PSA Mislabels Reprint as Original
SoxPatsFan
Posts: 197 ✭✭✭✭
I've been searching for a 1995 Bowman Foil Nomar Garciaparra PSA 10 since I was outbid on one 2 years ago. It's a pop 6 out of 350+ graded, so I knew it was a longshot that I would come across another. Recently, this one appeared on Ebay, and I noticed the pop had increased to 7. It was priced slightly lower than my bid price from years ago, so I bought it. When I received it, I immediately noticed that it looked more like a Chrome card than a base Bowman. Sure enough, it's from the 1998 Bowman Chrome Reprint series, and not an original 1995 Bowman as it's labeled.
I have several dilemmas. First, this was clearly PSA's fault, not the seller. The seller simply sold it as labeled. I haven't contacted the seller yet about it, but I'd like to know if he submitted it himself or if he bought it already graded.
Also, despite it being wrongly labeled, the actual card would be a pop 1 in the Gem Mint grade. I really like pop 1's from this era, and I'm seriously leaning towards keeping the card and sending it back to PSA for a label correction. However, I have to decide if it's still worth the $75 I paid for it. I'm not sure I would have paid $75 for this card.
If I choose to seek a "not as described" refund, I wonder how Ebay would rule since the seller is clearly not at fault. Unfortunately for me, I only saw this listing on my phone and I missed the "reprint" indication on the back.
Comments
I had pretty good luck recently with PSA fixing one of their mix-ups but it wasn't anything like this. (For me they'd just messed up some scan photos assigned to cards in my Registry). I emailed, but they directed me to file through their new Customer Portal. It took about 2 weeks but they got it sorted. You have to make a report, describe the issue and upload photos. They'll review and get back to you on how it will be fixed.
I recently had a label correction from PSA and it went very smoothly. A card in a recent submission of mine was labeled as a base refractor instead of a gold refractor. PSA customer service was very helpful, and I got the corrected slab back in a few weeks at no cost to me.
What happened to the QA process? My faith in PSA has severely diminished over the past couple of years. Not only are they SLOW and expensive but their graders are just not that good anymore.
Maybe try to fish out an explanation from the seller, ie did they know it was mislabeled etc. Then explain that you still want it and would like to send it back to psa to get fixed yourself and see if you could work out a partial refund to what that particular card is worth with a correct label. The seller might be relieved that you're not sending it back and keeping it.
Requesting a partial refund is against eBay terms, so you will lose the return option if the seller doesn't play ball..
Did that change? I thought you could do a partial refund?
Just another example of sheer grading incompetence. This is getting ridiculous.
I've been in contact with the seller. I asked if he submitted the card himself or if he acquired it already graded and he said he submitted it himself. I was hoping that maybe he submitted a 1995 original along with the reprint and maybe PSA just mixed up the slabs, but that's not the case.
I've decided to keep the card and have PSA fix the label (though I didn't tell the seller that just yet). I also mentioned that I wouldn't have paid full price if I knew it was a reprint (to see if he would offer a partial refund), but he didn't offer.
I'll have to look into the rules regarding partial refund requests. As a seller, I've voluntarily issued many partial refunds for various reasons, but I don't want to violate any rules by asking for one. I can an certainly see, from Ebay's point of view, that allowing buyers to request partial refunds could be a source of abuse as dishonest buyers could make unfair demands for discounts by threatening to cancel a sale altogether, especially in cases where an item's value drops after the sale is complete.
Since the card is "not as described" (item a) and you're interested in the card received (item b), I do not see your communication to the seller of the price you would pay for that card as a violation of terms of service. You're simply negotiating on a different product. If you can't agree, you send the card back.
That's a sense-able way to look at it, but on the other side of the coin it can be viewed as extortion/blackmail.... Hey, you don't give me some money back, I'm gonna open a case, I'm gonna return the card, I'm gonna leave bad feedback. And I'm not saying that one actually says all those things, but that is what can go trough the mind of the seller when a partial refund request is made. eBay just wants to keep it simple and safer for sellers as there are those who would abuse this, fishing for partials on every purchase. When an item is not right, your right as a buyer is you return it for a full refund. It is on the seller to offer alternatives of their own.
If the OP wants to extract a partial, he should open a case for not as described to hopefully further coax a partial offer from the seller. If the buyer still does not get one, then don't escalate the case, or if the seller accepts the return, don't return it and keep the card.
If the email chain via Ebay is:
The card was mislabeled by PSA. It is a 1998 card, not 1995. I wouldn't mind owning a 1998 and my best offer is $xx. If that is acceptable, please let me know and process a credit for $yy. If not, I will initiate the return. Thank you for your consideration.
I don't see how the seller or Ebay could construe that as extortion/blackmail. IMO, the OP has an open and shut "item not as described" case, despite PSA's labeling error, which he has the right to persue.
Did the seller not know it was a reprint and submit it as if it were a 1995 Bowman?
How is the card "not as described"? Isn't it the exact card that was pictured in the auction? Was there hidden damage? If I purchase a stack of collectibles that are certified by the leading third party, and if I go further to go to their verification page and the cert checks out, why should I be liable?
I know you're just playing devil's advocate here, but the listing was for a 1995 Bowman and he got a 1998 Bowman. Yes he got the card that was shown, but he did not get the card that was titled. You can place the fault on anyone you like....except the buyer.
It's the seller's responsibility to send it back to PSA for mech error correction. Not ethical or acceptable to sell based on label/holder if the holder is incorrect.
I decided to return the card. While I would like to keep it because it's a pop 1, the insertion ratio of those reprints and corresponding sale comps of other cards in the set simply lead me to believe it's not worth close to what I paid when I was expecting the original card. If he sends it back and relists the correct card at auction, I'd certainly be open to bidding on it.
He apparently accepts all returns no questions asked because the Ebay return process allowed me to immediately print a return label without the seller having to approve the return.
I'm incredibly disappointed because the actual 1995 Bowman Foil Nomar PSA 10 continues to elude me. I do have a PSA 9 of the gold parallel though.
Only if the seller knows though... For this particular card, you don't know if the seller found the card in a stack of old cards and just looked at the design and year on the back. The reprint info is very small and easy to miss, so I could easily see the seller filling out the submission form as the original card, and likewise the PSA researcher/order inputter missing it too.
Maybe. But he should be told by the buyer who returned it. After that point, it is at least unethical and possibly illegal to sell it as a 1995 if he relists it once he is surely aware of the problem.
I think you handled the situation well. When Topps first started these reprint cards, this situation was predictable.
While he didn't mention how he submitted the card, I'd find it very hard to believe that he knew it was a reprint. He must have though it was the original card and submitted it as such.
I know PSA has had quality control issues lately, but I'd be very surprised if the card was sent to PSA listed as a 1998 reprint on the submission form and PSA disregarded that information and labeled it themselves as an original 1995 card.
I was browsing on ebay and came across https://ebay.com/itm/115418136992, an obvious topps card PSA mislabeled as a Venezuela topps. I asked PSA and they said any buyer would have to contact the auction house or seller. i always thought they were standing behind the card AND the grade. Was I misunderstanding (serious question)
For reasons that I hope would be obvious, PSA doesn't want people to purchase obvious mechanical errors for what the card is worth and then going to them to get the difference in value between the card and the flip.
I'm 99% sure that I found another one of the exact same 1995/1998 Reprint card mislabeled. Here's a new Ebay listing:
And here's a real 1995 Bowman foil Nomar Garciaparra:
I asked the seller to post a photo of the back of the card, but I can tell just by the look of the card that's it's almost certainly the reprint. This one looks like the refractor however, whereas the card I mistakenly purchased in the first post was the base reprint. The actual card is paper with a foil surface from edge to edge, while the reprint is chrome card stock with clear edge borders.
They shouldn't make stuff like this in the first place.
It is a pet peeve of mine when the seller is too lazy to take a picture of the back of the card before listing.
No back, no purchase. If I really want a card I ask and they almost always will post. I have no trouble spending my card budget without buying cards without a back image.