I'll bet that if Ron had never posted those cards for sale, but instead posted the same scans with the text: "I'm sending these in for grading...should get all 8's, maybe a 9 or 2." Most respondents would say something like, "Great OPC's. Good luck with your sub. Post pics when they return."
Later, Ron edits the post to read: "Grades In." The same respondents would be saying, "You got hosed...Crack and resub...Sorry this happened to you." Such statements show our lack of confidence in PSA's card grading.
Yet, because the incident unfolded in the way it did, many are now saying that PSA's opinion is golden and that Ron obviously misrepresented the cards. I believe that we are caught in the middle of 2 respected Board members on opposite sides of an issue and are forgetting the nature of TPG.
My view is this, if they were 8's or 9's, he would have had them graded himself. Ron buys alot and has alot graded, he knows what's what. I've never dealt with either one of the involved parties.
<< <i>The fact that some have qualifiers doesn't change the grade. An 8 OC is still a nm-mt card.
An 8OC is absolutely not NM/MT. What it means is that the card would be NM/MT if it had better centering. If he requests no qualifiers he gets a 6 on the card. Not to mention that cards with qualifiers usually sell for two grades lower in most cases. >>
What it means is that PSA is not willing to take on the issue of poor centering and other defects. A qualifier is nothing more than a copout. Reguesting NQ does not necessarily mean an 8OC would get a 6. That is up to the grader's discretion. In truth, such a request (for NQ, that is) may be denied by PSA.
<< <i>I have my beer and popcorn ready. Where is Ron?
On another side note, I bought some 1972 Topps raw cards from Brett (ymarea) and submitted 2. They both came back as 9's. Thanks again Brett. >>
9's??? What the heck was I thinking? May I have them back?
Just kidding, Bill. This simply illustrates 2 points that I have tried to make. 1) Card grading is too subjective to expect any consistency, and 2) I value my opinion as much as anyone else's. I considered the cards that I sent to Bill as no better than 8. In this case I would have to say that PSA overgraded them. Either that or I am too strict.
<< <i>OPC cards are a cr@pshoot - like 62's & 71's.
I submitted the card below thinking it would be a 10. I pulled it myself - all 4 original corners are perfect, centering & surface are GEM quality and THE EDGES ARE THE WILDCARD - just loaded with extra fuzz from the rough cut. I was off by 2 grades.
If these were non-rough cuts this might be a fairly objective critique. But these cards sure seem to be graded subjectively (like 62's & 71's) - you get a different grader on a different day and you'd get a different result.
Ron's scans sure look 8-ish to me (thanks to Jim for the link). But who knows what a grader will do with the fuzzy edges?
edit: ignore the dingleberry on the bottom of the reverse - it's on the holder not the card.
>>
A little of topic.. You really think this card has "gem quality" centering? Looks like it was graded proper imo..
Anyways Back on topic.. If A lesser known board member had been the seller or even me for that matter I'm sure Roger would not be catching all the grief he is..
<< <i>The thing about this that I don't understand is that if you realized they weren't in the described condition when you received them, why didn't you contact Ron BEFORE you had them graded rather than wait until after you had them graded? Why waste money to have them graded if you knew they weren't in the condition as described? So you could prove a point?
If it were an eBay purchase and you realized the cards weren't as stated, would you still have them graded or ask for a refund from the seller?
On a side note, I have only had one dealing with Ron and it went very smoothly and the card was exactly as described. >>
USN 1977-1987 * ALL cards are commons unless auto'd. Buying Britneycards. NWO for life.
OPC issues are tough..if you get a grader not familiar with the rough cuts, you can get killed because of it..I've gotten OPC cards come back a 7 and resubmitted them and gotten a 9.
I am wondering if Roger thought the cards were accurately graded or at least in the ballpark when he received them? Personally, I would not have sent in cards that I knew were going to get dogged just to prove a point...sort of like throwing good money after bad, IMO. It'd be pretty apparent if the cards were that far off the mark, I'd think.
Not sure what to think here. Would like to hear what Ron has to say.
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.
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.
This thread is a classic example of the "Good Old Boys" covering each other's backs (for the most part).
Simply put, SELLER offers cards with an implied level of quality. BUYER purchases said cards based upon SELLER'S reputation and standing on the boards (granted it is a small sampling of material purchased). BUYER receives the cards and feels that they are overgraded and submits them anyway. Receiving the grades that are far lower than the SELLER stated, the BUYER posts the transaction.
Had this not been Roger or Ron, most would've followed along, but since it's a buddy, the SELLER gets protection and the BUYER gets blasted.
I've known Roger for over a decade and I've seen him throw away more money than this entire transaction cost him. This, I'm sure was done as a sample to see if he could find another source for raw material. Based upon the results, I'm pretty sure he's given up on that thought.
Ron may have been truthful and honestly believed his grades were accurate. I won't dispute that and only Ron really knows that answer.
I can say with confidence that Roger's post was multi-pronged. It was meant as a warning to other board members about a seller that may overgrade raw cards, but it was also intended to publicly slap Ron. I'm pretty sure Roger did this on principle and really doesn't care about anyone else's thoughts or feelings about him. He's done fine with and without the help of others.
I can't say what the outcome will be, but I'm pretty sure that those that are condemning what Roger did, would've been on board with Roger if they didn't know he was talking about Ron...
The only thing more dangerous than a ticked off Roger is my wife with a zero balance credit card, a bad case of PMS and finding that I've just bought tickets for another 9 Springsteen concerts.
Hopefully this will all work out. Sellers do need to be held accountable on these boards just as buyers should be... Simply treat others the way you want to be treated in a transaction and all will be fine.
<< <i>I have seen Ron post cards(over the last 2 yrs.) that he said were NM come back as 7s, I have seen him post cards as NM that come back as a 6. I have also seen him post scans(58 Topps) stating NM/MT that came back as a 9. I have never bought from him yet but this won't deter me at all from buying from him in the future. The funny thing to me; and maybe I'm wrong was that this was over a $50 lot of cards...LOL. If any of you have a 401K you have lost that much in a matter of seconds this week. I know this has nothing to do with the transaction that took place but c'mon... a $50 lot of 70s OPC. I think this original post was a little overboard. >>
Why on earth would $50 play any part in this situation. I said I wasnt going to post again but this is so ridiculous. People that know me know that I will burn a $50 bill if asked nicely. >>
Hey Roger?? can you please send me 50 bucks??? Please?
"...Is not RonBurgundy saying IF YOU SUBMIT THESE CARDS TO PSA, THEY WILL COME BACK GRADED PSA 8 AND SOME COULD COME BACK GRADED PSA 9? What else could the "...cards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9" mean?
The reference to "NM/MT" could be ambiguous. But when read in context of "a few could go 9", it is clearly a reference to PSA's grading standards. As such, I believe Rogermnj was clearly justified in sending the cards in for grading regardless of his subjective beliefs as to what he thought the cards might grade. '
//////////////////////////////////
Could be defended as simple puffery on the seller's part. Private sale, buyer/seller equally sophisticated, scans, even excessive puffery is likely within bounds.
BUT, the context of the statements is hard to rearrange or deny, and must be given the greatest weight. The ambiguity of puffery is thus largely extinguished.
Clearly, the seller nigh on explicity represented that his opinion was interchangeable with PSA's because the two views would, he implied/claimed, be the same.
The buyer's sophistication does not make him fair game for misrepresentation by his equal, the seller. But, the buyer KNOWS - as do we ALL - that there is NO ability by anybody to "guarantee" what PSA's opinion will be. We can wisely speculate what a prospective slab will be labeled, but we cannot assure that our judgement will be the same as a PSA-grader's will be. The instant buyer/seller know all of this.
I am not looking at the seller's intent, because I have no way to discern it; and, I do not need to know his intent to find the misrepresentation. I can just call it a case of over-lauding gone bad.
Sadly, there is no remedy in the premises. The buyer aggrevated any damages he might have claimed by failing to mitigate the damages he discovered on receipt of the cards. There was an easy and likely obtainable remedy, but the buyer discarded it. Though acting in good faith and within his rights, the buyer willingly abandoned his remedy when he submitted the cards to PSA.
If there is any good outcome, maybe it will have to be that sellers will better understand the dangers of trying to substitute their judgements for those of the TPGs via lingo-filled listings, which in a controversy will always be found to be misreprentations. And, perhaps, buyers will understand that, even on the BST, cautious DD is a good and reasonable thing.
If it makes anybody feel better, during the last year, the sundry TPGs in all disciplines paid out millions in "warranty" claims for having made grading errors. If the "experts" cannot get it right everytime, we should not expect that we can either.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
I only read a little bit of this.. but have to say... I looked at those cards.. and based on the scans.. I feel perfectly comfortable with his nm/mt description... psa has been super tough lately on grades.. and I think all in all.. not counting for centering those are nice looking cards.. tough grades I think
I hope this somehow works out for you one way or the other... I do believe it would have been better to try and work this out with Ron before posting this thread (you should have waited at least a week for a reasonable explanation).
Also, I agree with fellow board member Ymarea (Brett) who wrote:
"If the raw cards appear to have been clearly overgraded by the seller, I will deal directly with him. Under no circumstances will I submit cards which I suspect are substandard, whether or not the seller responds to my concerns."
Roger, in Ron's thread he offered to send the $$ to your favorite charity. I know that money is not the issue, so I'd ask you to please consider this (see below cut and paste) that I posted in Ron's thread as well.
Respectfully,
Mike Navarro
<<
For that reason there will be no refund. But I will be happy to donate an equivalent amount to the charity of Roger's choice if he so chooses, and will be happy to post a copy of the check proving it.
>>
If it comes to this, I would be most appreciative if the donation could be made to the Ellis County Children's Advocacy Center, Inc. It is a local non-profit 501(c)3 that I serve on the board of. We've been in operation since 1999 and provide a place where child victims of severe physical or any sexual assault can come and make their outcry. We have a trained forensic interviewer that interviews the child and gets all the information that the various law enforcement entities will need. This way, the child only has to tell their story one time, and doesn't have to relive their trauma over and over. Before we started the Center, children were sometimes having to tell their story up to 9 different times, and inevitably, a child changes one detail, and a defense attorney jumps all over it and makes issues about the victims character in court, and the perp walks. We are trying to raise funds currently to fund a counselor position so we can make make some services available to children after the original interview as well. It's a great cause and one I believe in. I also serve on the boards of the YMCA and the Salvation Army, if for some reason you didn't want to fund the advocacy center. Anyone reading, can send me a PM and I'll be happy to provide any info you might want if you are considering a donation.
Sorry for the shameless plug, but this is an important cause to me, and I've watched this scenario tonight between Ron and Roger, and thought at a minimum, maybe something good could come out of it afterall.
Comments
On another side note, I bought some 1972 Topps raw cards from Brett (ymarea) and submitted 2. They both came back as 9's. Thanks again Brett.
I'll bet that if Ron had never posted those cards for sale, but instead posted the same scans with the text: "I'm sending these in for grading...should get all 8's, maybe a 9 or 2." Most respondents would say something like, "Great OPC's. Good luck with your sub. Post pics when they return."
Later, Ron edits the post to read: "Grades In." The same respondents would be saying, "You got hosed...Crack and resub...Sorry this happened to you." Such statements show our lack of confidence in PSA's card grading.
Yet, because the incident unfolded in the way it did, many are now saying that PSA's opinion is golden and that Ron obviously misrepresented the cards. I believe that we are caught in the middle of 2 respected Board members on opposite sides of an issue and are forgetting the nature of TPG.
<< <i>The fact that some have qualifiers doesn't change the grade. An 8 OC is still a nm-mt card.
An 8OC is absolutely not NM/MT. What it means is that the card would be NM/MT if it had better centering. If he requests no qualifiers he gets a 6 on the card. Not to mention that cards with qualifiers usually sell for two grades lower in most cases. >>
What it means is that PSA is not willing to take on the issue of poor centering and other defects. A qualifier is nothing more than a copout. Reguesting NQ does not necessarily mean an 8OC would get a 6. That is up to the grader's discretion. In truth, such a request (for NQ, that is) may be denied by PSA.
<< <i>I'm just trying to get to 3000 posts before my grades pop. >>
<< <i>I have my beer and popcorn ready. Where is Ron?
On another side note, I bought some 1972 Topps raw cards from Brett (ymarea) and submitted 2. They both came back as 9's. Thanks again Brett. >>
9's??? What the heck was I thinking? May I have them back?
Just kidding, Bill. This simply illustrates 2 points that I have tried to make. 1) Card grading is too subjective to expect any consistency, and 2) I value my opinion as much as anyone else's. I considered the cards that I sent to Bill as no better than 8. In this case I would have to say that PSA overgraded them. Either that or I am too strict.
<< <i>OPC cards are a cr@pshoot - like 62's & 71's.
I submitted the card below thinking it would be a 10. I pulled it myself - all 4 original corners are perfect, centering & surface are GEM quality and THE EDGES ARE THE WILDCARD - just loaded with extra fuzz from the rough cut. I was off by 2 grades.
If these were non-rough cuts this might be a fairly objective critique. But these cards sure seem to be graded subjectively (like 62's & 71's) - you get a different grader on a different day and you'd get a different result.
Ron's scans sure look 8-ish to me (thanks to Jim for the link). But who knows what a grader will do with the fuzzy edges?
edit: ignore the dingleberry on the bottom of the reverse - it's on the holder not the card.
A little of topic.. You really think this card has "gem quality" centering? Looks like it was graded proper imo..
Anyways Back on topic.. If A lesser known board member had been the seller or even me for that matter I'm sure Roger would not be catching all the grief he is..
BTW, I have a nice PSA 10 Willie McGee rookie for sale.
<< <i>The thing about this that I don't understand is that if you realized they weren't in the described condition when you received them, why didn't you contact Ron BEFORE you had them graded rather than wait until after you had them graded? Why waste money to have them graded if you knew they weren't in the condition as described? So you could prove a point?
If it were an eBay purchase and you realized the cards weren't as stated, would you still have them graded or ask for a refund from the seller?
On a side note, I have only had one dealing with Ron and it went very smoothly and the card was exactly as described. >>
I am wondering if Roger thought the cards were accurately graded or at least in the ballpark when he received them? Personally, I would not have sent in cards that I knew were going to get dogged just to prove a point...sort of like throwing good money after bad, IMO. It'd be pretty apparent if the cards were that far off the mark, I'd think.
Not sure what to think here. Would like to hear what Ron has to say.
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>1988 Donruss Mike Lavalliere >>
per your request:
1996 Select Certified Mirror Gold Ozzie Smith
2006 Bowman Chrome Orange Refractor Chris Carpenter
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 talking to me?
EDIT: Who posted "100"?
Simply put, SELLER offers cards with an implied level of quality. BUYER purchases said cards based upon SELLER'S reputation and standing on the boards (granted it is a small sampling of material purchased). BUYER receives the cards and feels that they are overgraded and submits them anyway. Receiving the grades that are far lower than the SELLER stated, the BUYER posts the transaction.
Had this not been Roger or Ron, most would've followed along, but since it's a buddy, the SELLER gets protection and the BUYER gets blasted.
I've known Roger for over a decade and I've seen him throw away more money than this entire transaction cost him. This, I'm sure was done as a sample to see if he could find another source for raw material. Based upon the results, I'm pretty sure he's given up on that thought.
Ron may have been truthful and honestly believed his grades were accurate. I won't dispute that and only Ron really knows that answer.
I can say with confidence that Roger's post was multi-pronged. It was meant as a warning to other board members about a seller that may overgrade raw cards, but it was also intended to publicly slap Ron. I'm pretty sure Roger did this on principle and really doesn't care about anyone else's thoughts or feelings about him. He's done fine with and without the help of others.
I can't say what the outcome will be, but I'm pretty sure that those that are condemning what Roger did, would've been on board with Roger if they didn't know he was talking about Ron...
The only thing more dangerous than a ticked off Roger is my wife with a zero balance credit card, a bad case of PMS and finding that I've just bought tickets for another 9 Springsteen concerts.
Hopefully this will all work out. Sellers do need to be held accountable on these boards just as buyers should be... Simply treat others the way you want to be treated in a transaction and all will be fine.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have seen Ron post cards(over the last 2 yrs.) that he said were NM come back as 7s, I have seen him post cards as NM that come back as a 6. I have also seen him post scans(58 Topps) stating NM/MT that came back as a 9. I have never bought from him yet but this won't deter me at all from buying from him in the future. The funny thing to me; and maybe I'm wrong was that this was over a $50 lot of cards...LOL. If any of you have a 401K you have lost that much in a matter of seconds this week. I know this has nothing to do with the transaction that took place but c'mon... a $50 lot of 70s OPC. I think this original post was a little overboard. >>
Why on earth would $50 play any part in this situation. I said I wasnt going to post again but this is so ridiculous. People that know me know that I will burn a $50 bill if asked nicely. >>
Hey Roger?? can you please send me 50 bucks??? Please?
The reference to "NM/MT" could be ambiguous. But when read in context of "a few could go 9", it is clearly a reference to PSA's grading standards. As such, I believe Rogermnj was clearly justified in sending the cards in for grading regardless of his subjective beliefs as to what he thought the cards might grade. '
//////////////////////////////////
Could be defended as simple puffery on the seller's part.
Private sale, buyer/seller equally sophisticated, scans,
even excessive puffery is likely within bounds.
BUT, the context of the statements is hard to rearrange
or deny, and must be given the greatest weight. The
ambiguity of puffery is thus largely extinguished.
Clearly, the seller nigh on explicity represented that his
opinion was interchangeable with PSA's because the two
views would, he implied/claimed, be the same.
The buyer's sophistication does not make him fair game
for misrepresentation by his equal, the seller. But, the
buyer KNOWS - as do we ALL - that there is NO ability
by anybody to "guarantee" what PSA's opinion will be.
We can wisely speculate what a prospective slab will
be labeled, but we cannot assure that our judgement
will be the same as a PSA-grader's will be. The instant
buyer/seller know all of this.
I am not looking at the seller's intent, because I have
no way to discern it; and, I do not need to know his
intent to find the misrepresentation. I can just call it
a case of over-lauding gone bad.
Sadly, there is no remedy in the premises. The buyer
aggrevated any damages he might have claimed by
failing to mitigate the damages he discovered on receipt
of the cards. There was an easy and likely obtainable
remedy, but the buyer discarded it. Though acting in
good faith and within his rights, the buyer willingly
abandoned his remedy when he submitted the cards
to PSA.
If there is any good outcome, maybe it will have to be
that sellers will better understand the dangers of trying
to substitute their judgements for those of the TPGs via
lingo-filled listings, which in a controversy will always be
found to be misreprentations. And, perhaps, buyers
will understand that, even on the BST, cautious DD is a
good and reasonable thing.
////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
If it makes anybody feel better, during the last year, the
sundry TPGs in all disciplines paid out millions in "warranty"
claims for having made grading errors. If the "experts"
cannot get it right everytime, we should not expect that
we can either.
I feel perfectly comfortable with his nm/mt description...
psa has been super tough lately on grades.. and I think all in all.. not counting for centering
those are nice looking cards.. tough grades I think
I hope this somehow works out for you one way or the other... I do believe it would have been better to try and work this out with Ron before posting this thread (you should have waited at least a week for a reasonable explanation).
Also, I agree with fellow board member Ymarea (Brett) who wrote:
"If the raw cards appear to have been clearly overgraded by the seller, I will deal directly with him. Under no circumstances will I submit cards which I suspect are substandard, whether or not the seller responds to my concerns."
Best of luck on a compromise,
Mike
Respectfully,
Mike Navarro
<<
For that reason there will be no refund. But I will be happy to donate an equivalent amount to the charity of Roger's choice if he so chooses, and will be happy to post a copy of the check proving it.
>>
If it comes to this, I would be most appreciative if the donation could be made to the Ellis County Children's Advocacy Center, Inc. It is a local non-profit 501(c)3 that I serve on the board of. We've been in operation since 1999 and provide a place where child victims of severe physical or any sexual assault can come and make their outcry. We have a trained forensic interviewer that interviews the child and gets all the information that the various law enforcement entities will need. This way, the child only has to tell their story one time, and doesn't have to relive their trauma over and over. Before we started the Center, children were sometimes having to tell their story up to 9 different times, and inevitably, a child changes one detail, and a defense attorney jumps all over it and makes issues about the victims character in court, and the perp walks. We are trying to raise funds currently to fund a counselor position so we can make make some services available to children after the original interview as well. It's a great cause and one I believe in. I also serve on the boards of the YMCA and the Salvation Army, if for some reason you didn't want to fund the advocacy center. Anyone reading, can send me a PM and I'll be happy to provide any info you might want if you are considering a donation.
Sorry for the shameless plug, but this is an important cause to me, and I've watched this scenario tonight between Ron and Roger, and thought at a minimum, maybe something good could come out of it afterall.
Take care,
Mike Navarro
True Ex/MNt cards can go from 6 to 8 depending on the day.
Steve
The sad thing about this whole situation is BOTH guys are rock solid individuals.
OPC cards are not the easiest cards to pre grade and Ron should have said NM or better.
With that said I don't see all these dinged corners that some have mentioned. I see ruff cuts galore.
And I'll go to my grave saying that cards that are true 6's can be graded as 7, 8 or 9 too.
It is not just a PSA thing either, I had a SGC 6 Mars attacks card that I cracked and submitted raw to PSA come back an 8.
Steve