What would you think if you bought this set?

RonBurgundy

Set was listed as "1973 Topps Baseball Set High Grade PSA 9 Mint", with more detail
below.
Here are some of the graded cards.......

[/URL]

grote15

Looks like description was spot on..

RonBurgundy

[URL=http://s239.photobucket.com/user/smoo7th/media/scan0004-5_zps86312cda.jpg.html][/URL]

RonBurgundy

And here are the more valuable ungraded cards. The rest of the ungraded cards are similar to this.


[URL=http://s239.photobucket.com/user/smoo7th/media/scan0001-9_zps566722bd.jpg.html][/URL]


[URL=http://s239.photobucket.com/user/smoo7th/media/scan0002-9_zps1f6240a3.jpg.html][/URL]

[URL=http://s239.photobucket.com/user/smoo7th/media/scan0003-7_zps70d26960.jpg.html][/URL]

Davemri

Beautiful set... Congrats on the pick up!

orioles93

Looks like a really nice set to me.

bbcemporium

Looks like a nice set. Congrats on the pick up.

itzagoner

<< <i>Looks like description was spot on.. >>



regrets for the raw, not as described. imo.

grote15

Link to auction describing raw cards as NM-MT or better??

gameusedhoop

Not one of the raw cards are NM-MT
If only the graded cards were shown, then the set is not as described. If the raws were shown and the rest were "similar", then it is still not as described, but the onus is on the buyer, as they were viewable.

tsalems1

From what I can tell from the scans, the cards are nm/mt or better other than maybe the #1 card. However, as everyone can see, centering is way off which kills the overall value and reason why those cards are not graded!

RonBurgundy

From the listing:

"It is extremely high grade and accurately grades NM-NM-MT with a "few" better & a "few" worse. There are no creased cards in the set and centering is the only issue on "some" of these cards."

I added the quotations there. About 80% of the raw cards are off center. Wouldn't that qualify as "most" instead of some?

I'm just curious as to everyone's opinions. Looking at it, it seemed about a 2 grade difference between the raw & graded cards.

ReggieCleveland

Can you post a link to the auction?

ReggieCleveland

<< <i>Set was marketed as NM-MT or better. >>





<< <i>It is extremely high grade and accurately grades NM-NM-MT with a "few" better & a "few" worse. >>



So..... we're 11 posts in and you're admitting you lied in your original post?

Maurice

http://www.ebay.com/itm/121083915910

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=11&threadid=885448

ReggieCleveland

Nevermind, I found the auction.

Auction

Seems like the seller put in an awful lot of work into the description. There are a ton of scans and they raw cards were described as NM - NM-MT, with a few better and a few worse. The seller also mentions that centering is an issue. So we're looking at a spectrum of Ex-MT to Mint on the raw. "Please ask me *any* questions you may have about anything regarding this set. Thank you!"

I don't see an issue with the description and the cards you received. The raws look very sharp and I'm guessing would grade in the NM range only due to centering.

Dboneesq

Looks like your first post was not accurate. Wording from the auction is:

It is extremely high grade and accurately grades NM - NM-MT, with a few better and a few worse.

Edited to add: Not sure what your question is really asking, but if you are asking if the auction description was accurate I would have to say yes. He mentions centering is an issue. When I see those words the first thing I usually ask is for some larger pictures of what I consider the "key cards".

CW

What would you think if you bought this set?

That would depend entirely on the price paid. After reading this entire thread and seeing the full description, I'd say you got a fair deal. Also looks like no funny business with the bidding.

I do see a contrast between your statement that opened this thread, though, and the auction description. These are two ENTIRELY different meanings....



<< <i>Set was marketed as NM-MT or better. >>



and



<< <i>From the listing:

"It is extremely high grade and accurately grades NM-NM-MT with a "few" better & a "few" worse. There are no creased cards in the set and centering is the only issue on "some" of these cards."
>>

bishop

Did you not call out the seller of this set in a prior thread for failure to deliver it, and than retract that claim after finding out you gave him the wrong address...and then compliment the guy. Did you take your claim to ebay, and if so, what did they say ?

Thanks for the links....blocked

RonBurgundy

Wait, "lied"? The auction heading read "1973 Topps Baseball Set High Grade PSA 9 Mint". Sorry, there is no contrast in what I said. Mint was in the listing, so is NM and so is NM-MT. The implication is that the set is an 8 quality set with some better. But that's fine.....when at least 2/3 of the set wouldn't even grade 7, it's not even a NM set on average.

Yes there was a shipping issue & I thought the seller had something to do with it. Then I track down the set myself, get it & it's an Ex-Mt set with 38 graded higher, in my opinion. I thought I'd ask to see how others would feel.

Maybe I should post all 660 cards. I'm just asking a question, fellas. Why the vitriol?

jay0791

The raw cards are clearly OC and should have been listed as such.
many seller don't do that...even when graded oc.

With the extra 9's in the set its not bad.

I probably would not be happy.

gameusedhoop

Please ask me *any* questions you may have about anything regarding this set. Thank you!

accurately grades NM - NM-MT, with a few better and a few worse

centering is generally the only issue on some of these cards.

^^^ These 3 statements from the auction accurately describe the set. NM to NM-MT is what the raw cards shown above would grade with the exception of one or two. I would have liked to have seen a few pics of the ungraded stars, and it seems had the seller been asked they probably would have been provided. Given the recent findings, set is as described IMO.

ReggieCleveland

So you interpret the PSA 9 keyword in the auction title to mean "NM-MT or better," despite the lengthy description and numerous scans inside the auction that accurately describe the cards?

Maybe you should post all 660 cards. Because at this point, I put no stock in your ability to truthfully and accurately describe the cards in the set. Yes, I'm aware of the irony.

purelyPSA

After reading the auction I concur that it's fairly graded.

What I'm wondering is why you didn't ask for additional scans prior to dropping $2K on such a set. I know I would have, and that seems to be where the problem lies, and ESPECIALLY if centering is a bugaboo for you as it was mentioned in the auction.

cpamike

Tom, the set looks like it was accurately described to me. Obviously by posting about this purchase you are not happy with what you got, but anyone that has experience purchasing sets on eBay knows enough to request scans of the key cards like Doug said. The only thing I don't like is the PSA 9 in the description, but lots of guys use terms like that in order to get traffic for their auctions. Based on the very detailed description, I see no problem with this set.

Griffins

It looks consistent with the listing to me. Congrats on a nice set.

frankhardy

That is exactly the reason why when I list a set on Ebay, I will give my opinion of the grade of every key card, and then I will give an exact breakdown of how many cards in the set are in each grade (ie - so many NM-MT, so many NM, so many EXMT, so many EX, so many VG-EX, so many VG, etc). Yes, it takes time to grade every card in a set, but it is worth the effort. I have not had one vintage set come back yet. I believe that it gives the buyer confidence when you break it down like that.

gemint

I agree with others. I wouldn't feel like I got short changed with this set. Whenever a set is auctioned like this with many commons already graded, I assume that anything worth grading had already been submitted and therefore expect no hidden gems in the raw cards. I did have an eye on this set because there were a few 9s in the set that I need. But I figured it would probably go much higher than I was willing to pay and I was right. Not sure what your motivation was for buying the set but if you're building the set from scratch, this is a good start and not a bad deal.

bbuckner22

For $2K I would expect the raw to match up condition wise to the graded cards. Funny that he didn't show pictures of those raw stars. If the set is advertised as NM-NM/MT I would expect some EX/MT commons or off OC's but not the majority of the set. I think BBG mentioned the set that went for $1000 in the latest Pre War auction, pretty sure I recently sold that set to a board member and if so it was a steal at that price.

grote15

I have no problem with the auction description. If your intention was to profit off this set, you should have either bid less or asked more questions, imo. Also, NM to NM-MT is not the same as NM-MT or better.

CW

An incredibly obtuse BBG posted:



<< <i>Naturally the ebay listing says "PSA 9" in the title and then shows mostly PSA 8 or worse graded cards ... meaning the raw would be ungradeable. >>



Yes, but those cards would be prime examples for resealing within packs, provided one could obtain the original wrappers and gum.

Man, what a waste of time for you to post in any thread that discusses ethics or fairness about a hobby deal. As if anyone here put any weight or stock into comments made by an oblivious hypocrite such as yourself, Paul.

Please, spare us.

Indy78

I have no problem with the auction description. If your intention was to profit off this set, you should have either bid less or asked more questions, imo. Also, NM to NM-MT is not the same as NM-MT or better.

+1

otwcards

Given the description, the limited raw cards presented and the strength of price in the bidding, you can bet your bottom dollar I would've asked the seller for some additional scans of some of the raw material and I'm certain that I would've been able to make a very sound determination on what my maximum bid would be and that I would know exactly what I was receiving. The raw images provided with the albums do give an idea with regard to centering, but at some point, it becomes the obligation of the buyer to do their due diligence and not rely on "Item Not as Described" as their recourse if the set does not meet the standards they wish.

eBay should not be an "On Approval" purchasing venue and far too many looking to make money on a flip buy haphazardly without putting the time and effort into it and if presented with a purchase that doesn't present with the potential windfall they expect, they attempt to use eBay's protection as recourse for their own laziness. I find that shameful.

In the matter of this set, I think the seller made reasonable and accurate statements with regard to the set and the condition of the set. I find no fault with the seller.

RonBurgundy

Thanks for all the comments, guys. I appreciate the sentiment from both sides. And thanks also for the informative PM's.

Given the longstanding trust issues on Ebay, we all need a reminder to do due diligence as some have indicated. This is particularly true now with the movement of longtime sellers away from the eBay platform. When we shop online, sometimes decisions are made at the speed of light rather than at the speed of trust.

I value the perspective of the board members here and if time permits in the next few days, may post a few more scans. If anyone would like to see the set to garner their own opinion, let me know. I might consider sending it to you to inspect, or if you're local, to take a look.

Have a great week everybody!

ReggieCleveland

<< <i>Thanks for all the comments, guys. I appreciate the sentiment from both sides. And thanks also for the informative PM's.

Given the longstanding trust issues on Ebay, we all need a reminder to do due diligence as some have indicated. This is particularly true now with the movement of longtime sellers away from the eBay platform. When we shop online, sometimes decisions are made at the speed of light rather than at the speed of trust.

I value the perspective of the board members here and if time permits in the next few days, may post a few more scans. If anyone would like to see the set to garner their own opinion, let me know. I might consider sending it to you to inspect, or if you're local, to take a look.

Have a great week everybody! >>



Make sure you use your current address in the return address field on the package.

purelyPSA

Wait, what?

I'm only a very occasional poster and don't know you too well, but why would you volunteer to send a $2K set for an 'opinion'? Are you going to pursue this with this guy or something? The auction says there's no return on it, and most on here say it's legit.

vols1

Unfortunately sometimes you get what you pay for

NVbaseball

Looks like a great set

Would be very pleased with it, if I bought it

Dodgerfanjohn

<< <i>Thanks for all the comments, guys. I appreciate the sentiment from both sides. And thanks also for the informative PM's.

Given the longstanding trust issues on Ebay, we all need a reminder to do due diligence as some have indicated. This is particularly true now with the movement of longtime sellers away from the eBay platform. When we shop online, sometimes decisions are made at the speed of light rather than at the speed of trust.

I value the perspective of the board members here and if time permits in the next few days, may post a few more scans. If anyone would like to see the set to garner their own opinion, let me know. I might consider sending it to you to inspect, or if you're local, to take a look.

Have a great week everybody! >>



I have noticed, albeit on a smaller scale, that in many of the vintage auctions I bid on, there are several bidders who seem to be bidding on the listing title rather than the card itself. With graded cards, particularly PSA cards, if the picture is even halfway decent, theres not too much to worry about.

But raw cards is another matter and even the most accurate graders on ebay can tend to over grade cards. I'm not saying this is intentional, but I can just imagine having to sift through and grade thousands of cards every couple weeks. Another problem with raw cards in sets or commons is you typically do not get a good picture of the back. So in my experience, I always bid up to only the price one grade lower. IE, if a grader I consider accurate grades a card Ex-Mt, I will bid no more than a card in Ex condition would sell for. Of course this makes me lose a LOT of auctions. But I think being picky in terms of centering, color, picture, and price is well worth it. Both in terms of getting nice cards, and getting them for a decent value.

OTOH, I do notice many bidders paying full graded price on raw cards. IE if there is a card listed at NRMt-MT, they will pay the price a PSA 7 - 8 card might sell for. This is folly IMO, mostly due to inconsistencies in grading and what you can see in a picture vs what you can see in person. Worse yet, I think these bidders are doing so with the thought that they will get the cards graded and perhaps profit off them. Honestly I do not see how one can do this while paying an already high price, and not having seen the card in person. If they do it with the intent of returning the card if its not up to snuff, I think thats a pretty unethical thing to do. I dunno if that goes on, but maybe some sellers will share their experience.

Anyway, the part you posted about doing due dillegence is absolutely correct. In a society where distance has been placed between humans and actual money(via credit cards, car and home loans, paypal, etc) I think that people tend to lose track of that. It seems so in this case where you had the option not to bid as high as you did with so many question marks. Personally I use seller descriptions as a guideline. There are some sellers where I can give their description more weight, but it still comes down to actually viewing a scan or better yet, view in person.

ShreveBo

Interesting thread. Bottom line, Burgundy didn't do his homework because someone knew exactly what they were doing with this set.

There are four cert runs in the listing. The lowest starts with 18521622, the Robinson. It continues through 18521628, the Carew. The next cert number after that, 18521629, is a PSA 7 Schmidt RC. That card isn't in the listing.

The next cert run starts with 18522811 & ends at 18522849. Not all of the cards in between are in the listing. Some are, some are not. Of those that are not, many are PSA 7 & 6's, all are 1973 Topps. Then it gets interesting. Some of the missing certs are PSA 9's of Koosman, McDowell, Frisella, Horton, Oliver, Mason, Cabell (8), & Boone. Remember those names because they will show up later.

The next cert run starts at 19703734, Oliver PSA 8 & ends at 3742, Renko. In between? Koosman, McDowell, Frisella, Mason, Boone, and....wait for it, Schmidt PSA 8. Hmmm.

The last cert run starts at 20415161 & ends at 20415167. No certs are missing but all the cards are the same as we have seen before: Koosman, McDowell, Frisella, Horton, Mason, Boone & Schmidt.

This tells ms someone was trying to bump these cards through resubmits, 7's to 8's, 8's to 9's, 9's to 10's. If true, some did including the Schmidt. That must have been quite an experienced "single owner collector" who lovingly built this set in 1973.

I'd bs interested in seeing the raw cards like Duffy, Hrabosky, & Kaat that showed up in the big cert run but didn't appear in the listing. The Kaat was a PSA 4. I'm wondering if those cards might have been cracked & put back into the raw set. If so the owner or the seller were pretty shrewd, especially by not showing up close scans of the raw cards. And when the buyer is lazy here we go.

BaltimoreYankee

Dodgerfanjohn - I do the same thing buying raw on eBay: I always assume cards are one grade lower than advertised.

Shrevebo - Some great detective work there. I would never think to look that deeply at it.

ShreveBo

Just did some pop report research. There are no PSA 10's of Koosman, McDowell, Frisella, Horton, or Mason. There are two PSA 10 Boone rookies. If the owner or seller wasn't resubmitting these over & over then this is the mother of all coincidences.

Now I really want to see the raw cards from this set that could've been in the big cert run. Duffy, Hrabosky, Kaat, Bob Oliver, Jeter, Phillies Team, Dave Johnson,Hough RC.

ReggieCleveland

<< <i>Just did some pop report research. There are no PSA 10's of Koosman, McDowell, Frisella, Horton, or Mason. There are two PSA 10 Boone rookies. If the owner or seller wasn't resubmitting these over & over then this is the mother of all coincidences.

Now I really want to see the raw cards from this set that could've been in the big cert run. Duffy, Hrabosky, Kaat, Bob Oliver, Jeter, Phillies Team, Dave Johnson,Hough RC. >>



Ok, I'm lost. Are you suggesting that the seller resubbed these cards over and over trying to get a 10?

ShreveBo

Uh, yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. Are you new to the hobby? It goes on all the time.

mcadams

Burgundy- I very much see why you would be upset here. Typically at the larger AHs, REA or whoever will take a sampling of the raw set and have them graded for the sole purpose of showing the buyer the "normal" grades of the set if there is indeed consistent condition. I think the seller here was clearly trying to manipulate people who may assume that was the case here.

When a seller cherry picks the best cards for grading, but then the rest of the set is 2-3 grades lower than the "sample" that was graded, I think it is shady at best. You just can't make that assumption that the graded cards are in line with the condition of the rest of the set. I'd just return the set if I were you. Sorry this happened. Also, FWIW, I don't buy in to the notion that the description accurately reflected what you received.

RonBurgundy

Wow. Shrevebo, here are scans of the cards you asked about. If these cards were submitted, the grades were accurate.......including the Kaat, which has a light crease down the middle of the card starting at about his pantleg. Speaking of which, so much for the description of no creased cards being in the set. I would really hate to think that someone subbed that particular card, got a 4, then cracked it and put it back into the set, then said later the set had no creased cards. I hope not, but in any event, lesson learned indeed.

Edited to add: the crease on the Kaat is difficult to see from the scan but if anyone is so inclined to dispute that it's there, I'd be glad to show it to 1954 or any of the other local guys for confirmation.

[URL=http://s239.photobucket.com/user/smoo7th/media/scan0007-6_zpse4a7f2e3.jpg.html][/URL]


[URL=http://s239.photobucket.com/user/smoo7th/media/scan0006-8_zps09b55ac7.jpg.html][/URL]

ReggieCleveland

<< <i>Uh, yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. Are you new to the hobby? It goes on all the time. >>



I am. Brand new. Which is why I'm trying to figure out why someone would continuously resubmit an Ex-Mt (or less) card trying to get a Gem Mint (10).

Ron, what's the issue with those other raw cards? They look to be solid NM-NM/MT examples.

otwcards

<< <i>I would really hate to think that someone subbed that particular card, got a 4, then cracked it and put it back into the set, then said later the set had no creased cards. I hope not, but in any event, lesson learned indeed. >>



Would that would be like someone buying an altered card and offering it for sale as NM/MT without mentioning that it was altered?

Might be time to step back from the deep end of the pool...

RonBurgundy

Oh Scott. I thought maybe you had turned over a new Leaf.

#instantclassic

otwcards

<< <i>Oh Scott. I thought maybe you had turned over a new Leaf.

#instantclassic >>



I did. But sometimes, complete irony cannot be dismissed...

ReggieCleveland

<< <i>Wow. Shrevebo, here are scans of the cards you asked about. If these cards were submitted, the grades were accurate.......including the Kaat, which has a light crease down the middle of the card starting at about his pantleg. Speaking of which, so much for the description of no creased cards being in the set. I would really hate to think that someone subbed that particular card, got a 4, then cracked it and put it back into the set, then said later the set had no creased cards. I hope not, but in any event, lesson learned indeed.

Edited to add: the crease on the Kaat is difficult to see from the scan but if anyone is so inclined to dispute that it's there, I'd be glad to show it to 1954 or any of the other local guys for confirmation.

[URL=http://s239.photobucket.com/user/smoo7th/media/scan0007-6_zpse4a7f2e3.jpg.html][/URL]


[URL=http://s239.photobucket.com/user/smoo7th/media/scan0006-8_zps09b55ac7.jpg.html][/URL] >>



Ron, I'll ask again. What's the issue with those other raw cards?