My Once PSA-3 T206 card is Now a PSA-4
hack
Posts: 12
CHECK THIS OUT!!! A few months ago, I sold on eBay my PSA-3 graded T206 Mathewson (Dark Cap) card. I just saw my same T206 Mathewson card listed for auction on eBay, but it is now a PSA-4.
I know that some people will crack out their graded cards from the holders and send them back to PSA for grading, hoping that those cards might get graded higher the second time around. But in the case of my once graded PSA-3 Mathewson card, I can't believe that PSA would have graded it one grade higher to a VG/EX-4 due to a fairly long crease that was on both sides of this card which a PSA grader would have to be blind to not see it.
If, you want to see the photos from my auction for this T206 Mathewson card which was a PSA-3 when I was selling it and compare those to the photos from the seller's auction that shows this exact same T206 Matty card now in a PSA-4 holder; the number of my auction was #330123393429 and this other seller's auction number is #270152148396. TR
I know that some people will crack out their graded cards from the holders and send them back to PSA for grading, hoping that those cards might get graded higher the second time around. But in the case of my once graded PSA-3 Mathewson card, I can't believe that PSA would have graded it one grade higher to a VG/EX-4 due to a fairly long crease that was on both sides of this card which a PSA grader would have to be blind to not see it.
If, you want to see the photos from my auction for this T206 Mathewson card which was a PSA-3 when I was selling it and compare those to the photos from the seller's auction that shows this exact same T206 Matty card now in a PSA-4 holder; the number of my auction was #330123393429 and this other seller's auction number is #270152148396. TR
TR
0
Comments
<< <i> I can't believe that PSA would have graded it one grade higher to a VG/EX-4 due to a fairly long crease that was on both sides of this card which a PSA grader would have to be blind to not see it.
>>
Is that the same crease that when you were SELLING the card you described as
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The reason for the VG-3 grade is due to a very minor crease which you're not going to see it unless you hold the card at just the right angle, under very strong light, and with a magnifying glass."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds like either you're upset that the card didn't sell for 4 money when you had it, or the PSA grader didn't have the secret formula for finding the crease.
I would never buy from a seller who lies to downplay the crease when selling and then stresses it when somebody else is selling the same card. You're a scammer.
-- Yogi Berra
hack's auction
new auction
That said, that Matty is a dog of a 4 and the portrait 4 the seller has is even worse.
Keep drinkin' the Kool Aid, folks.
Grading=dart throwing.
People who pay huge money on dart throwing opinions= disappointed if they are the last man holding.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
I have had lots dealers get upgrades on cards I sold them. Most notably a 55 Ted that goes from a 7 to an 8. All I can say is it's a game and unless you paid the resubmission fees multiple times you can't really complain if someone else gets the bump.
3 years and one post, guess we won't hear from him til next time he has something to gripe about.
"This T206 Christy Mathewson PSA 3 graded card looks more like a EX 5 type quality card. It has beautiful vibrant coloring and excellent picture, image quality on a very clean, spotless surface. with solid, bold text on the front.
Next time douchebag, crack it out
<< <i>Next time douchebag, crack it out
Edited to add: Griffins is correct, it's the scumbucket that maliciously attempted to pass off cards KNOWN to be trimmed.
Karma is a beyatch, ain't it?
quote from your auction -- "The reason for the VG-3 grade is due to a very minor crease which you're not going to see it unless you hold the card at just the right angle, under very strong light, and with a magnifying glass. It does not distract from the visual picture quality and image of Christy Mathewson. "
quote from your post here -- "I can't believe that PSA would have graded it one grade higher to a VG/EX-4 due to a fairly long crease that was on both sides of this card which a PSA grader would have to be blind to not see it."
so what are we to believe? "a crease you're not going to see" or " long crease ...which a PSA graded would have to be blind to not see it".
i think the problem here lies within you.
I dont think after what you did with MY Konetchy T3 cards you are gonna get too much sympathy from the boards. While you are here, why dont you read the COUPLE PAGES on here that discuss YOU. seller busted for sumitting card then selling it raw
Sorry Tom, no sympathy here...Karma at it's best. You are VERY lucky I dont neg your A$$ I guess be glad you didn't whine too much in this thread...yet
pwned
"If he wan't absolution, go find a priest"
You guys are indeed good.
<< <i>A crease on the back like that would be very easy to press out. >>
Sincerely,
Mastro Auctions
I am really surpirsed at how wide the wool is over everybody's eyes.
"Next time douchebag, crack it out maybe you will believe your own hype; "
It's amazing how flaws and attributes of a p[articular card are emphasized or downplayed depending on whether you are the seller or potential buyer of said 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.
misleading auction
The reason for my message was simply to try & make others aware of the possibility of suspicious activity such as this outside of PSA incase any of those on this forum ever came across a similar occurrence with cards that you & others might have sold to a certain buyer. But instead unlike a few individuals who showed some class and responded in a professional manner; you and some others chose to read into my message what you thought it was intended to be and your constructive ways to respond to it, were with comments such as "douchebag", "whiner", "scumbucket", "scammer", etc.
Also; yes, I am the seller who Ted, "RepubinMass", has been telling some of you about, regarding the T3 Konetchy card that I had sent to PSA and got it back as being "Altered", but elected to make this known in my auction description of this card. I admitted this to Ted and sincerely apologized to him for not disclosing that information in my auction description. Heck for that matter; I could have not said anything about the crease on this Mathewson T206, given a type of grade speaks for itself and which nobody would have been able to see in the auction photos. But, I did anyway and for that jimq112 on this forum says that I "lie to downplay the crease when selling" it, but then I "stress how bad a crease it is when someone else was selling this card". Then, he finishes his uninformed self made conclusion & comments by calling me & announcing to the forum that I'm a "scammer". When in fact; I was simply trying to emphasize that this crease was something that a professionally trained grader with all the tools for doing his job would not miss seeing unless he was blind and that there maybe something other to this card's change in grade which wasn't a result of a grader not seeing this crease. So; you're damned, if you do and damned, if you don't say anything.
What is constructive and good about a forum which there are members who take something out of context from another member's message, put their own uninformed spin on it, and then, announce to the rest of the forum that a particular member lies and is a scammer. That would be like a prosecutor reading the police report, deciding the individual is guilty before having done the do-diligence to be sure that he understands the context of what is stated in that police report, before he goes in front of a jury to declare that individual is guilty of being a "scammer" or "douchebag".
Let me say one more thing about this one & only mistake that I made with my selling of this T3 Konetchy of which has been the only ungraded card of mine which I have listed on eBay these last 3 months. I was morally wrong for not disclosing that PSA considered this T3 as being an "Altered" card which I felt that PSA was wrong about that and apparently, it appears that I was correct about this. Because, Ted told me that PSA told him that this T3 card had been "Trimmed" which is definitely different then what PSA refers to cards which have been "Altered" or "Re-colored". This is why PSA has specific labels or stickers for distinguishing between card's that have been "Trimmed", "Re-colored", "Altered", etc. Which ever maybe the case and again; I admitted to Ted that I made a bad mistake in judgement to not disclose that I had received this card back from PSA as being "Altered" and I was wrong not to. I apologized to him and sincerely try to assure him that I would never purposely do something like that ever again.
And; even though PSA was now saying this T3 had been "Trimmed", not "Altered" as they had initially indicated to me and I had no knowledge of this card having been "Trimmed" at the time of my listing it on eBay. I still voluntarily gave Ted 1/2 of his grading fee for this, unknowingly, "Trimmed" card and I also offered to refund him the $85 which he had paid for it from my auction. In the end; Ted ended up with a PSA "Authentic" graded & slabbed T3 Konetchy card that cost him a total of $115 which he currently has listed in a Buy It Now auction for $269. So; I think that Ted ended up with a pretty nice deal on this card of mine and I learned a lesson from my mistake. Point being; maybe those on this forum such as "stown" who may still think that I'm some "scumbucket" due to this mistake that I made on selling the T3 Konetchy card. It really doesn't matter to me what you or others of this chat forum think of me or what classless words you may still follow up with about me after reading this long message. Because, once I'm done selling the majority of the cards which I've collected over these past 12 yrs. I'll be moving onto a different hobby and devote time like this to fine tune my golf game.
But, the only reason why I have taken my time to bother sending a few replies to some of you, is to hopefully get you to not immediately pass judgement and give a second chance to someone whom in the future may make a similar mistake like I did the first & only time with the listing of that T3 Konetchy. And; I'm hoping the next time a person for the first time joins in on this forum and who may share with you something which he feels might be good for others in the hobby to know about, such as my email on my PSA-3, now suspicious 4 T206 Matty card. That you give a little more respect to that individual and first try to be sure of what the true intent of that individual's message is; before you read into it something what you think and show no class by calling that individual a "douchebag", "scumbag", etc. That is of course; unless the primary purpose some of you who participate in this forum; is what Jim Rome refers to as, "running smake" on others.
Oh; but wait a second; you said that an "oc" PSA graded card is typically a 2 grade drop which means that a straight PSA-7 is factually a higher graded card then a 8 w/q card? So, why didn't you include the quantity of straight graded 7s in with those other 99 8s w/o qualifier graded cards which you said I should have added to the only 5 higher graded cards?
Yes; I agree with you that an 8oc card is not going to have the same market value, as that same card graded a straight 8. But, does this factually equate to an 8oc card not being equal to the numeric value of a 8 w/no qualifier? Not according to the econ classes that I had in college. Obviously PSA doesn't either or they would have had a column listed in the SMR for the book values of 7s, 8s, & 9 q cards.
Plus; if I was purposely trying to mis-lead even the novice potential buyers of my "oc" cards. Why would I provide in my auction description, the SMR book values of an PSA-7 and a PSA-8 for that particular type card? I do it so that the novice buyer has a bases in which to better decide how much less or more of a value does he or she personally places on an 8oc card versus a straight 8 and a straight 7 which maybe they may decide to just look for a straight PSA-7 card instead of buying my 8oc. Is this trying to mis-lead someone into buying my 8oc card?
Of course; we wouldn't be having this discussion, if those cards were SGC or GAI graded ones. Now would we?
here is a definition from psa ...
trimmed --
A card that has been altered by cutting or shaving the edges. The most obvious reason for this is to improve the condition of corners, by removing the worn areas. Cards are also trimmed to correct centering problems. Cards that have been trimmed have very little value.
you have quoted psa grading standards in your auctions so i am confident you knew this definition therefore you appear to have been intentionally deceptive in this case. so when you use this play on words as your argument against RipublicaninMass saying its altered not trimmed, you appear to be continuing to try to get over on him. its 100 % bs in my eyes. you played games and got caught. do the right thing and learn from it. the members on here are very intelligent and they will stickup for one another in certain circumstances. how do you expect people to respond to you when right in the beginning you have 3 strikes with the members here. the 3 strikes are (1) selling the t3 without disclosing the trimmed/aletered problem, (2) when caught, making up the ridiculous trimmed/altered argument, (3) you play up a card when you own it while downplaying it when someone else owns it.
you still didnt do the right thing regarding the t3 and RipublicaninMass. a partial credit is an insult.
deception is a horrible long-term business strategyand although it may take awhile, eventually people will catch on. now before you get a holier-than thou- attitude, keep in mind that some lurker will start buying alot of your items just to give you alot of negatives. so that feedback is not as safe as you think it is. i am not saying you have that attitude right now, but it is clear than you look down on these customers with how disrespectful you are to them by all the double talk.
at this point, in my eyes, you stole from ripublicaninMass.
You accused the buyer of your card of trying to steal from you before, changing ID 3-4 times in the last 2-3 years. Yet even though you have paid enough attention to him and his various ID's, you never bothered blocking him from buying from you? He's had that ID for 5 years, plenty of time for you to block him. Lots of people have different buying IDs, some so that people don't follow them and bid against them, and some because they buy things they wouldn't be all that proud of if people they knew looked at their buyer feedback.
You also came close to accusing him of taking your card and holder and counterfeiting a fake psa label, attaching it to your card and holder, and relisting it on ebay with a better grade. I found that one funny. YOU are the one listing cards on ebay as if they have a better grade than PSA said that they do. PSA 8 OC to you = PSA 8 in your headline and description.
These don't look like the same holders. The card is overgraded IMHO as a 4, but PSA doesn't pay me to grade cards, they pay the guy who graded it. If anything I would say that his much better scan kept the price more where it belonged for that card and because of the better scan people were more able to buy the card, not the holder.
As a side note: Making accusations of cracking and reholdering without any soild evidence is completely and totally irresponsible.
Let me ask you this. I'm sure that there have been similar circumstances with other individuals who this forum has talked about and shared information on. Have any of those other individuals cared enough to openly apologize on this forum and faced the music from this group or have those other individuals taken the easy way out by simply ignoring what anyone says or thinks and simply acts like that he or she never did anything wrong?
Lastly Ted; now that I have had the opportunity to explain my remorse & viewpoint on this matter on this forum and it appears from a couple other members' responses that proper restitution to you would be for me to still pay 100% of your $55 grading fee. My offer still stands as far as giving you a full refund on the auction price and in addition, I'll pay the other half or $25 of that grading fee in return for this "POS" T3 Konetchy. And; if you don't sell the card with your current Buy It Now listing, but I would enjoy nothing more then to see you make the 100% profit on this T3. My offer still stands, if it doesn't sell.
Thank you,
Tom Reeves
To many others on this forum who have responded to my message with comments such as, "douchebag", "scumbucket", "idiot", etc. This is the type of response to those things which individuals bring to this forum like I have, which can better educate & help those individuals such as myself to better understand how something like an initially graded PSA-3 creased T206 Matty card most likely could end up as a PSA-4. Unless of course; your only purpose for being a member of this forum, is to smake others.
Look it and please Ted, chime in if you disagree with what I'm saying, here, to cohocorp. When this whole thing came down. I admitted to Ted that I did something wrong and I apologized. I offered to refund his money in return for the card and he replied that he didn't feel that was good enough. So; I gave it some more though and based upon my honest view of the 2 different grading results of PSA's on this card, "Trimmed" vs "Altered". I came back to Ted with a second offer to additionally pay 1/2 his grading fee which I felt was a fair offer as restitution to him, based upon my interruption these 2 different grading results. Ted accepted the $30 Paypal payment that I made to him and told me that PSA slabbed this T3 card for him as "Authentic" and he was simply going to keep the card. Since, Ted decided to simply keep the card instead of returning it for a full refund and didn't say that he felt I should pay the rest of his grading fee. I took that as he felt the $30 that I gave him for 1/2 his grading fee and keeping the now PSA "Authentic" graded T3 Konetchy card, was a fair offer and restitution for what I had done. Ted, is this an accurate account, regarding how this went between you & I?
Thus cohocorp; I wasn't using this "Trimmed" vs "Altered" as a play on words, as my argument against Ted. It was simply the bases for which I determined to be what I thought was a fair restitution to Ted on the matter and Ted never came back to say it wasn't acceptable or fair to him. He maybe didn't agree with my viewpoint of a PSA labeled "Trimmed" vs "Altered" card, but Ted never said to me that was not an acceptable reason for not reimbursing him 100% of his grading fee. If he had and his interruption made more sense to me then mine. Then, I would have worked with him to come up with a restitution which he felt was more fair.
The people who I have managed in past jobs of mine. I always tried to have an open mind and wanted to hear what their viewpoint of various business matters, because I recognize that my interruption of a situation maybe not the right or the best one and their perspectives may make more sense & a better or right way to address the matter. So in this case; I appreciate and openly welcome others constructive input such as the PSA definition which you quoted in your below message, but feedback such as "douchebag", "scumbucket", etc aren't doing anything to convince or tell me otherwise. So, I thank you for pointing this PSA definition out to me, because it does change my perspective some what about this subject of "Trimmed" vs "Altered" PSA labeled cards.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Mastro for his response, saying that creases can be ironed out. I had no idea that they could and this really helped me see how this Matty card most likely got graded higher, other then what I was initially more suspicious of and how it ended up with the higher grade.
Finally in response to the 3 things which you have stated in your reply message to me;
Item 1) I have come clean & openly admitted to doing it to this forum of members, have openly apologized for it, have said that I was wrong in doing it and won't do something like it ever again, and if read my earlier today message to Ted, RepublicaninMass. I have again offered to refund what he bought this card from me for and additionally, have offered to reimburse him the other 1/2 or $25 of his grading fee in exchange for the T3 Konetchy card. If this is enough for you to give me a second chance and not hold it against me any longer. Well, that's the way it is and life goes on.
2) I hope that my recap of the correspondence between Ted & I of the offers which were presented, has helped you & others see that the "Trimmed/Altered" subject was not for the intent or purpose of as you said "as an argument against RepublicaninMass, Ted, or "to try to get over on him" and of being "intentionally deceptive" in this matter with Ted. If it hasn't; then I guess you will continue to believe what you want to believe to be the truth of the matter, even though you're wrong.
3) I described the quality of the Mathewson card in my auction description as I viewed it to be. I provided pictures of the front and THE BACK which many sellers don't, so that people could come to their own conclusion as to the it's quality such as its centering, corners, cleanliness, & overall visual appeal. In my message to this forum about it now being a PSA-4 graded card; no where in that message did I say anything about it being in worst condition then how I described it in my auction. I didn't state one word in my message about it's corners, centering, cleanliness, picture quality, or about those scuff marks of the paper on the front, nothing. The only thing that I said in my message to this forum along this line, is that "a grader" would have to be blind to not see it and no where in my auction description did I say a PSA grader might not see this crease. That would have been playing up this card & then downplaying it. I factually pointed out in my description that it had a very faint really hard to see crease and said THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE 3 GRADE. I wanted people to know about the crease, because there was no way that it could be seen in the auction photos. How is that downplaying a card which I stated in my auction that the reason for the 3 grade is due to a really hard to see crease and later saying in my message to this forum that a "grader" would have to be blind not to see it? The card has a crease which maybe hard for most to see, but not for someone who's job is to look for creases, surface wrinkles with the the professional tools to make it much easier for him or her to see a crease like this card's. How you could take this & make a comparison of it; as to me playing up the card and then downplaying it, is beyond my imagination. Man; talk about taking something out of context and twisting it around which is so far from being the actual facts of the matter! Now; that's what I say or better yet; as you would put it, "making up the ridiculous".
But again cohocorp; you did bring something sensible and constructive to the table with pointing out to me the published PSA definition of a "Trimmed" card and I thank you for that. Because, it does help me better see and understand that my interruption could not necessarily be 100% accurate and why others would have a different viewpoint on the matter.
On another subject; I wish someone in the forum could give me some logical explanation, especially from any of those who have already commented about disagreeing with my take that PSA doesn't consider or look at a PSA-8 graded card to be of any higher grade numeric value then a PSA-8"oc" card. I recognize that there is a "market value" difference which that value is also subjective, because some people may consider a PSA-8"oc" card to have the same value as a straight 7 nq card and some may feel it's no higher of a value then a straight 6. Then, there are even those who could careless about if the centering is not as good as another and view a straight PSA-8 graded card as being equally as nice a condition as that same card graded a PSA-8oc. Numerically, they have the same grade level and the physical condition of both cards are equal in quality (corners, edges, surfaces). Then, there are the visual aspects to a card's quality such as centering, focus, mis-cut, print defects of a card which are totally subjective to each ones personal preference and degree of value. If, PSA considered & viewed a PSA-8oc card as a lesser grade then a straight PSA-8 grade. Then wouldn't PSA list them in that order on their POP report? But, they don't and 7q, 8q, & 9q quantities of graded cards are actually listed after the quantities of the straight 7, 8, & 9s graded cards. This logically indicates to me that PSA is saying a PSA-8 & a PSA-8oc are the same grade level and what would be classified as a having a higher grade would be those graded 9, 9q, & 10.
So; I wanting to know & trying to understand why some individuals are saying that I'm trying to deceive people by stating in my auctions the quantities of the 9, 9q, & 10 graded cards which are graded higher then my 8oc card. I'm not trying to purposely deceive anyone or do I feel that I am and so far, I have not heard anything logical that would convince me otherwise.
I'm stating what I honestly believe to be factual and accurate information from PSA's POP report. No where in my auction descriptions on 8oc cards do I say that my 8oc card has an equal market value or book value as a straight 8 graded one and in my description, I give the SMR book price of a 8 and of a 7. If, I was purposely trying to deceive people into believing that a PSA-8 card is equal in value to a PSA-8oc card, hoping to get a higher price for it. Then; why would I downplay the value of my card by letting people know what the book value of that card is in a 7 grade. I would just give only the SMR book of an 8. But, I don't and I also give them the lower book value price of 7 so that each of them has a bases in which to decide how much less of a value to them is my 8oc. Again, the "oc" qualifier or the cards off-center bordering may not be any big deal to them and would rather pay more for the 8oc card versus having a straight 7 which isn't worth as much to them. While with others, the "oc" might be a much bigger issue and feel that it's not worth more then the book price of a 7, but would still prefer to have the 8oc over a straight 7. Then, there are those who wouldn't mind having an 8oc, but only if they were able to get it for what a 6 of that same card is going for. In my eyes; the "oc" card value is solely subjective which each individual decides what that value is or isn't. I provide those individuals with the published SMR price information as a guide for deciding how much they want to bid on my card, depending if the person feels the card is worth less then the book value of a 7 or some amount between the book of a 7 & 8.
Thus and again, I sincerely would like to understand why 2 or 3 people on this forum feel like I'm intentionally trying to deceive people by stating what I honestly believe to be factual information about the quantity of higher graded cards then my PSA-8oc which doesn't include the qty of 8nq cards. In addition, I provide book pricing information which gives people a bases or guide to help them decide how much of a lesser market value do they feel that my PSA-8"oc" card is to that of a straight 8, 7 graded card. I truly don't see how this is being deceitful to those who might be interested in one of my PSA 8'oc" graded cards.
A person can interrupt something one way and another person can some other way. And one person's interruption may not be the right one and the other person's wrong. But, one maybe more logical and the better of the 2. If you, cohocorp, or stown, jimq112, or any one else were intentionally trying to deceive or get one over RepublicaninMass like you seem to think that I am on that matter with Ted and the 4 or 5 auctions of my PSA-8oc cards which I've had in my collection for about 10 yrs. Would you even bother to spend 1 minute of your time to explain and share what your interpretation of a PSA "Trimmed" vs "Altered" labeled card or of PSA's POP report and why to you a PSA-8 nq card is not a higher grade then a 8q graded card? Plain & simple common sense tells me that I really doubt you would and I sure the sh-t wouldn't either.
Have a nice day.