This is a expensive/educational lesson for the OP, myself I might have missed the card being flipped the wrong way in the slab, but I would not have missed the frosting on the slab. Maybe the OP didn't either and the buyer is pulling a scam, but without a pic of the card previous to the pic that PSA took the OP is sadly out of luck and money.
Hopefully this thread has educated others about looking at the slab and not just the label with a grade.
I keep pics/scans of everything ($20 or more) I sell for at least 3 years before deleting or destroying them.
1 good idea was getting the card autographed w/auto grade and then selling the card and recouping some of the money invested.
The final chapter of this episode is done. Ended up agreeing to refund half the money back with the buyer sending me the card. Received the card a couple of weeks back it looked good measured it to other 68s and it seemed right on the money size wise. So I took the card to the Philly show this last weekend gave it to SGC who was grading on site they looked at it graded it an 88 and so now the card sits in an SGC holder. This was an interesting journey not sure who was trying to do what. PSA sure took a strong stance that the card had been altered yet it looked alright to me in person and it looked good to SGC. OH on a side note I did drop some thing off with PSA and got to meet Carol for a couple of minutes just as nice in person as you might imagine!. Thanks for all the input, Mark
<< <i>The final chapter of this episode is done. Ended up agreeing to refund half the money back with the buyer sending me the card. Received the card a couple of weeks back it looked good measured it to other 68s and it seemed right on the money size wise. So I took the card to the Philly show this last weekend gave it to SGC who was grading on site they looked at it graded it an 88 and so now the card sits in an SGC holder. This was an interesting journey not sure who was trying to do what. PSA sure took a strong stance that the card had been altered yet it looked alright to me in person and it looked good to SGC. OH on a side note I did drop some thing off with PSA and got to meet Carol for a couple of minutes just as nice in person as you might imagine!. Thanks for all the input, Mark >>
Wow, so maybe it was just a crappy case? The reverse slabbing happens ALL the time (vintage and modern), I'm sure it happens less with such iconic cards but I wouldn't count that in the 'it's a fake slab' column. Now that it's in a SGC holder you should sub it back to PSA to get your 8 back.
<< <i>.........Ended up agreeing to refund half the money back with the buyer sending me the card................ >>
Are you saying that you got the "trimmed" card back (which is now an SGC 88) and only had to refund the buyer half of what he paid? If I'm reading that right you got $500 from the buyer for nothing, and now have an SGC 88 to sell. Do I have that right?
You're missing the point that if the buyer only got half refunded to him, then the buyer gave the OP $500 for nothing, and now the OP has a sale-able card (and $500 from the buyer).
<< <i>You're missing the point that if the buyer only got half refunded to him, then the buyer gave the OP $500 for nothing, and now the OP has a sale-able card (and $500 from the buyer). >>
That appears to be the deal they both made.
Of course the OP could have just has SGC turn it down also and be out another $10 or whatever.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
That is exactly what happened. The buyer had the option to try to put the card back into a slab opted to take half money and send the card back. I believe PSA had him total convinced that the card was altered/trimmed. In conversation with PSA they had me convinced that something had happened to the card. Once I had card in hand I started to wonder hence the trip to Philly and a visit to SGC booth.
<< <i>You're missing the point that if the buyer only got half refunded to him, then the buyer gave the OP $500 for nothing, and now the OP has a sale-able card (and $500 from the buyer). >>
That appears to be the deal they both made.
Of course the OP could have just has SGC turn it down also and be out another $10 or whatever. >>
Seems to me the OP should further reimburse the customer upon selling the newley graded SGC card. I understand NAM's point totally. Why should the OP's original customer be out half on a card that now sits in an SGC 88 holder? At the VERY least, this card should be offered back to that customer for the money he was reimbursed....if he refuses that deal, perhaps thats the end of it. The customer wound up on the short end of the stick IMO.
And then if it gets regraded an 8.5, should the second time buyer and one time seller, refund part of the refund of the refund?
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
And then if it gets regraded an 8.5, should the second time buyer and one time seller, refund part of the refund of the refund? >>
The buyer didnt get a full refund......on a FULL REFUND, the buyer has no further claim. What the buyer DID get was about $500 lighter in the wallet with not a thing to show for it. The OP got the buyer's $500 cash AND basically the exact same equitable card. If thats how the OP wants to run his business, i'll be sure to steer clear of him. If the OP wants to do the right thing, he will make the buyer whole again by either offering him the newley graded card for the amount that was refunded to him, OR by settling in cash the remainder of what the buyer lost upon the sale of the SGC 88 card.
The OP agreed to refund half the $ to the buyer before SGC slabbed it, so he kept half the money, but all the risk that the card would never grade again. The possibility that it would grade with another company was always an option for the buyer, who chose not to pursue it. His loss.
And then if it gets regraded an 8.5, should the second time buyer and one time seller, refund part of the refund of the refund? >>
The buyer didnt get a full refund......on a FULL REFUND, the buyer has no further claim. What the buyer DID get was about $500 lighter in the wallet with not a thing to show for it. The OP got the buyer's $500 cash AND basically the exact same equitable card. If thats how the OP wants to run his business, i'll be sure to steer clear of him. If the OP wants to do the right thing, he will make the buyer whole again by either offering him the newley graded card for the amount that was refunded to him, OR by settling in cash the remainder of what the buyer lost upon the sale of the SGC 88 card. >>
I dont imagine the OP cares if you stay clear of him...I have had you blocked from my auctions remember. You are an idiot that said you would leave a negative over $0.50. You have showed us repeatedly, you have no clue to reality.
This is simple. There was two sales we know of. The sales were complete. The OP was doing good taking back a card after almost six months. The OP does not owe the previous buyer and one time seller of the card anything, just as he doesnt owe the seller he originally got the card from anything, or Topps, or the heirs of the player. Two flips and over six months ago, is just that.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The final chapter of this episode is done. Ended up agreeing to refund half the money back with the buyer sending me the card. Received the card a couple of weeks back it looked good measured it to other 68s and it seemed right on the money size wise. So I took the card to the Philly show this last weekend gave it to SGC who was grading on site they looked at it graded it an 88 and so now the card sits in an SGC holder. This was an interesting journey not sure who was trying to do what. PSA sure took a strong stance that the card had been altered yet it looked alright to me in person and it looked good to SGC. OH on a side note I did drop some thing off with PSA and got to meet Carol for a couple of minutes just as nice in person as you might imagine!. Thanks for all the input, Mark >>
I wonder if I could get a list of card dealers that will back a card, through multiple changes in hands, in and out a slab case and over an unlimited period of time?
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The OP agreed to refund half the $ to the buyer before SGC slabbed it, so he kept half the money, but all the risk that the card would never grade again. The possibility that it would grade with another company was always an option for the buyer, who chose not to pursue it. His loss. >>
If the OP agreed to refund half to the buyer, and the buyer kept the card this would be a non issue.
Why exactly should the buyer be out $500 with nothing to show for the $500? When the buyer returned the seller's card he should have been made whole, not made half.
<< <i>The OP agreed to refund half the $ to the buyer before SGC slabbed it, so he kept half the money, but all the risk that the card would never grade again. The possibility that it would grade with another company was always an option for the buyer, who chose not to pursue it. His loss. >>
You buy a card from me.....find out its been tampered with per PSA......ask for your money back. I tell you that you get 1/2 your money back, then I go get it slabbed by another service at about the same level of value it was when you bought it and I get to pocket your $500 and keep the card. You get nothing but $500 taken from you. Excellent deal huh?
I don't sell much so I may see things more from a buyers perspective. Seems to me the buyer got screwed big time. It may not have been deliberate or malicious but he is out $500 for nothing. Honorable thing to do in my opinion is let him know what happened and offer it back to him for the $500 he was refunded.
<< <i>I don't sell much so I may see things more from a buyers perspective. Seems to me the buyer got screwed big time. It may not have been deliberate or malicious but he is out $500 for nothing. Honorable thing to do in my opinion is let him know what happened and offer it back to him for the $500 he was refunded. >>
Or send him the rest of the refund.
And you are right Ralph, the buyer got screwed. The seller is whole once again, but the buyer is not.
<< <i>The OP agreed to refund half the $ to the buyer before SGC slabbed it, so he kept half the money, but all the risk that the card would never grade again. The possibility that it would grade with another company was always an option for the buyer, who chose not to pursue it. His loss. >>
If the OP agreed to refund half to the buyer, and the buyer kept the card this would be a non issue.
Why exactly should the buyer be out $500 with nothing to show for the $500? When the buyer returned the seller's card he should have been made whole, not made half. >>
But the OP was damaged here as well. Since prior to the sale the OP had a PSA 8 Ryan rookie, he shouldn't be left with half value simply because the buyer tried to get the half grade bump several months later and it didn't work out. And when the 50/50 deal was made, the buyer thought he was leaving the seller with $500 and a worthless trimmed card. Now that SGC has graded it, I'd have no problem if the OP sent the buyer the other half of the refund. But it's not required, in my opinion. It was the buyer who ruined the OP's PSA 8 (albeit unintentionally), decided against a second opinion, and left the OP with 100% of the risk that the card would ever grade again. That's how I see it anyway.
"...Why exactly should the buyer be out $500 with nothing to show for the $500? When the buyer returned the seller's card he should have been made whole, not made half...."
It's prolly a little more complicated than that, but not too much so.
The greater bearer of sophistication always has an edge.
Here, we had the lesser-bearer of knowledge/sophistication relying on PSA's "opinion," and that reliance undoubtedly deterred him from taking a chance on a 100% loss; he "chose" the 50% loss. He made a poor decision.
...........................
As a buyer..........
Since I believe/KNOW the "six months passed" defense is TOTALLY bogus, I would have taken a different route to obtain a full refund; or, I would have cut a similar/richer settlement AND kept the card.
As a seller.........
I would have cut the best deal I could, if I sensed the buyer was ready to quit fighting....and, I had no fear of harming my reputation. That seems to be what the OP did.
If the OP had a good-faith suspicion that the buyer was a possible scammer, allegations that the OP acted improperly are somewhat mitigated against. If no such suspicion was held, his actions seem to have been improper, when viewed thru the "ethical" scope.
BUT, biz decisions are seldom about ethics. And, it is NOT unethical to "know" more than your counterparty.
<< <i>I wonder if I could get a list of card dealers that will back a card, through multiple changes in hands, in and out a slab case and over an unlimited period of time? >>
//////////////////////////
But, there were not "multiple changes in hands."
The complaining buyer was the OP's original buyer.
.....................
Cards slabbed in "untampered" slabs are presumed to be warranted for "an unlimited period of time."
PSA says that there was a "problem" with the card/slab; six-months after the OP sold the card.
Unless the buyer was a crook, he was a victim. Since the OP can't prove the buyer was a crook, his status as a victim is pretty safe.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
Ok, maybe not multiple changing hands, but we know, that the buyer handled it, that PSA handled it, that the seller handled it again, and that SGC handled it. It is was not the same card each time. We do not know if the buyer had others look at it, tried to sell it or the like...six months does matter. As a buyer, you buy a card, you should like it or not like it.
Again, what happens if the OP refunds some money or the card to the buyer, and it gets regraded...and this time is EOT? or comes back 8.5? By the logic the seller owes in this case, one has to keep changing funds to make all parties equal.
When the buyer resold the card...it became a different transaction.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
The OP owes the buyer nothing. The seller was nice enough to give the buyer half a refund WITHOUT getting back his slab. If that were me, the buyer wouldve been out of luck. When you return a item back to the seller, the item needs to be in the exact same condition as when the buyer received it. SGC and PSA had different opinions on the card but it was PSA who took the slab from the buyer. So if anyone owes any money to the buyer, it is PSA.
The OP owes the buyer nothing. The seller was nice enough to give the buyer half a refund WITHOUT getting back his slab. If that were me, the buyer wouldve been out of luck. When you return a item back to the seller, the item needs to be in the exact same condition as when the buyer received it. SGC and PSA had different opinions on the card but it was PSA who took the slab from the buyer. So if anyone owes any money to the buyer, it is PSA. >>
The "owes" the buyer nothing notion is arguably correct. My harsh/corrupt side tends to agree with that position, but if I was the buyer I would likely have a different view.
The notion that the item needs to be "in the exact same condition" is incorrect in many circumstances.
If this was a PayPal transaction - and the buyer had met the 45-day limit - the OP would have only a slight chance of getting the card back AND no chance of getting the slab back; but would still be forced to issue a FULL refund. The same is true with MOST credit-card transactions, if the "victim" knows how to state his claim correctly AND charms the CS person.
The OP and the buyer reached a "settlement agreement."
Valid settlements are reached when the folks involved negotiate in good-faith. Part of good-faith is "honesty" that hinges on both folks telling the "truth" to each other.
I think the OP was prolly pretty "honest" with the buyer, but if I was the buyer I could make both an equity and legal argument that he was not. Dishonesty will often void a settlement, if the complainant can show that he relied on the "dishonesty" as tho it were true AND based his settlement decision on that reliance.
Most ALL of the currently most famous facebook lawsuit is based on an allegation that during a PREVIOUS "settlement negotiation," the Def was "dishonest." The suit simply asks that the settlement be set aside AND that the Def pay statutory multiple-damages for causing the Pltf to rely on the dishonesty when he decided to "settle."
If, for example, the OP had already gotten the subject card into an SGC holder when he "negotiated" the settlement with his buyer, the OP would have been engaged in "dishonesty." There is no proof here to show that was the case.
.........
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
The OP owes the buyer nothing. The seller was nice enough to give the buyer half a refund WITHOUT getting back his slab. If that were me, the buyer wouldve been out of luck. When you return a item back to the seller, the item needs to be in the exact same condition as when the buyer received it. SGC and PSA had different opinions on the card but it was PSA who took the slab from the buyer. So if anyone owes any money to the buyer, it is PSA. >>
The "owes" the buyer nothing notion is arguably correct. My harsh/corrupt side tends to agree with that position, but if I was the buyer I would likely have a different view.
The notion that the item needs to be "in the exact same condition" is incorrect in many circumstances.
If this was a PayPal transaction - and the buyer had met the 45-day limit - the OP would have only a slight chance of getting the card back AND no chance of getting the slab back; but would still be forced to issue a FULL refund. The same is true with MOST credit-card transactions, if the "victim" knows how to state his claim correctly AND charms the CS person.
The OP and the buyer reached a "settlement agreement."
Valid settlements are reached when the folks involved negotiate in good-faith. Part of good-faith is "honesty" that hinges on both folks telling the "truth" to each other.
I think the OP was prolly pretty "honest" with the buyer, but if I was the buyer I could make both an equity and legal argument that he was not. Dishonesty will often void a settlement, if the complainant can show that he relied on the "dishonesty" as tho it were true AND based his settlement decision on that reliance.
Most ALL of the currently most famous facebook lawsuit is based on an allegation that during a PREVIOUS "settlement negotiation," the Def was "dishonest." The suit simply asks that the settlement be set aside AND that the Def pay statutory multiple-damages for causing the Pltf to rely on the dishonesty when he decided to "settle."
If, for example, the OP had already gotten the subject card into an SGC holder when he "negotiated" the settlement with his buyer, the OP would have been engaged in "dishonesty." There is no proof here to show that was the case.
......... >>
I dont think anyone is challenging the OP's honesty during the situation. I tend to believe that what happened was between 2 very honest people. I think its simply a horrible circumstance. Prior to the transaction, the customer had $1,000 in cash, and the seller had a $1,000 value card. Post transaction, the buyer has $500 in cash, and the seller has the same $1,000 value card PLUS the customer's other $500. Because the seller didnt crack out and submit.....he brought the entire card/slab assembly to PSA......he obviously did NOT want to assume any risk of a non grade. Sure, he was looking for a bump, but not if it meant any risk (other than the grading fee). However, PSA gave him no option as THEY cracked out the card without his consent or approval. In the end, the seller was not financially harmed....in fact, he stands to make an additional $500 on the very same card he already sold once. The buyer has nothing....no EOT card, not even pieces of a slab....nothing, but $500 less than he once had. I would be very uneasy making any purchases from the OP not because of dishonesty, but rather his unwillingness to back his material 100% EVEN if it wont cost him a single dime to do so in this case.
<< <i>I dont think anyone is challenging the OP's honesty during the situation. I tend to believe that what happened was between 2 very honest people. I think its simply a horrible circumstance. Prior to the transaction, the customer had $1,000 in cash, and the seller had a $1,000 value card. Post transaction, the buyer has $500 in cash, and the seller has the same $1,000 value card PLUS the customer's other $500. Because the seller didnt crack out and submit.....he brought the entire card/slab assembly to PSA......he obviously did NOT want to assume any risk of a non grade. Sure, he was looking for a bump, but not if it meant any risk (other than the grading fee). However, PSA gave him no option as THEY cracked out the card without his consent or approval. In the end, the seller was not financially harmed....in fact, he stands to make an additional $500 on the very same card he already sold once. The buyer has nothing....no EOT card, not even pieces of a slab....nothing, but $500 less than he once had. I would be very uneasy making any purchases from the OP not because of dishonesty, but rather his unwillingness to back his material 100% EVEN if it wont cost him a single dime to do so in this case. >>
1) Post transaction - OP did not have same $1k value card plus $500. PSA's opinion was EOT, which technically made the value significantly less.
2) If PSA did crack without permission, that's their fault and responsibility, something the buyer should deal with, not OP's.
3) OP and buyer negotiated and settled up. That transaction was over.
IMO - OP doesn't have legal or moral obligation to refund the Buyer. The card "could" still be trimmed, it's all a matter of opinions at this point. What if the OP gives a refund, tries to cross over back to PSA, and it comes back EOT? When would the refunds end?
If the OP refunded money back to the seller, he would go up a notch in my book. Having said that, if he doesn't, wouldn't make a difference to me.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Comments
Hopefully this thread has educated others about looking at the slab and not just the label with a grade.
I keep pics/scans of everything ($20 or more) I sell for at least 3 years before deleting or destroying them.
1 good idea was getting the card autographed w/auto grade and then selling the card and recouping some of the money invested.
just my 2 cents
<< <i>The final chapter of this episode is done. Ended up agreeing to refund half the money back with the buyer sending me the card. Received the card a couple of weeks back it looked good measured it to other 68s and it seemed right on the money size wise. So I took the card to the Philly show this last weekend gave it to SGC who was grading on site they looked at it graded it an 88 and so now the card sits in an SGC holder. This was an interesting journey not sure who was trying to do what. PSA sure took a strong stance that the card had been altered yet it looked alright to me in person and it looked good to SGC. OH on a side note I did drop some thing off with PSA and got to meet Carol for a couple of minutes just as nice in person as you might imagine!. Thanks for all the input, Mark >>
Wow, so maybe it was just a crappy case? The reverse slabbing happens ALL the time (vintage and modern), I'm sure it happens less with such iconic cards but I wouldn't count that in the 'it's a fake slab' column. Now that it's in a SGC holder you should sub it back to PSA to get your 8 back.
<< <i>.........Ended up agreeing to refund half the money back with the buyer sending me the card................ >>
Are you saying that you got the "trimmed" card back (which is now an SGC 88) and only had to refund the buyer half of what he paid? If I'm reading that right you got $500 from the buyer for nothing, and now have an SGC 88 to sell. Do I have that right?
sheeshh...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>Maybe the card was not trimmed after all...... >>
Exactly, hence my quotation arks around the word trimmed.
<< <i>
<< <i>Maybe the card was not trimmed after all...... >>
Exactly, hence my quotation arks around the word trimmed. >>
comment was meant for the crowd not you, sorry if you took it that way...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>You're missing the point that if the buyer only got half refunded to him, then the buyer gave the OP $500 for nothing, and now the OP has a sale-able card (and $500 from the buyer). >>
That appears to be the deal they both made.
Of course the OP could have just has SGC turn it down also and be out another $10 or whatever.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>You're missing the point that if the buyer only got half refunded to him, then the buyer gave the OP $500 for nothing, and now the OP has a sale-able card (and $500 from the buyer). >>
That appears to be the deal they both made.
Of course the OP could have just has SGC turn it down also and be out another $10 or whatever. >>
Seems to me the OP should further reimburse the customer upon selling the newley graded SGC card. I understand NAM's point totally. Why should the OP's original customer be out half on a card that now sits in an SGC 88 holder? At the VERY least, this card should be offered back to that customer for the money he was reimbursed....if he refuses that deal, perhaps thats the end of it. The customer wound up on the short end of the stick IMO.
And then if it gets regraded an 8.5, should the second time buyer and one time seller, refund part of the refund of the refund?
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Get real Gecko.
And then if it gets regraded an 8.5, should the second time buyer and one time seller, refund part of the refund of the refund? >>
The buyer didnt get a full refund......on a FULL REFUND, the buyer has no further claim. What the buyer DID get was about $500 lighter in the wallet with not a thing to show for it. The OP got the buyer's $500 cash AND basically the exact same equitable card. If thats how the OP wants to run his business, i'll be sure to steer clear of him. If the OP wants to do the right thing, he will make the buyer whole again by either offering him the newley graded card for the amount that was refunded to him, OR by settling in cash the remainder of what the buyer lost upon the sale of the SGC 88 card.
The possibility that it would grade with another company was always an option for the buyer, who chose not to pursue it. His loss.
I hope the seller made out based on all the hoops he had to jump through...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>
<< <i>Get real Gecko.
And then if it gets regraded an 8.5, should the second time buyer and one time seller, refund part of the refund of the refund? >>
The buyer didnt get a full refund......on a FULL REFUND, the buyer has no further claim. What the buyer DID get was about $500 lighter in the wallet with not a thing to show for it. The OP got the buyer's $500 cash AND basically the exact same equitable card. If thats how the OP wants to run his business, i'll be sure to steer clear of him. If the OP wants to do the right thing, he will make the buyer whole again by either offering him the newley graded card for the amount that was refunded to him, OR by settling in cash the remainder of what the buyer lost upon the sale of the SGC 88 card. >>
I dont imagine the OP cares if you stay clear of him...I have had you blocked from my auctions remember. You are an idiot that said you would leave a negative over $0.50. You have showed us repeatedly, you have no clue to reality.
This is simple. There was two sales we know of. The sales were complete. The OP was doing good taking back a card after almost six months. The OP does not owe the previous buyer and one time seller of the card anything, just as he doesnt owe the seller he originally got the card from anything, or Topps, or the heirs of the player. Two flips and over six months ago, is just that.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The final chapter of this episode is done. Ended up agreeing to refund half the money back with the buyer sending me the card. Received the card a couple of weeks back it looked good measured it to other 68s and it seemed right on the money size wise. So I took the card to the Philly show this last weekend gave it to SGC who was grading on site they looked at it graded it an 88 and so now the card sits in an SGC holder. This was an interesting journey not sure who was trying to do what. PSA sure took a strong stance that the card had been altered yet it looked alright to me in person and it looked good to SGC. OH on a side note I did drop some thing off with PSA and got to meet Carol for a couple of minutes just as nice in person as you might imagine!. Thanks for all the input, Mark >>
WOW
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The OP agreed to refund half the $ to the buyer before SGC slabbed it, so he kept half the money, but all the risk that the card would never grade again.
The possibility that it would grade with another company was always an option for the buyer, who chose not to pursue it. His loss. >>
If the OP agreed to refund half to the buyer, and the buyer kept the card this would be a non issue.
Why exactly should the buyer be out $500 with nothing to show for the $500? When the buyer returned the seller's card he should have been made whole, not made half.
<< <i>The OP agreed to refund half the $ to the buyer before SGC slabbed it, so he kept half the money, but all the risk that the card would never grade again.
The possibility that it would grade with another company was always an option for the buyer, who chose not to pursue it. His loss. >>
You buy a card from me.....find out its been tampered with per PSA......ask for your money back. I tell you that you get 1/2 your money back, then I go get it slabbed by another service at about the same level of value it was when you bought it and I get to pocket your $500 and keep the card. You get nothing but $500 taken from you. Excellent deal huh?
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>I don't sell much so I may see things more from a buyers perspective. Seems to me the buyer got screwed big time. It may not have been deliberate or malicious but he is out $500 for nothing. Honorable thing to do in my opinion is let him know what happened and offer it back to him for the $500 he was refunded. >>
Or send him the rest of the refund.
And you are right Ralph, the buyer got screwed. The seller is whole once again, but the buyer is not.
<< <i>
<< <i>The OP agreed to refund half the $ to the buyer before SGC slabbed it, so he kept half the money, but all the risk that the card would never grade again.
The possibility that it would grade with another company was always an option for the buyer, who chose not to pursue it. His loss. >>
If the OP agreed to refund half to the buyer, and the buyer kept the card this would be a non issue.
Why exactly should the buyer be out $500 with nothing to show for the $500? When the buyer returned the seller's card he should have been made whole, not made half. >>
But the OP was damaged here as well. Since prior to the sale the OP had a PSA 8 Ryan rookie, he shouldn't be left with half value simply because the buyer tried to get the half grade bump several months later and it didn't work out. And when the 50/50 deal was made, the buyer thought he was leaving the seller with $500 and a worthless trimmed card.
Now that SGC has graded it, I'd have no problem if the OP sent the buyer the other half of the refund. But it's not required, in my opinion. It was the buyer who ruined the OP's PSA 8 (albeit unintentionally), decided against a second opinion, and left the OP with 100% of the risk that the card would ever grade again.
That's how I see it anyway.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It's prolly a little more complicated than that, but not too much so.
The greater bearer of sophistication always has an edge.
Here, we had the lesser-bearer of knowledge/sophistication
relying on PSA's "opinion," and that reliance undoubtedly
deterred him from taking a chance on a 100% loss; he
"chose" the 50% loss. He made a poor decision.
...........................
As a buyer..........
Since I believe/KNOW the "six months passed" defense is
TOTALLY bogus, I would have taken a different route to
obtain a full refund; or, I would have cut a similar/richer
settlement AND kept the card.
As a seller.........
I would have cut the best deal I could, if I sensed the buyer
was ready to quit fighting....and, I had no fear of harming
my reputation. That seems to be what the OP did.
If the OP had a good-faith suspicion that the buyer was a
possible scammer, allegations that the OP acted improperly are
somewhat mitigated against. If no such suspicion was held,
his actions seem to have been improper, when viewed thru
the "ethical" scope.
BUT, biz decisions are seldom about ethics. And, it is NOT
unethical to "know" more than your counterparty.
...............................................................................
Folks who believe that PSA was "wrong" in their opinion, have
only a 50% chance of being correct.
The issue of correct/wrong, obviously, becomes moot when such
a card makes it back into a reputable/marketable slab.
....................................
It's an interesting case and the outcome was not "terrible" for
the buyer, tho it was not nearly as good for the buyer as it was
for the seller.
"Buyer Beware" is a good motto in ALL transactions.
<< <i>I wonder if I could get a list of card dealers that will back a card, through multiple changes in hands, in and out a slab case and over an unlimited period of time? >>
//////////////////////////
But, there were not "multiple changes in hands."
The complaining buyer was the OP's original buyer.
.....................
Cards slabbed in "untampered" slabs are presumed to
be warranted for "an unlimited period of time."
PSA says that there was a "problem" with the card/slab;
six-months after the OP sold the card.
Unless the buyer was a crook, he was a victim. Since
the OP can't prove the buyer was a crook, his status
as a victim is pretty safe.
Again, what happens if the OP refunds some money or the card to the buyer, and it gets regraded...and this time is EOT? or comes back 8.5? By the logic the seller owes in this case, one has to keep changing funds to make all parties equal.
When the buyer resold the card...it became a different transaction.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
The OP owes the buyer nothing. The seller was nice enough to give the buyer half a refund WITHOUT getting back his slab. If that were me, the buyer wouldve been out of luck. When you return a item back to the seller, the item needs to be in the exact same condition as when the buyer received it. SGC and PSA had different opinions on the card but it was PSA who took the slab from the buyer. So if anyone owes any money to the buyer, it is PSA.
<< <i>When the buyer returned the seller's card he should have been made whole, not made half. >>
I agree, however, that was not the deal the two of them agreed to. (for reasons already mentioned)
If it was me I'd send the buyer more dough upon any subsequent sale.
As it stands now a deal is a deal.
Steve
<< <i>Lol.
The OP owes the buyer nothing. The seller was nice enough to give the buyer half a refund WITHOUT getting back his slab. If that were me, the buyer wouldve been out of luck. When you return a item back to the seller, the item needs to be in the exact same condition as when the buyer received it. SGC and PSA had different opinions on the card but it was PSA who took the slab from the buyer. So if anyone owes any money to the buyer, it is PSA. >>
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The "owes" the buyer nothing notion is arguably correct.
My harsh/corrupt side tends to agree with that position,
but if I was the buyer I would likely have a different view.
The notion that the item needs to be "in the exact same
condition" is incorrect in many circumstances.
If this was a PayPal transaction - and the buyer had met the
45-day limit - the OP would have only a slight chance of
getting the card back AND no chance of getting the slab
back; but would still be forced to issue a FULL refund.
The same is true with MOST credit-card transactions, if
the "victim" knows how to state his claim correctly AND
charms the CS person.
......................................................................
The OP and the buyer reached a "settlement agreement."
Valid settlements are reached when the folks involved
negotiate in good-faith. Part of good-faith is "honesty"
that hinges on both folks telling the "truth" to each other.
I think the OP was prolly pretty "honest" with the buyer,
but if I was the buyer I could make both an equity and
legal argument that he was not. Dishonesty will often
void a settlement, if the complainant can show that he
relied on the "dishonesty" as tho it were true AND based
his settlement decision on that reliance.
Most ALL of the currently most famous facebook lawsuit is based
on an allegation that during a PREVIOUS "settlement negotiation,"
the Def was "dishonest." The suit simply asks that the settlement
be set aside AND that the Def pay statutory multiple-damages for
causing the Pltf to rely on the dishonesty when he decided to "settle."
facebook settlement
If, for example, the OP had already gotten the subject card into
an SGC holder when he "negotiated" the settlement with his
buyer, the OP would have been engaged in "dishonesty." There
is no proof here to show that was the case.
.........
<< <i>
<< <i>Lol.
The OP owes the buyer nothing. The seller was nice enough to give the buyer half a refund WITHOUT getting back his slab. If that were me, the buyer wouldve been out of luck. When you return a item back to the seller, the item needs to be in the exact same condition as when the buyer received it. SGC and PSA had different opinions on the card but it was PSA who took the slab from the buyer. So if anyone owes any money to the buyer, it is PSA. >>
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The "owes" the buyer nothing notion is arguably correct.
My harsh/corrupt side tends to agree with that position,
but if I was the buyer I would likely have a different view.
The notion that the item needs to be "in the exact same
condition" is incorrect in many circumstances.
If this was a PayPal transaction - and the buyer had met the
45-day limit - the OP would have only a slight chance of
getting the card back AND no chance of getting the slab
back; but would still be forced to issue a FULL refund.
The same is true with MOST credit-card transactions, if
the "victim" knows how to state his claim correctly AND
charms the CS person.
......................................................................
The OP and the buyer reached a "settlement agreement."
Valid settlements are reached when the folks involved
negotiate in good-faith. Part of good-faith is "honesty"
that hinges on both folks telling the "truth" to each other.
I think the OP was prolly pretty "honest" with the buyer,
but if I was the buyer I could make both an equity and
legal argument that he was not. Dishonesty will often
void a settlement, if the complainant can show that he
relied on the "dishonesty" as tho it were true AND based
his settlement decision on that reliance.
Most ALL of the currently most famous facebook lawsuit is based
on an allegation that during a PREVIOUS "settlement negotiation,"
the Def was "dishonest." The suit simply asks that the settlement
be set aside AND that the Def pay statutory multiple-damages for
causing the Pltf to rely on the dishonesty when he decided to "settle."
facebook settlement
If, for example, the OP had already gotten the subject card into
an SGC holder when he "negotiated" the settlement with his
buyer, the OP would have been engaged in "dishonesty." There
is no proof here to show that was the case.
......... >>
I dont think anyone is challenging the OP's honesty during the situation. I tend to believe that what happened was between 2 very honest people. I think its simply a horrible circumstance. Prior to the transaction, the customer had $1,000 in cash, and the seller had a $1,000 value card. Post transaction, the buyer has $500 in cash, and the seller has the same $1,000 value card PLUS the customer's other $500. Because the seller didnt crack out and submit.....he brought the entire card/slab assembly to PSA......he obviously did NOT want to assume any risk of a non grade. Sure, he was looking for a bump, but not if it meant any risk (other than the grading fee). However, PSA gave him no option as THEY cracked out the card without his consent or approval. In the end, the seller was not financially harmed....in fact, he stands to make an additional $500 on the very same card he already sold once. The buyer has nothing....no EOT card, not even pieces of a slab....nothing, but $500 less than he once had. I would be very uneasy making any purchases from the OP not because of dishonesty, but rather his unwillingness to back his material 100% EVEN if it wont cost him a single dime to do so in this case.
<< <i>I dont think anyone is challenging the OP's honesty during the situation. I tend to believe that what happened was between 2 very honest people. I think its simply a horrible circumstance. Prior to the transaction, the customer had $1,000 in cash, and the seller had a $1,000 value card. Post transaction, the buyer has $500 in cash, and the seller has the same $1,000 value card PLUS the customer's other $500. Because the seller didnt crack out and submit.....he brought the entire card/slab assembly to PSA......he obviously did NOT want to assume any risk of a non grade. Sure, he was looking for a bump, but not if it meant any risk (other than the grading fee). However, PSA gave him no option as THEY cracked out the card without his consent or approval. In the end, the seller was not financially harmed....in fact, he stands to make an additional $500 on the very same card he already sold once. The buyer has nothing....no EOT card, not even pieces of a slab....nothing, but $500 less than he once had. I would be very uneasy making any purchases from the OP not because of dishonesty, but rather his unwillingness to back his material 100% EVEN if it wont cost him a single dime to do so in this case. >>
1) Post transaction - OP did not have same $1k value card plus $500. PSA's opinion was EOT, which technically made the value significantly less.
2) If PSA did crack without permission, that's their fault and responsibility, something the buyer should deal with, not OP's.
3) OP and buyer negotiated and settled up. That transaction was over.
IMO - OP doesn't have legal or moral obligation to refund the Buyer. The card "could" still be trimmed, it's all a matter of opinions at this point. What if the OP gives a refund, tries to cross over back to PSA, and it comes back EOT? When would the refunds end?
If the OP refunded money back to the seller, he would go up a notch in my book. Having said that, if he doesn't, wouldn't make a difference to me.
they are not...
good for you for getting in a "new" slab...
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>Too many people think that PSA is the be all and end all...
they are not...
>>