Options
eBay -- "Altered" when sent for Grading
hookem
Posts: 971 ✭✭
Just wondering what people do or what the protocol is when you buy a card from eBay, send it off for grading, and it comes back as "Altered" in some fashion. Do you just take the loss or do you contact the seller about a refund? In my last 3 orders, I have received 4 cards back as altered. Some evidence of trimming, etc.
Also I just noticed that one particular seller does sell graded cards in his mix. Not a huge loss but probably over $150 that I am out over this past year and about 6 total cards.
Also I just noticed that one particular seller does sell graded cards in his mix. Not a huge loss but probably over $150 that I am out over this past year and about 6 total cards.
Hook'em
0
Comments
If less than 45-days have passed, you can file a PayPal SNAD-claim.
If more than 45-days have passed, you can file a credit-card chargeback.
There are some seller defenses to such claims, but they usually fail.
I always thought it was a cause of concern when a seller had both graded and ungraded expensive cards. It's more steep in the long term, but buying a card which has been graded already leaves few(er) suprises.
The link is below. If most feel that I should close the claim due to the listing then I might do that.
eBay Auction Link -- AROD SP
<< <i>The seller never guaranteed it will grade. That was on YOU that you sent it in.....and also PSA has been known the get some of the new cards wrong....straight out of the pack "Evidence of Trimming"..... >>
Good point, that is why I asked here to see what people normally do or think in this situation.
It is a TOS violation to list
"Incorrect or incomplete information in a description."
....................................
toolhaus
.................................................
If the guy thought it would grade, I suspect he might have
gotten it graded. He sells many such raw cards; and, lots of
graded cards, too.
In a PayPal claim, the seller usually does not get the "benefit of the doubt."
.........................
Buying from listings like the one in question is just asking for problems, IMV.
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>It is a TOS violation to list
"Incorrect or incomplete information in a description."
....................................
toolhaus
.................................................
If the guy thought it would grade, I suspect he might have
gotten it graded. He sells many such raw cards; and, lots of
graded cards, too.
In a PayPal claim, the seller usually does not get the "benefit of the doubt."
.........................
Buying from listings like the one in question is just asking for problems, IMV. >>
Thanks for the info and link.
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.
"...If caesarandcleopatra is the seller in question, that's some terrific FB in last 12 mos, only 1 neg in 2276 feedbacks.. .."
///////////////////
True.
But, to me, the responses are problematic and indicate
the true nature of the seller.
Same raw card (note the scratch by Arod's face)
Is he using stock photos? Did you receive the card pictured in your auction?
What am I missing?
However, if someone was wanting a PSA 9 AROD SP Rookie, they should have bought one. You were buying a RAW card and that is what you received. Some could say a SNAD is in order, I do not. What exactly is the SNAD...are they supposed to say, card may be trimmed, it may come back "altered". Ebay jams the decent sellers enough without having them go through the ringer on a sale that was designed by the "Buyer" to get something for less than it should be. Thats the main reason crooks are infesting ebay in bigger percentages than before, the good sellers (Based on high feedback numbers) are finding it too difficult to make a few bucks to even continue.
mike
edit: didn't see the final post - glad to hear it worked out!
<< <i>It is a TOS violation to list "Incorrect or incomplete information in a description." >>
So, storm: if you buy a beautiful automobile from an ebay seller, you enter it in a car show and it doesn't win first place, do you have a right to a refund from the seller? Is that considered "incomplete information" that it wasn't quite good enough to win 1st Prize?
How far do you go with this? How can every ebay card seller be responsible for the outcome of a third party grade submitted by the buyer (unless the seller guarantees it)?
That seems to be patently unfair.
And quite defensible.
Nick
<< <i>
<< <i>It is a TOS violation to list "Incorrect or incomplete information in a description." >>
So, storm: if you buy a beautiful automobile from an ebay seller, you enter it in a car show and it doesn't win first place, do you have a right to a refund from the seller? Is that considered "incomplete information" that it wasn't quite good enough to win 1st Prize?
How far do you go with this? How can every ebay card seller be responsible for the outcome of a third party grade submitted by the buyer (unless the seller guarantees it)?
That seems to be patently unfair.
And quite defensible.
Nick >>
Agreed; I'd put the percentage of graded card listings I see with both a front and back picture at less than 10%. Are they ALL in violation of the TOS?
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
"...So, storm: if you buy a beautiful automobile from an ebay seller, you enter it in a car show and it doesn't win first place, do you have a right to a refund from the seller? Is that considered "incomplete information" that it wasn't quite good enough to win 1st Prize?..."
//////////////
No refund, unless there was a failure to disclose material
info that if known would or might have precluded the buyer
having made the purchase. (APP - linked below - is substantially
different than PayPal Buyer Protection. The APP, in practice,
is VERY limited in its ability to "force" refunds. The APP may
scare some honest sellers, but professional car-hustlers
don't fear it AT ALL.)
It is important not to confuse EBAY/PayPal TOS/Policies with
statutory provisions and/or common law and/or public policy.
Absent a court ruling to the contrary, the companies can do
whatever they want to do in implementing their TOS/Policies.
EBAY Automotive Protection Plan
Depending on the contract terms and the listing details, the
auto buyer may or may not have a claim for damages due to
the car's failure to "win." In any event, it is a "civil matter" -
not an APP issue - and not subject to EBAY/PayPal decisions.
Outside of EBAY, obviously, anybody can sue anybody for any
reason.
Taking PayPal for anything other than a tiny deposit on an EBAY
car sale is NOT a good idea for sellers.
......//////////////////////////////////
..."How far do you go with this? How can every ebay card seller be responsible for the outcome of a third party grade submitted by the buyer (unless the seller guarantees it)?
That seems to be patently unfair.
And quite defensible.
Nick >>
Agreed; I'd put the percentage of graded card listings I see with both a front and back picture at less than 10%. Are they ALL in violation of the TOS?..."
.........................................../////.
No. They are NOT in violation unless EBAY/PP decides that the seller
omitted the back scan for the purpose of hiding a defect that if known
would or might have precluded the purchase of the card.
If there is no problem with the back of a card - as is the case most of
the time - there is no absolute requirement that the back be illustrated.
(Graded coins need to be shown f/b.)
As I have noted - and argued successfully in EBAY/PayPal claims - many
times, some items simply cannot be fit into the PP-definition of SNAD.
A professionally graded item in an untampered holder, is one such item;
provided a buyer cannot convince PP that the true and full nature of the
item was NOT disclosed.
A raw-card that has been altered, even if the alteration is unknown to
the seller at the time of sale, is a SLAM dunk win for a buyer's SNAD-claim,
UNLESS the alteration is revealed in the EBAY listing.
Cards are generally not highly collectible, if they have been altered. The
collector is entitled to know if the card is altered prior to buying it. EBAY
and PayPal will agree with that concept EVERYTIME.
An alteration is a MAJOR defect. It must be disclosed in a PP transaction,
or the seller will lose a SNAD-claim.
The absence of a "guarantee" that the card is unaltered, does not reduce
the burden of the seller to disclose an alteration. If the seller is unaware
of such an alteration, EBAY/PP still will hold against him in a SNAD-claim.
The TOS say that sellers are supposed to KNOW what they are selling.
Weasel words like "see the pretty scan and judge for yourself" will NOT
defeat a SNAD-claim. In fact, to a buyer-friendly PP rep, they usually
are seen as "further evidence" of "deception."
Once the buyer merely claims "deceptive failure to disclose," the seller
is usually cooked.
..............
Fair and unfair are really not considerations in a PP/EBAY controversy.
The companies' aim is to retain ALL buyers; sellers they think they can
do without OR replace.
Thus, disputes as to authenticity/condition will generally be found against
the party deemed to be the greater bearer of sophistication...... the seller.
Knowing this, it is silly not to over-disclose and over-explain and over-illustrate.
...................................
Buyers/Sellers think they have contracts in an EBAY transaction, but
that is only true if both are happy; OR, if one is prepared to look for
a remedy in court.
...............
In general practice, if a seller cannot fit his defense into the PP
definition of what is NOT SNAD, he will lose a SNAD claim:
An item is not Significantly Not as Described if it is materially similar to the seller’s item listing description. Here are some examples:
The defect in the item was correctly described by the seller.
The item was properly described but you didn't want it after you received it.
The item was properly described but did not meet your expectations.
The item has minor scratches and was listed as used condition.
................
I, and most on this Board, count on and respect your opinion.
Nick
If buying a car for $100 and the picture looks great but only shows the driver's side, I'm pretty sure the passenger side has "issues". If I'm buying a graded card and the price, grade, and front image don't add up, I'm assuming "fake" or "backside issues". In neither case has the seller withheld information that deceives me, unless he describes the item in glowing terms that clearly imply the unseen side is OK.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
///////////////////////////
In a PP/EBAY dispute, the filing buyer can use ANY claimed assumption
to support his position. He can even claim that he assumed NOTHING
and simply relied on what was written/illustrated as the FULL story.
Shoppers do not have to have ANY common sense in order to become
valued EBAY buyers. EBAY will always protect such buyers from the
bad acts of sellers.