I think they are missing something in the description
NGS428
Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭✭✭
Very high and tight…. So bad I had to let the team here know…
Nic
Guides Authored - Graded Card Scanning Guide PDF | History of the PSA Label PDF
1
Comments
This card looks 5% off... size-wise. lol
Great card for the guy trying to finish off his trimmed 1971 Baseball set.
Evening,
As PT or Mark Twain said, "A Fool & His Money Are Soon Parted", Now PSA will get there $50 from some idiot thinking he just scored with an Ungraded NM-MT 8!
YeeHaw!
Neil
Perfectly centered! Superb sheen! Exquisite eye appeal!
You can't tell me Probstein didn't know that card was trimmed.
Has anyone looked at Probstein's feedback lately? Over 225 negatives or neutrals in the last month.
😁
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Well, I guess eBay summed it up for me when I tried to load their negative feedback.
Nic
Guides Authored - Graded Card Scanning Guide PDF | History of the PSA Label PDF
that card is just swimming...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Seems to me his attitude has become "Just give me your money and shut up".
Full disclosure - I Dealt with them 4x in 2021-2022 and had no issues above them taking a few days to ship out the cards. Still between their current feedback and Rick's other shenanigans I will likley add them to my zero tolerance personal ban as I have done with PWCC and several others. BTW I have never once violated my own ban policy.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Won't this card get snagged by the authentication guarantee screening? I think $200 is the limit though I could be wrong.
I don't think there's anything to snag. The seller makes no claims about the card other than that it is a 1971 Topps Clemente, and it is in fact a 1971 Topps Clemente. The authenticators can point out that it's trimmed, but on what basis would that negate the sale? There's also a gum stain on the back that the seller doesn't point out but, like the trimming, it's there to see in the pictures with no attempt to hide it. Sure, the seller is a scumbag, but the buyer is still an idiot, and it's not the authenticators job to decide the buyer paid too much.
I'm pretty sure this could fall under a deceptive listing. It's on the seller to add the card issue in the description to be fully transparent. By not doing so the seller opens himself up to buyer protection.