Why is this a bait and switch? Because it shows the former status of the pack? One would think that if they're going to drop at least $500 (at this point) and likely thousands of dollars, that they would read the entire auction description.
Strange, though, that GAI would take the pack out of the case when they requested either a regrading or a simple designation change. That raises a red flag.
Jeff
Collecting Bowman Chrome Phillies Rookie Cards and Mike Schmidt certified auto cards.
Strange, though, that GAI would take the pack out of the case when they requested either a regrading or a simple designation change. That raises a red flag. >>
Give me a break. Look at the two packs. Do they even look similar?
The wrapper on the "non-gai" pack is miscut and the wrapper edge protrudes from the left side. The "gai" pack does not have this type of wrapper and the "non-gai" pack shows no signs that this problem was folded in the GAI holder.
I would never buy this pack unless I had more money than sense and wanted to take a gamble.
This seller is the same one who claimed the "box of packs" was likely from the Mantle series in previous auctions. I wouldn't touch this auction with a thousand foot pole.
Look at the black line seperating the red and green colors on the wrapper. The raw pack has a spot or paper loss on the right side. The GAI pack has a clean black line in the same area. Not the same pack.
from the scans they are not the same pack IN THE SAME CONDITION. one can't see the protruding fold in the gai pack scan.several other differences are apparent so i will suggest the strong possibillity the packs aren't one and the same.
I looked at this auction and it makes no sense at all! why would gai send back a $5000 + pack unholder because you requested to have the pafko stated? why wouldn't they state "pafko on back" ? they do it in every other case . I have seen many 72's noted , I have owned several and most recently I owned the 69 basketball "chamberlain on back" which they put without hesitation. the name is clear so there is no reason gai would not state it! this is a sham , I don't know this guy at all but if he is legit , he is making himself look like a scam artist.
It also make you wonder that the seller had the foresight to scan the pack in the holder before returning it to GAI. But, didn't scan the back in the holder, which is the most important part.
question #1 do you have the cert # when it was graded?
have not heard from GAI but this is what I got from the seller. Sorry, we didn't write down the cert # before we re-submit the pack since we never thought GAI would refused to grade it in the 2nd submission. I will add more pics in the auction description soon. Regards,
follow up question #2 can you elaborate a little more? I don't understand why they refused to grade it? I don't understand why you paid for grading , the pack is authentic and it is not in a holder? thanks
HI, The excuse GAI refused to re-encapsulate the pack again because they said the wrapper of this pack is way off center and they couldn't assign a grade to it after re-consideration during the 2nd submission. We are confused why they assigned a grade to it in the first submission but not the 2nd time as well. However, we know that's only an excuse since we have three other 1952 Topps packs got graded without any troubles but when we asked for a special caption on this pack they just turned 180 degree and became painful to deal with. We think it is all because of business relationship, GAI would just do favour to their business partners and ignore/refuse special requests from collectors who have great items. If I consign this pack to Mastro or Leland and I am sure they can get it graded with caption on the label without any problems. But we are looking for quick fund and don't have time for consignment. Anyways, this pack is still guarantee authentic and so as our other packs. Regards, Pat
follow up question #3 will you be selling the other graded packs?
Sorry, those are not available for sale.
well all seems fishy to me and he has listed these as high # packs before . the main thing I don't understand is that if "you are looking for quick funds" as he stated , why not sell the other packs and get this one back in a holder????
If anyone does go ahead and buy it , let us know . I still don't think it is the same pack, as previously poined out the pack in the holder does not have the flap extending from the side, the ungraded pack has a perfectly flat flap extending out.
<< <i> Subj: RE: Question for seller -- Item #2780395948 Date: 1/13/2004 10:44:11 AM Eastern Standard Time From: "tfever fever" <tfever@hotmail.com> To: johnsnelling@freeadvice.com Cc: tfever@hotmail.com Sent from the Internet (Details)
John, After reading the post u sent me. I can guaranteed the pack is the same pack. I personally didn't scan the back of the pack when it was graded. But my partner did took some pics with his dig camera but they are kind of blurry. I will post them up in the auction description soon. Regards, Pat >>
Looking at the relisted auction, I had a couple of thoughts.
1. The white line visible from the front of the graded pack on the upper left is consistent with where the loose edge would end if it were pressed up against the side of the pack during encapsulation (I thus respectfully disagree with mrc32's opinion on that matter, recognizing that he probably has more experience than I). This speaks to possible legitimacy, since such an edge would be pressed/folded up against the edge of the pack and not free-floating in a holder.
2. Unfortunately, the back of the encapsulated pack does not 100% match the back of the raw pack. They have the same flap, but on the raw pack, the flap beneath the pennant ad extends down and ends just left of the comma following the word "time", covering most of that word. On the graded pack, that flap comes down and covers the "f" in the word "full", a good 3-4 mm to the right of where it was before. If this is the same pack, that certainly makes it look as though it had been tampered with. Not saying it was, but... that's what it looks like.
UnAmuzd1- I certainly am no expert. But just from my perspective:
When you look at the graded pack, there is no miscut left flap. So presumably that miscut or mispackaged flap was tucked into the pack to make it fit in the GAI holder.
If that is true, then look at the non-graded picture which the seller states was taken after it was cracked from the GAI holder. There is no crease or fold on that miscut or mispackaged flap. It is as smooth as a baby's butt. If that edge were folded inside the holder (which it would have had to been to fit) and then taken out, there would have to be a crease or some wear evident. There is not.
Therefore my two cents is that this seller is trying to pull a fast one.
Unamuzd1- welcome to the boards. I haven't seen you post much but you seem quite intelligent and I hope you contribute more!
Ultimately, I agree with you. I guess I had missed the (fairly obvious) assertion by the seller that the picture of the raw pack was taken after it was cracked out. My brain had said, "Well, it certainly could have looked like that" before it went into the GAI holder, and you're absolutely correct - if that left edge had been folded over the way it would have had to be in order to put the white line where it was in the GAI case, there would have been some creasing in the raw pic.
I was convinced enough by the fact that the flap on the back didn't match up, position-wise, from one rear-view to the next, but I can't disagree that they can't be the same pack based on the temporal ordering of the pictures (as reported by the seller) and the lack of creasing on the left edge. Good call.
I only post occasionally - I have this penchant for being too honest with folks, and getting in arguments. But I enjoy reading, and do chime in when I see something that I think I can contribute to without ticking anyone off!
I am always skeptical of sellers that advertise the value of graded cards that could come out of their pack. I know if I was saying a PSA 8 was worth 15k+, I would rather sell the card, why wouldn't they just do a walk-through submission, and sell the cards graded. Certainly the cards are worth more than the pack. IMHO the cards in this pack are crap and he knows it.
I think its the same pack, untampered with. One dead giveaway is the fact that there still is a dimple in the lower right hand corner that would have dissappeared had the pack been opened.
pc
Posts: 743 ✭
Comments
Strange, though, that GAI would take the pack out of the case when they requested either a regrading or a simple designation change. That raises a red flag.
Collecting Bowman Chrome Phillies Rookie Cards and Mike Schmidt certified auto cards.
Strange, though, that GAI would take the pack out of the case when they requested either a regrading or a simple designation change. That raises a red flag. >>
That's the part that sounds fishy.
The wrapper on the "non-gai" pack is miscut and the wrapper edge protrudes from the left side. The "gai" pack does not have this type of wrapper and the "non-gai" pack shows no signs that this problem was folded in the GAI holder.
I would never buy this pack unless I had more money than sense and wanted to take a gamble.
Great eyes Mintstate. This auction is a real scam!
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
<< <i>The raw pack has a spot or paper loss on the right side
Great eyes Mintstate. This auction is a real scam! >>
thats just a light reflection or something.. not paper loss..
one can't see the protruding fold in the gai pack scan.several other differences
are apparent so i will suggest the strong possibillity the packs aren't
one and the same.
My T206 Cleveland Collection
have not heard from GAI but this is what I got from the seller.
Sorry, we didn't write down the cert # before we re-submit the pack since we never thought GAI would refused to grade it in the 2nd submission. I will add more pics in the auction description soon.
Regards,
follow up question #2 can you elaborate a little more? I don't understand why they refused to grade it? I don't understand why you paid for grading , the pack is authentic and it is not in a holder? thanks
HI,
The excuse GAI refused to re-encapsulate the pack again because they said the
wrapper of this pack is way off center and they couldn't assign a grade to it
after re-consideration during the 2nd submission. We are confused why they
assigned a grade to it in the first submission but not the 2nd time as well.
However, we know that's only an excuse since we have three other 1952 Topps packs got
graded without any troubles but when we asked for a special caption on this pack
they just turned 180 degree and became painful to deal with. We think it is all
because of business relationship, GAI would just do favour to their business
partners and ignore/refuse special requests from collectors who have great
items. If I consign this pack to Mastro or Leland and I am sure they can get it graded
with caption on the label without any problems. But we are looking for quick fund
and don't have time for consignment. Anyways, this pack is still guarantee
authentic and so as our other packs.
Regards,
Pat
follow up question #3 will you be selling the other graded packs?
Sorry, those are not available for sale.
well all seems fishy to me and he has listed these as high # packs before . the main thing I don't understand is that if "you are looking for quick funds" as he stated , why not sell the other packs and get this one back in a holder????
If anyone does go ahead and buy it , let us know . I still don't think it is the same pack, as previously poined out the pack in the holder does not have the flap extending from the side, the ungraded pack has a perfectly flat flap extending out.
<< <i>If anyone does go ahead and buy it , let us know . >>
Oh I can't imagine that someone would buy it after reading this thread
<< <i> Subj: RE: Question for seller -- Item #2780395948
Date: 1/13/2004 10:44:11 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: "tfever fever" <tfever@hotmail.com>
To: johnsnelling@freeadvice.com
Cc: tfever@hotmail.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
John,
After reading the post u sent me. I can guaranteed the pack is the same
pack. I personally didn't scan the back of the pack when it was graded.
But my partner did took some pics with his dig camera but they are kind of
blurry. I will post them up in the auction description soon.
Regards,
Pat >>
1. The white line visible from the front of the graded pack on the upper left is consistent with where the loose edge would end if it were pressed up against the side of the pack during encapsulation (I thus respectfully disagree with mrc32's opinion on that matter, recognizing that he probably has more experience than I). This speaks to possible legitimacy, since such an edge would be pressed/folded up against the edge of the pack and not free-floating in a holder.
2. Unfortunately, the back of the encapsulated pack does not 100% match the back of the raw pack. They have the same flap, but on the raw pack, the flap beneath the pennant ad extends down and ends just left of the comma following the word "time", covering most of that word. On the graded pack, that flap comes down and covers the "f" in the word "full", a good 3-4 mm to the right of where it was before. If this is the same pack, that certainly makes it look as though it had been tampered with. Not saying it was, but... that's what it looks like.
Un
I certainly am no expert. But just from my perspective:
When you look at the graded pack, there is no miscut left flap. So presumably that miscut or mispackaged flap was tucked into the pack to make it fit in the GAI holder.
If that is true, then look at the non-graded picture which the seller states was taken after it was cracked from the GAI holder. There is no crease or fold on that miscut or mispackaged flap. It is as smooth as a baby's butt. If that edge were folded inside the holder (which it would have had to been to fit) and then taken out, there would have to be a crease or some wear evident. There is not.
Therefore my two cents is that this seller is trying to pull a fast one.
Unamuzd1- welcome to the boards. I haven't seen you post much but you seem quite intelligent and I hope you contribute more!
Ultimately, I agree with you. I guess I had missed the (fairly obvious) assertion by the seller that the picture of the raw pack was taken after it was cracked out. My brain had said, "Well, it certainly could have looked like that" before it went into the GAI holder, and you're absolutely correct - if that left edge had been folded over the way it would have had to be in order to put the white line where it was in the GAI case, there would have been some creasing in the raw pic.
I was convinced enough by the fact that the flap on the back didn't match up, position-wise, from one rear-view to the next, but I can't disagree that they can't be the same pack based on the temporal ordering of the pictures (as reported by the seller) and the lack of creasing on the left edge. Good call.
I only post occasionally - I have this penchant for being too honest with folks, and getting in arguments.
best wishes,
Un
RobBob
-Ian