NESC Ships in PWE?
Littletweed
Posts: 623 ✭✭✭
I needed this card to complete the set and the price was decent for the quality, I've purchased from 4SC and NESC before, so I had an idea of what I'd get. But, I didn't expect a card in an ultra pro in a plain white envelope.
Not complaining, just an observation I thought I'd share.
Not complaining, just an observation I thought I'd share.
Matt
0
Comments
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
edited to add: I didn't see Bird in the middle so it may have cost a bit more than I thought. I still would have expected them to use PWE's on their $2 cards though.
<< <i>Is it bad to send a single card in PWE if it's in the hard plastic holder (not the card savers)? >>
It's not really a good idea. The post office sorting machine sometime mangle envelopes and soft package mailers. There have been several examples on this forum where the card arrived damaged. I guess if the card is super cheap and could easily be replaced, a pwe might be ok. For a card with any kind of value, it's not a good idea.
I agree they're ok for cheap cards that are easy to replace if damaged. I've bought a small handful of cards from NESC over the past few months that all came in a PWE with no problems. Another card I bought from a seller on the other side of the country sent a card inside a rigid top loader in a PWE and it was all mangled with a huge vertical crease running the entire length of the card.
<< <i>It's not really a good idea. The post office sorting machine sometime mangle envelopes and soft package mailers. >>
This happened to me when I purchased a single card from NESC.
From now on if I want to by raw cards from them I will buy more than 2 or 3 which forces them to put it in a bubble mailer
<< <i>It was free shipping? >>
No, the USPS requires postage, they appear to have used a forever stamp.
<< <i>This place is a freaking laugh riot, you belong on late night. >>
+1
<< <i>Just when you thought they couldn't suck any more... >>
word
<< <i>I guess they are practicing for the new ebay FVF coming this June. >>
PWE is going to be the ONLY way to go when selling cheap singles that typically start and end at .99. If you instead send it in a bubble-mailer, think about it: if you charge $2 to $2.50 for shipping, paypal will take .43 of that, ebay will now be taking about .30, then you pay say .20 for a bubble mailer, and the upcoming USPS increase on a 1 ounce package will cost you $1.70.......you will be totally wasting your time/money to ship that way.
think PWE will be the only way to sell low dollar cards, if you don't want to get booted off of ebay for getting 1s & 2s in shipping charges DSRs. There's too many crazy buyers out there, that buy a card regardless of shipping charge and I have even read people posting that they bought it planning on giving low DSR for shipping charge, because they disagreed with the seller being able to charge $3, since their math indicated the cost should be closer to $2.
<< <i>It was free shipping? >>
Yes, it was. I hit the BIN for $8 w/ free shipping.
The card arrive safely, and that's all that matters, but it had been a while since I got a card in PWE.
I was wondering how the overall condition of their cards are? I was looking at buying a few of their cards advertised as mint. I know from others that they ship in a pwe, but should I expect nm-mint cards from NESC when the advertise mint cards.
<< <i>I was wondering how the overall condition of their cards are? I was looking at buying a few of their cards advertised as mint. I know from others that they ship in a pwe, but should I expect nm-mint cards from NESC when the advertise mint cards. >>
I think they are pretty consistent, with about half of them grading as stated and about half a grade below. Keep in mind that since they are connected with a graded card selling account, you have to ask yourself "why didn't THEY sub this?". Often times it's just about the money - not everything they own is cost-effective to sub and flip. All in all, I'd say they are a good place to get Nm-Mt cards.
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
<< <i>
<< <i>I was wondering how the overall condition of their cards are? I was looking at buying a few of their cards advertised as mint. I know from others that they ship in a pwe, but should I expect nm-mint cards from NESC when the advertise mint cards. >>
Keep in mind that since they are connected with a graded card selling account, you have to ask yourself "why didn't THEY sub this?". >>
That last statement is the one you need to remember. The purpose of NESC's existence on Ebay is to sell non gemmint cards. To find a card that could get a PSA 10, you'd have a better odds by randomly buying cards from any other seller.
<< <i>I was wondering how the overall condition of their cards are? I was looking at buying a few of their cards advertised as mint. I know from others that they ship in a pwe, but should I expect nm-mint cards from NESC when the advertise mint cards. >>
Unless you really really need the card I'd avoid them... these cards have all been rejected by them for non-grading. The last card I bought from them looked good on the front but the back was completely OC with no back boarder on the card. Card was advertised as Mint-Near Mint with no mention about the poor condition of the centering on the back.
You all need to take a look/laugh at yourself's. You know how many Beechin' Threads there are here about somebody sending a purchase to you all in a PWE??
It is never, under any circumstances, exceptable to me, to recieve a card in a PWE................Ever!!!!
And I don't care if its 4SC or Legendary or PSA or a fellow Board member!!!!!!!!!!!!
YeeHah
Neil
Received in a bubble mailer today, I got 4 cards I ordered, and in my humble opinion, I was 0-for-4.
Click for oversized high resolution 300dpi scan of Brett card - might grade as high as 7(PD) if I'm lucky
Click for oversized high resolution 300dpi scan of Robinson card - probably the nicest card of the group except for the dog ear that will knock the grade down to 5 at best
Click for oversized high resolution 300dpi scan of Zimmer card - I guess 95/5 centering on the back qualifies as "MINT"
Click for oversized high resolution 300dpi scan of McCovey card - when was the last time it snowed in Arizona in March?
So that's basically $17 down the drain.
<< <i>I've bought cheap cards from NESC in the past without issue, and I thought they were either graded accurately or undergraded, but I had a different experience today.
Received in a bubble mailer today, I got 4 cards I ordered, and in my humble opinion, I was 0-for-4.
Click for oversized high resolution 300dpi scan of Brett card - might grade as high as 7(PD) if I'm lucky
Click for oversized high resolution 300dpi scan of Robinson card - probably the nicest card of the group except for the dog ear that will knock the grade down to 5 at best
Click for oversized high resolution 300dpi scan of Zimmer card - I guess 95/5 centering on the back qualifies as "MINT"
Click for oversized high resolution 300dpi scan of McCovey card - when was the last time it snowed in Arizona in March?
So that's basically $17 down the drain. >>
I've actually made a handful of small to moderate purchases from 4SC over the past several months (total cost probably around $175-200 I guess) so he may recognize my name and ebay ID, but I didn't mention that I'm aware that NESC is the raw selling ID of 4SC. I guess if he reads this thread, he'll know that I'm aware he's the same guy. It doesn't really change anything.
Hopefully he'll work everything out and not make a big issue out of a total $17.00 sale. I'm not trying to make trouble, and it's not really a question of the money as much as it is the frustration and time lost. None of these cards are good enough for the collection of 1978 Topps that I've been working on.
Not sure what the beef is here anyway, you expect sellers to have the same standard as PSA?
Ebay is the true criminal here; double charging for ebay and PayPal fees for years, and finding more creative ways to fill their pockets.
BTW - the 78T Brett image on ebay cleary shows the PD on the front of the card.
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>If these cards would have graded at PSA in the same grade they touted they would have done so.
Not sure what the beef is here anyway, you expect sellers to have the same standard as PSA? >>
So you're saying it's ok for a seller to list a raw card as mint with 95/5 back centering on the grounds that the seller's grading standards are more lenient than PSA's? (Zimmer)
Or you're saying it's ok for a seller to use low resolution scans to diminish the perceived severity of print defects that dramatically hurt the eye appeal of a card once it's actually in-hand? (Brett, McCovey)
Or you're saying it's ok for a seller to list a card as NM when it has a dog-ear that doesn't show up in a scan and isn't mentioned in the description? (Robinson)
The bottom line is that the scans provided do not accurately depict the cards that I received, especially the Brett card, which cost almost as much by itself ($8) as the other three cards combined ($9). The discrepancy between the listing images and the 300dpi scans I linked is too great. This is a classic case of SNAD.
If I'd gotten a Brett card that actually looked like the one pictured in the listing and the other 3 exact same cards, I probably would have just chalked it up to bad luck, sent the Brett card in for grading, and moved on without bother. But going 0-for-4 on an order of 4 cards is unacceptable.
All that being said, I hope he is reasonable and is willing to work with me, because I'm willing to work with him. I'll post an update as soon as something happens, and I'll definitely let everyone know if he blocks me from buying other cards.
I simply said what I said and nothing more.
<< <i>BTW - the 78T Brett image on ebay cleary shows the PD on the front of the card. >>
Did you explain this?
<< <i>
<< <i>BTW - the 78T Brett image on ebay cleary shows the PD on the front of the card. >>
Did you explain this? >>
The severity of the defect is worse than what his scan indicates.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>BTW - the 78T Brett image on ebay cleary shows the PD on the front of the card. >>
Did you explain this? >>
The severity of the defect is worse than what his scan indicates. >>
Agreed, but even what IS visible in the auction contradicts the seller's grading IMO. Honestly, I think the only 100% solid beef you have is the 95/5 back. Were they all overgraded? Yep, but I see enough in the scans to downgrade those cards before I bid.
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
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>BTW - the 78T Brett image on ebay cleary shows the PD on the front of the card. >>
Did you explain this? >>
The severity of the defect is worse than what his scan indicates. >>
Agreed, but even what IS visible in the auction contradicts the seller's grading IMO. Honestly, I think the only 100% solid beef you have is the 95/5 back. Were they all overgraded? Yep, but I see enough in the scans to downgrade those cards before I bid. >>
Yeah, I guess I can respect that position on the Brett and McCovey cards. But the dog-ear on the Robinson card was not detectable prior to purchase. Even if you take the position that there's a slight indicator of it there on the scan, it's not something I knew to look for in the scan until after I had the card in my possession.
Also, I have to point out that I didn't buy these cards (mainly talking about Brett and McCovey here) thinking I'd submit them to PSA with any sort of guarantee that their grades would match the NESC advertised grades. I only bought them on the premise that I'd receive cards that actually looked like the ones pictured. It was a combination of the advertised grades combined with the limited detail of the defects via the low res scans that led to my impression that these cards would be acceptable to me. Because the advertised grades were relatively high, that led me to (incorrectly) conclude that the defects would be no more severe than what was pictured. It was never about obtaining specific minimum slabbed number grades.
So although it may have been possible to conclude from the low res scans that the advertised grades were perhaps slightly unrealistic, it was the discrepancy between the severity of the defects pictured and the actual defects that makes these cards unacceptable to me (which is my subjective opinion) and legitimately NAD. In actuality, the advertised grades are dramatically, not just slightly, unrealistic.
Here's a link to a higher resolution scan of the same card.
The wrinkles in both bottom corners (especially lower left) are much more visible in the 300dpi scan, but this card was only advertised as EX, so I knew there was probably something wrong with it that wasn't obvious in the listing scan. I gave that seller positive feedback and I'm happy to keep the card.
So it's not like I'm getting pissy over every little defect on raw cards. I just want to receive what I had a legitimate right to expect based on the description and images in the listings. The Molitor card is not a guaranteed PSA 5. It might be a 4. Maybe a 5.5 or 6 if the grader is in a really good mood, or maybe a 3 if he's having a rough day. The key is the advertised grade was an accurate approximation. NESC's advertised grades weren't even in the right ballpark, scans not withstanding.