potentially inaccurate advertisement--i.e., not as described.
Additionally I was thinking...Does anyone know for a fact that PWCC did not send this card right to PSA for review before relisting? If PSA reviewed it and gave it the okay, I do not see this as big of a potential problem with the listing since PSA double confirmed it.
If he's honest. When someone spends their money on something, they deserve to know what they're buying. Besides, describing flaws on a card isn't hard to do. It's not like a customer is asking a seller to clean his toilet.
@secretstash I think the card was actually graded by SGC.
I might be the only one here who isn't really seeing anything wrong with this card. That's not a crease or a scratch, it's a line - fairly common on modern foiled stuff.
I assumed the context here was HIGH END. Am I wrong?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
LOL @ the guy saying 'If it's graded a 9 then it's a 9'.
Most sellers wouldn't talk it up, but I also can't remember the last time I saw a 9 or 10 from the big three where an ebay seller described the defects.
Heck, few even describe defects with their raw cards unless "see scan" counts as a description.
Then what is it? To me, the literal definition of a PSA 9 is a card that PSA looked at and holdered with a label with a 9 on it. If the case hasn’t been tampered with, then it remains a PSA 9. You might disagree and think it didn’t DESERVE the 9, but as long as it sits in that holder it is, by definition, a PSA 9 and always will be. And as such, I would sell it as a PSA 9, list that in the title of the listing, provide high res scans, and nothing more.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Humans make mistakes. No matter the profession or the circumstance. To not bring mistakes to light for all is not behaving in good faith.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
If the people saying they don't think the seller should list the flaws of this card had bought it and discovered it had a line, they wouldn't like it either. They can swear up and down that it wouldn't bother them, but it would, and they know it.
It would bother me. And the first thing I would do is go back to the scan (I just did) to see if the line is visible. It is and I’d kick myself for not zooming on the pic, or not sending the seller a question, or not passing altogether. I wouldn’t return it, and I sure as heck wouldn’t say the seller should have disclosed the flaw with anything other than the high res photo already provided. I have bought cards in the past that I was disappointed with when I received them, but in every case I eventually realized I didn’t pay close enough attention to the pics. And besides, why is it so incomprehensible that you can have a disappointed buyer/collector, but at the same time the seller still did nothing “wrong”?? The 2 ideas can coexist.
Now I know nobody will agree with me on this, because defending PWCC at this moment in the hobby is not a popular stance. Just know that I still think they’re reprehensible fraudsters. I just don’t think that this card and the related transactions are an example of said fraud.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
@DBesse27 Moving cards I purchased that I ended up being less than happy with has been my primary use of PWCC for years, precisely because I don’t feel right returning graded cards (which are as described) just because I’m unhappy with them. I always figured with their excellent scans, even if I don’t think a card is a great example, it will bring whatever the market bears. Five people could buy the same card, and three might be perfectly happy with it while the other two wouldn’t be. “Bad example of the grade” is in the eye of the beholder just like “high end.”
@DBesse27
You actually see the line run top to bottom (if at all) in the picture that PWCC uses for the listing on eBay?
I don’t see the whole line, but I see a line, yes.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Precisely!
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
Must be my monitor because I don’t see the line in their pictures. All I see in their picture is some pixelation / cloudiness about where the line is, and a strange white crescent-moon shaped object under Jeter’s throwing hand.
Anyway, current high bid is $2,600 on this SGC 9. I sure hope the winning bidder sees the line on the PWCC pics of this SGC 9 like you see it...
Welcome to the forum.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
You trying to put HGL out of business?
Andy
This