Being new here, I don't know the whole history or any of the details about this Mays card, but the bigger question in my mind, just from reading what little information I've gathered from this specific thread, is what's more important - the card or the label? As little as 20 years ago, nobody knew the difference between a good 9 and a 10. It got put in a screw-down case and was sold as mint. Now it can mean a difference of hundreds or thousands of dollars. To a great extent it has taken the joy out of collecting, because it's easy to become obsessed, and people get hung up on someone else's opinion of a card's condition. Cards that I would have considered mint when I was 11 are now no better than PSA 8.
In principle, it's the same question as to what's more important - the autograph or the COA? I've seen PSA/DNA authenticated signatures selling on ebay that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. And without PSA/DNA or JSA certification, a lot of other people wouldn't either. The grading and authentication companies have become so dominant in the industry over the last 10 years that nobody has the courage to think for themselves anymore. They'll examine the watermark in the LOA with more scrutiny than the autograph it certifies. Send in 100 Mantle photos that were forged but look great and they get certified and are worth hundreds of dollars each. Send in 100 Mantle photos that are authentic but look funky because he was drunk when he signed them, get 100 rejection letters, and they're basically worthless. Tell me, if I submit a Mantle ball that gets rejected by PSA/DNA and then gets authenticated by JSA and I list it on ebay with a JSA LOA, do you think I have an obligation to disclose that it was at one time rejected by PSA/DNA? Hell, it could have been rejected 50 times. It only takes one mistake by an authenticator to make a totally fake autograph into a real one.
I'm sorry, I must have missed a memo. Did Bobby sell a raw '55 Bowman Mays that had been rejected by PSA and not disclose that fact in the auction description? And then come on these boards to complain when the buyer asked to return it? If so, then double WOW. I mean, I just threw that '55 Mays example out there as something totally hypothetical. What a wacky world we live in!
<< <i>I'm sorry, I must have missed a memo. Did Bobby sell a raw '55 Bowman Mays that had been rejected by PSA and not disclose that fact in the auction description? And then come on these boards to complain when the buyer asked to return it? If so, then double WOW. I mean, I just threw that '55 Mays example out there as something totally hypothetical. What a wacky world we live in! >>
I love when I get a softball tossed up to me.
I think this thread explains the whole 1955 Bowman Mays incident pretty well.
<< <i>The people who 'don't understand basic economics' are people like yourself who think that all participants in the collectibles market should be compelled to sell for close to the market price. >>
I do know I am not going to pay $50 for a 4-pack of toilet paper when another store down the road is selling that same 4-pack of toilet paper for $3. If that store was the only store in town with toilet paper, then yes, I guess I will pay $50 a roll. Until that time comes however, then I will keep paying the $3 the 4-pack of toilet paper, and the store selling it for $50 can keep it on his shelf until it turns into dust. Economics 101......there ya go buddy..... Edited to add that I need toilet paper more than I need pieces of cardboard. Technically though, neither is really life necessities..... >>
And if you walked into XYZ store and saw toilet paper for sale at $50, are you going to harass the manager and tell him what the "real" market value of that paper is? Of course not! You will simply NOT BUY the toilet paper there, and will get it later somewhere else, right? So why the crybaby threads about overpriced ebay sellers?
<< <i>Being new here, I don't know the whole history or any of the details about this Mays card, but the bigger question in my mind, just from reading what little information I've gathered from this specific thread, is what's more important - the card or the label? As little as 20 years ago, nobody knew the difference between a good 9 and a 10. It got put in a screw-down case and was sold as mint. Now it can mean a difference of hundreds or thousands of dollars. To a great extent it has taken the joy out of collecting, because it's easy to become obsessed, and people get hung up on someone else's opinion of a card's condition. Cards that I would have considered mint when I was 11 are now no better than PSA 8. >>
As stated earlier, when the Mays that I bought from SOMEONE ON HERE gets slabbed, I expect full apologies from all the nay -sayers, witch hunters, and piss-potts on here.......
You don't here me whining and cryin' because someone on here sold me a trimmed card that was passed off as authentic.......I love how hypocritical some people are........
"And if you walked into XYZ store and saw toilet paper for sale at $50, are you going to harass the manager and tell him what the "real" market value of that paper is? Of course not! You will simply NOT BUY the toilet paper there, and will get it later somewhere else, right? So why the crybaby threads about overpriced ebay sellers?"
But some toilet paper just like it sold in an Ebay auction in May for $25, and he needs toilet paper right now. He's been waiting 7 months for the next auction to come up to maybe save $25 and the Sears catalog is really starting to be a pain in the...
<< <i>......when the Mays that I bought from SOMEONE ON HERE........... >>
But in this thread you said you bought the 1955 Bowman Mays from TriplePlayVintage. I was not aware that he is a member here. If he is a member here then I apologize, if he is not, then you are still the lying scammer that I believe you to be.
Is what Im saying wrong or totally out of line? I bought a card described as NM/MT. It looked NM/MT to me.......it was sent off for grading and returned as trimmed. I didn't jump up and down on the seller because he described it as NM/MT and it didn't get graded. It was the condiiton he described to me. Since when is a cards 'slabability' contingent on the condition? What if the graders got it wrong????? I can't tell you how many times I had a card come back "trimmed" or "MINSIZRQ" get slabbed a 2nd time. I am sure every submitter on here has had that issue. Maybe we are placing too much faith and substance on 3rd party graders. Was the card NOT as described? It was NM/MT?? PWCC sells cards that he claims are trimmed? What if the winning bidder sends it in and it gets graded? Does he need to describe it as having been sold to him as trimmed? I know alot of people hate me and don't understand what points I am trying to make, but if you do, then I thank god, as I get tired of having to repeat myself.....
<< <i>It looked NM/MT to me.......it was sent off for grading and returned as trimmed. I didn't jump up and down on the seller because he described it as NM/MT and it didn't get graded. It was the condiiton he described to me. Since when is a cards 'slabability' contingent on the condition? >>
If a seller sells you something as NM/MT and you get a EOT by PSA, you wouldn't be angry at the seller? You should!!! If the seller disclosed it as being trimmed and you bought it anyway, then you can't fault the seller. A card's slabability is contingent on its condition. If it is trimmed, it is not slabbed unless you decide on a "AUTHENTIC HOLDER."
<< <i>What if the graders got it wrong????? I can't tell you how many times I had a card come back "trimmed" or "MINSIZRQ" get slabbed a 2nd time. >>
Graders do make mistakes, OK. But if a card you know did not pass the first test and you still want to sell it, it would be ethical to add that fact in the item description and allow the buyer to make up his mind whether he wants to risk submitting it a second time. It would anger me if someone sold me a card that they knew got a EOT from PSA and did not disclose that fact. Sure the card may still be fine, but as a buyer, I am not into taking risks on baseball cards. I am sure a lot of buyer out there feel the same way too.
<< <i> I know alot of people hate me and don't understand what points I am trying to make, but if you do, then I thank god, as I get tired of having to repeat myself..... >>
Maybe your articulation is not readily understood by people. The issue here is not whether the 1955 Mays card is trimmed or not, but it has to do with the knowledge that you had about the card being suspect of trimming (whether by PSA, or the seller). If you wrote in the auction for the card that PSA initially deemed it EOT, but that you presonally could not see such evidence after hours of magnification, its a piece of fact many buyers will want to know. Even suspect of trimming must be disclosed. It could hurt the final price of the card, but at least you would have been honest. Its that simple. Nothing more.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
I agree with what you posted. I'd like to add though that whenever a person buys a raw card they are taking a risk. If Bobby gave that information in his listing who is to say the next guy would not? It's a never ending cycle and makes raw risky.
I'd also like to add that I had a Bourque rookie come back from PSA and I sold it on eBay as "trimmed" and included a scan of the cardsaver with the flip on it.
Point well taken. We can only disclose what we know. There is always a risk with raw cards bought online for that reason. However, the seller that discloses all knowledge devulged to him about a card will make him look credible in the market place for the long haul and may pay off in the end. Some sellers will always be more short sighted than others.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Comments
you were too honest...
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...
In principle, it's the same question as to what's more important - the autograph or the COA? I've seen PSA/DNA authenticated signatures selling on ebay that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. And without PSA/DNA or JSA certification, a lot of other people wouldn't either. The grading and authentication companies have become so dominant in the industry over the last 10 years that nobody has the courage to think for themselves anymore. They'll examine the watermark in the LOA with more scrutiny than the autograph it certifies. Send in 100 Mantle photos that were forged but look great and they get certified and are worth hundreds of dollars each. Send in 100 Mantle photos that are authentic but look funky because he was drunk when he signed them, get 100 rejection letters, and they're basically worthless. Tell me, if I submit a Mantle ball that gets rejected by PSA/DNA and then gets authenticated by JSA and I list it on ebay with a JSA LOA, do you think I have an obligation to disclose that it was at one time rejected by PSA/DNA? Hell, it could have been rejected 50 times. It only takes one mistake by an authenticator to make a totally fake autograph into a real one.
<< <i>I'm sorry, I must have missed a memo. Did Bobby sell a raw '55 Bowman Mays that had been rejected by PSA and not disclose that fact in the auction description? And then come on these boards to complain when the buyer asked to return it? If so, then double WOW. I mean, I just threw that '55 Mays example out there as something totally hypothetical. What a wacky world we live in! >>
I love when I get a softball tossed up to me.
I think this thread explains the whole 1955 Bowman Mays incident pretty well.
<< <i>
<< <i>The people who 'don't understand basic economics' are people like yourself who think that all participants in the collectibles market should be compelled to sell for close to the market price. >>
I do know I am not going to pay $50 for a 4-pack of toilet paper when another store down the road is selling that same 4-pack of toilet paper for $3. If that store was the only store in town with toilet paper, then yes, I guess I will pay $50 a roll. Until that time comes however, then I will keep paying the $3 the 4-pack of toilet paper, and the store selling it for $50 can keep it on his shelf until it turns into dust. Economics 101......there ya go buddy.....
Edited to add that I need toilet paper more than I need pieces of cardboard. Technically though, neither is really life necessities..... >>
And if you walked into XYZ store and saw toilet paper for sale at $50, are you going to harass the manager and tell him what the "real" market value of that paper is? Of course not! You will simply NOT BUY the toilet paper there, and will get it later somewhere else, right? So why the crybaby threads about overpriced ebay sellers?
<< <i>Being new here, I don't know the whole history or any of the details about this Mays card, but the bigger question in my mind, just from reading what little information I've gathered from this specific thread, is what's more important - the card or the label? As little as 20 years ago, nobody knew the difference between a good 9 and a 10. It got put in a screw-down case and was sold as mint. Now it can mean a difference of hundreds or thousands of dollars. To a great extent it has taken the joy out of collecting, because it's easy to become obsessed, and people get hung up on someone else's opinion of a card's condition. Cards that I would have considered mint when I was 11 are now no better than PSA 8. >>
As stated earlier, when the Mays that I bought from SOMEONE ON HERE gets slabbed, I expect full apologies from all the nay -sayers, witch hunters, and piss-potts on here.......
You don't here me whining and cryin' because someone on here sold me a trimmed card that was passed off as authentic.......I love how hypocritical some people are........
But some toilet paper just like it sold in an Ebay auction in May for $25, and he needs toilet paper right now. He's been waiting 7 months for the next auction to come up to maybe save $25 and the Sears catalog is really starting to be a pain in the...
I have a suspicion that you just dug the hole deeper.
<< <i>I have a suspicion that you just dug the hole deeper. >>
In over his head.
<< <i>......when the Mays that I bought from SOMEONE ON HERE........... >>
But in this thread you said you bought the 1955 Bowman Mays from TriplePlayVintage.
I also don't think Mickey71 was trying to pull a fast one on Bob in the BST board.
But this sure does show the hypocrisy of the few here who continue to condemn one member and not the another for doing essentially the same thing.
<< <i>I wish I was back in Italy. >>
You were in Italy? During football season?
<< <i>It looked NM/MT to me.......it was sent off for grading and returned as trimmed. I didn't jump up and down on the seller because he described it as NM/MT and it didn't get graded. It was the condiiton he described to me. Since when is a cards 'slabability' contingent on the condition? >>
If a seller sells you something as NM/MT and you get a EOT by PSA, you wouldn't be angry at the seller? You should!!! If the seller disclosed it as being trimmed and you bought it anyway, then you can't fault the seller. A card's slabability is contingent on its condition. If it is trimmed, it is not slabbed unless you decide on a "AUTHENTIC HOLDER."
<< <i>What if the graders got it wrong????? I can't tell you how many times I had a card come back "trimmed" or "MINSIZRQ" get slabbed a 2nd time. >>
Graders do make mistakes, OK. But if a card you know did not pass the first test and you still want to sell it, it would be ethical to add that fact in the item description and allow the buyer to make up his mind whether he wants to risk submitting it a second time. It would anger me if someone sold me a card that they knew got a EOT from PSA and did not disclose that fact. Sure the card may still be fine, but as a buyer, I am not into taking risks on baseball cards. I am sure a lot of buyer out there feel the same way too.
<< <i> I know alot of people hate me and don't understand what points I am trying to make, but if you do, then I thank god, as I get tired of having to repeat myself..... >>
Maybe your articulation is not readily understood by people. The issue here is not whether the 1955 Mays card is trimmed or not, but it has to do with the knowledge that you had about the card being suspect of trimming (whether by PSA, or the seller). If you wrote in the auction for the card that PSA initially deemed it EOT, but that you presonally could not see such evidence after hours of magnification, its a piece of fact many buyers will want to know. Even suspect of trimming must be disclosed. It could hurt the final price of the card, but at least you would have been honest. Its that simple. Nothing more.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
The only season that concerns me is softball season, once that's over I'm free.
I agree with what you posted. I'd like to add though that whenever a person buys a raw card they are taking a risk. If Bobby gave that information in his listing who is to say the next guy would not? It's a never ending cycle and makes raw risky.
I'd also like to add that I had a Bourque rookie come back from PSA and I sold it on eBay as "trimmed" and included a scan of the cardsaver with the flip on it.
TotY 6 Chaz
Point well taken. We can only disclose what we know. There is always a risk with raw cards bought online for that reason. However, the seller that discloses all knowledge devulged to him about a card will make him look credible in the market place for the long haul and may pay off in the end. Some sellers will always be more short sighted than others.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee