I think I know what I'm doing when it comes to card grading, and I once sent in to PSA a 1965 Hunter rookie figuring it was a mortal lock for an 8. Came back a 5 - had the tiniest f*ing wrinkle that I missed - that grader had better eyesight than I did.
Also - If you're gonna start a thread like this, I think that scans of the cards should be posted - That was an excellent point about the cards possibly being OC
The thing about this that I don't understand is that if you realized they weren't in the described condition when you received them, why didn't you contact Ron BEFORE you had them graded rather than wait until after you had them graded? Why waste money to have them graded if you knew they weren't in the condition as described? So you could prove a point?
If it were an eBay purchase and you realized the cards weren't as stated, would you still have them graded or ask for a refund from the seller?
On a side note, I have only had one dealing with Ron and it went very smoothly and the card was exactly as described.
IMO he probably thought they should all 8's & 9's. But when he didn't get what he wanted it was the original sellers fault for selling him over graded cards. Just get over it, you got grades lower than expected, move on and quit slinging mud at a board member.
Frankly, I am surprised that people are being so harsh against Roger. The cards were simply not as stated. He, and I, expect better when buying from a fellow board member. When buying on Ebay it's buyer beware. When buying on these boards, from a veteran board member, I expect to get accurately described cards. I think Roger's original post is totally fair. I enjoy gang tackling a lot of the dumb s$$$s that post on here but, in my opinion, the original post is not as off base as some seem to think. Simply put: It seems that Ron overgrades his raw cards even when selling to board members.
Have purchased some cards from Roger and have always been happy.
Likewise, my best purchase on this board was from Ron. Noone likely remembers but it was like 150 cards, mostly HOF'ers, about 1/3rd graded for $150. I imagine I have at least doubled my money on that lot and kept everything I wanted.
Anyway, hope you two can work it out.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Frankly, I am surprised that people are being so harsh against Roger. The cards were simply not as stated. He, and I, expect better when buying from a fellow board member. When buying on Ebay it's buyer beware. When buying on these boards, from a veteran board member, I expect to get accurately described cards. I think Roger's original post is totally fair. I enjoy gang tackling a lot of the dumb s$$$s that post on here but, in my opinion, the original post is not as off base as some seem to think. Simply put: It seems that Ron overgrades his raw cards even when selling to board members. >>
I agree. If Roger had come here and not mentioned who the seller was and instead stated all other facts, I think the responses would have been different. People would have been asking for the seller's name so they wouldn't deal with them in the future.
For those that are questioning Roger's reasoning for submitting the cards after having them in hand, who cares? I don't follow Roger's collecting habits. Maybe he doesn't have a lot of history with OPC cards. We ALL know that OPC cards get special treatment when graded (edges, etc). Maybe he figured that if someone with purported knowledge of the product said they would grade higher than his own eye told him, he would trust the seller.
Roger stated that he was considering purchasing many more cards from this seller and wanted to do a sample run at them. If that's worth $250 (cards & grading) for Roger, then that's his business. It was a $250 lesson, of which he'll recover some. However, all things considered, maybe the seller should change his name to BrickTamland.
<< <i>The thing about this that I don't understand is that if you realized they weren't in the described condition when you received them, why didn't you contact Ron BEFORE you had them graded rather than wait until after you had them graded?.......... >>
All that would have done is get Roger into a.......yes they are, no they arent, yes they are, no they arent.........with Ron. Roger's way took all the grey area out of the equation.
I personally don't think the grades are that far off from what was described, Especially for Opc cards. Psa gave you an opinion like Ron did on the condition of the cards, There is a fine line between ex-mint and near mt/mt I bet if you resubmitted the cards you would get different grades on 90% of them.
<< <i>For those that are questioning Roger's reasoning for submitting the cards after having them in hand, who cares? >>
I do! That is not how business is done. Any business, not just baseball cards. Roger knew when he had the cards in hand that they did not meet his expectations. If you purchase a product and are not happy with that product because you feel it was misrepresented, you address the situation RIGHT THEN! Not three months down the road.
Come on guys, let's be reasonable! Forget that Roger is a board member. If you sold an item on eBay and the buyer tells you three months down the road that he is not happy with the purchase, what would you do? Personally I would tell them to pound sand!
<< <i>For those that are questioning Roger's reasoning for submitting the cards after having them in hand, who cares? >>
I do! That is not how business is done. Any business, not just baseball cards. Roger knew when he had the cards in hand that they did not meet his expectations. If you purchase a product and are not happy with that product because you feel it was misrepresented, you address the situation RIGHT THEN! Not three months down the road.
Come on guys, let's be reasonable! Forget that Roger is a board member. If you sold an item on eBay and the buyer tells you three months down the road that he is not happy with the purchase, what would you do? Personally I would tell them to pound sand! >>
Roger's words: I am not asking for a refund, partial refund, apology or anything of that sort.
What I am asking for is some integrity when I deal with people on these boards.
I've had literally a dozen positive dealings with RonB - nothing but praise from me. If I were unsatisfied on any of them, I'd have dealt with it differently.
Someone is upset because they got 5s, 6s,7s, and 8s for cards advertised online as NM+?
I would be happy with those grades. If I buy something online advertised as NM, 5 or better would be good for me....No one would really expect to get all 7s or higher, would you?
Hey guys! Did I miss anything while I was working today?
In all seriousness I have had transactions with both Roger and Ron. Both had positive outcomes, with one exception which I will not mention because the value was minimal. I have also been quite irritated lately by buying something from a board member and that board member not responding to PM's. With my situation I also felt there was no other option but to post it publicly. The situation was resolved and I hope this one will be too.
BTW, I still personally feel that both are good guys and I would not hesitate to buy raw cards from either one of them.
If I buy something online advertised as NM, 5 or better would be good for me....No one would really expect to get all 7s or higher, would you?
YES. If I bought from a fellow board member I would expect to get close to what he described. About 1/2 of the grades received are lower than NM... just one notch lower than NM but they are lower. I think that's a high percentage. I am not trying to pile on Ron because I don't know him at all. Maybe he just slightly overgraded them. It would have been nice if he had replied to Roger and then this whole thread would not have been started. I just think people were quick to pile on Roger. The title to his thread may be a bit harsh but I think it's fair to point out that a seller on the boards may overgrade his cards. Judging from other posts it appears this may be a one time situation that Ron overgraded his raw cards.
<< <i>If I buy something online advertised as NM, 5 or better would be good for me.... >>
The cards weren't advertised as NM. NM = 7.
The cards were advertised as: "Cards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9."
NM/MT = 8. By further stating "A few could go 9.", that validates that PSA's grading standards were being applied by the seller. Seems fairly misleading to me.
I have not dealt with Roger or Ron, but I think only waiting 2+ days for a response is a little overboard. This board is not the center of the universe. If it is then there are bigger issues IMHO.
<< <i>What I am asking for is some integrity when I deal with people on these boards. >>
I'm not saying that the cards couldn't have been overgraded. Perhaps they were because as I have heard many times, grading is subjective. Does that mean Ron lacks integrity because his opinion is different that PSA's? No!
So, let me make sure I am understanding Roger right on this. I think we can all agree that the card below is definitley not a 10 (bad bottom right corner and all). So, since PSA said it was a 10 (which it obviously isn't), do they lack integrity? According to Roger they do because it is obviously over graded.
15 of the total cards you had graded are 6.5 + or better, If you consider that the 6.5's are near mint, then 55% of the cards you received were near mint or better. It looks like the ones that took the hardest grading hits were from cards that were off-center a tad, which Psa is notoriously known for downgrading. Not a bad lot overall, Could have been better but nothing to start accusations over.
Misrepresentation is a contract law concept. It means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
While this is Wikipedia and not law per se, it is essentially correct.
So let's take a look at RonBurgundy original post.
<< <i>These are some of the best of the huge OPC lot I sold a few months ago. 24 cards in all:
Cards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9. Total raw value is $71, they're yours for $50 delivered.
Thanks,
Ron >>
Is not RonBurgundy saying IF YOU SUBMIT THESE CARDS TO PSA, THEY WILL COME BACK GRADED PSA 8 AND SOME COULD COME BACK GRADED PSA 9? What else could the "[c]ards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9" mean?
The reference to "NM/MT" could be ambiguous. But when read in context of "a few could go 9", it is clearly a reference to PSA's grading standards. As such, I believe Rogermnj was clearly justified in sending the cards in for grading regardless of his subjective beliefs as to what he thought the cards might grade.
Moreover, as nam812 said, if Rogermnj emailed RonBurgundy saying the cards are not "NM/MT" or "could go 9", that likely would have resulted in a "yes they are, no they arent, yes they are, no they arent........."
Reading this thread, it appears that most would disagree with my position, except for maybe larryallen73, but that's my $0.02.
<< <i>I personally don't think the grades are that far off from what was described, Especially for Opc cards. Psa gave you an opinion like Ron did on the condition of the cards, There is a fine line between ex-mint and near mt/mt I bet if you resubmitted the cards you would get different grades on 90% of them. >>
To elaborate a bit on this point, I have read post after post about the same card or cards being resubmitted numerous times until the desired grade is achieved. Also, I've read many posts where the OP is encouraged to crack and resub a card because a higher grade will likely be given. I can't say with certainty, but I believe such posts encouraging resubs have been made by some in this thread who are being critical of Ron's assessment of his raw cards. It can't work both ways. Either one has confidence in PSA's card grading, or not.
The scans Ron provided when selling the OPC lot give as good a look as a scan generally can. The cards look very nice and a raw assessment of nm-mt does not at all seem out of line. 15 of the 27 cards graded were 6.5 or better, with 7 more being straight 6. We all know that an 8 should and generally does look much better than a 6. However, considering the wild inconsistency with TPG (and yes, PSA is as inconsistent as any), 22 out of 27 within 2 of the stated grade is not that bad. If one subscribes to the continuous resub philosophy, then one is sitting pretty. Your dissatisfaction, then, should lie with PSA and their inducement of multiple submissions.
Personally, I detest the multi-resub method of achieving a desired grade. It has shaken my confidence in the entire TPG process. I submit cards based my own assessments, not those of the seller from whom I bought the cards. If the raw cards appear to have been clearly overgraded by the seller, I will deal directly with him. Under no circumstances will I submit cards which I suspect are substandard, whether or not the seller responds to my concerns.
<< <i>Misrepresentation is a contract law concept. It means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
While this is Wikipedia and not law per se, it is essentially correct.
So let's take a look at RonBurgundy original post.
<< <i>These are some of the best of the huge OPC lot I sold a few months ago. 24 cards in all:
Cards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9. Total raw value is $71, they're yours for $50 delivered.
Thanks,
Ron >>
Is not RonBurgundy saying IF YOU SUBMIT THESE CARDS TO PSA, THEY WILL COME BACK GRADED PSA 8 AND SOME COULD COME BACK GRADED PSA 9? What else could the "[c]ards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9" mean?
The reference to "NM/MT" could be ambiguous. But when read in context of "a few could go 9", it is clearly a reference to PSA's grading standards. As such, I believe Rogermnj was clearly justified in sending the cards in for grading regardless of his subjective beliefs as to what he thought the cards might grade.
Moreover, as nam812 said, if Rogermnj emailed RonBurgundy saying the cards are not "NM/MT" or "could go 9", that likely would have resulted in a "yes they are, no they arent, yes they are, no they arent........."
Reading this thread, it appears that most would disagree with my position, except for maybe larryallen73, but that's my $0.02.
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
Jack, I disagree with your assessment. I don't think Ron was saying, "IF YOU SUBMIT THESE CARDS TO PSA, THEY WILL COME BACK GRADED PSA 8 AND SOME COULD COME BACK GRADED PSA 9." That is how one may choose to interpret what he said, but what he said was that, in his opinion, the cards are nm-mt with some possibly better. Ultimately, PSA agreed that some were, and some were not. Given the inherint subjectivity of card grading, it is not in a buyer's best interest to assume that PSA or any other TPG will agree with anyone's evaluation of raw cards. Even PSA does not agree with THEIR OWN evaluations, as the crack-and-resub carousel can attest.
I have seen Ron post cards(over the last 2 yrs.) that he said were NM come back as 7s, I have seen him post cards as NM that come back as a 6. I have also seen him post scans(58 Topps) stating NM/MT that came back as a 9. I have never bought from him yet but this won't deter me at all from buying from him in the future. The funny thing to me; and maybe I'm wrong was that this was over a $50 lot of cards...LOL. If any of you have a 401K you have lost that much in a matter of seconds this week. I know this has nothing to do with the transaction that took place but c'mon... a $50 lot of 70s OPC. I think this original post was a little overboard.
This situation is laughable. let's take who these people are out of the equation- many of us have dealt with Roger, many have dealt with Ron, many have dealt with both. I have not bought or sold anything to either if I'm not mistaken. Let's just look at the situation:
1) Seller advertises cards as NM-MT across the boards with many better- I would expect that someone who has submitted to PSA many times knows the grading standards and knows what the cards will grade.
2) Buyer gets cards and sends to PSA. They come back mostly 5-7.5. Only 4 cards fit the NM-MT or better description.
3) Buyer starts a thread saying don't buy from this guy because he overgrades, which he clearly did.
4) Forum members jump on buyer??!!!!
Now being familiar with these two guys, my guess is that Roger got the cards and was somewhat offended that a veteran board member had the balls to overgrade by two. I'm guessing he submitted the cards out of curiosity more than anything else. Why is Roger the bad guy here? I guess you guys are arguing that Roger should have sent them back for a refund, but why? He did us a service by exposing Ron as a potential overgrader. How is this bad for the boards? Ron should know better and I won't be buying raw from him any time soon.
I think you guys are defending Ron because you like him, not because you think he did no wrong. He clearly overgraded these cards and should get some crap for it. I would expect to get crap if I overgraded on here, or overcharged for shipping, or did anything that the typical ebay seller would do. This is a board of knowledgeable hobbyists and for people to misguide others about merchandise they're selling on here is not cool.
Lee
Edit to add- This isn't a slight overgrading we're talking about. Taking into account the qualifiers, this lot was overgraded by two full grades. I'm pretty sure this isn't about the money for Roger.
<< <i>I have seen Ron post cards(over the last 2 yrs.) that he said were NM come back as 7s, I have seen him post cards as NM that come back as a 6. I have also seen him post scans(58 Topps) stating NM/MT that came back as a 9. I have never bought from him yet but this won't deter me at all from buying from him in the future. The funny thing to me; and maybe I'm wrong was that this was over a $50 lot of cards...LOL. If any of you have a 401K you have lost that much in a matter of seconds this week. I know this has nothing to do with the transaction that took place but c'mon... a $50 lot of 70s OPC. I think this original post was a little overboard. >>
Why on earth would $50 play any part in this situation. I said I wasnt going to post again but this is so ridiculous. People that know me know that I will burn a $50 bill if asked nicely.
I've dealt with rb on ebay a few times and his raw cards were as described.
Looking at the scans, it looks like Roger got hammered on some of the cards, but many of them were clearly off-center and that information was provided to the buyer. Maybe "ron" knew the cards had flaws such as minute wrinkles or corner bends that would make them grade low, but based on his track record here with the more valuable raw cards he has sold, I doubt it. More likely, he probably didn't spend enough time examining them, and that's probably not a mistake he'll repeat.
wait a sec. the scans were presented prior to the transaction, right? the buyer had a chance to view the cards before committing to a purchase. were i to see the cards in question just from those scans, i would immediately have eliminated any thought of a lock PSA 9 from that group, so Ron, perhaps was a bit boastful.....but none of those cards looked like it NEEDED to be graded, certainly not for the purpose of making a profit.....they would look fine in a raw collection, and there they should have stayed.
considering Ron has been known to out dealers due to their pricing, one could consider turnabout fair play. I believe at one point a dealer a week was going to be outed.
I can see both sides of the coin here. I can understand Rogers frustration. I have never completed any deals with Roger, but I can agree with the opinion that he is an assett to the forum. I have made purchases and trades with Ron. I can confidently say that Ron will make this right in the end.
This situation is laughable. let's take who these people are out of the equation- many of us have dealt with Roger, many have dealt with Ron, many have dealt with both. I have not bought or sold anything to either if I'm not mistaken. Let's just look at the situation:
1) Seller advertises cards as NM-MT across the boards with many better- I would expect that someone who has submitted to PSA many times knows the grading standards and knows what the cards will grade.
2) Buyer gets cards and sends to PSA. They come back mostly 5-7.5. Only 4 cards fit the NM-MT or better description.
3) Buyer starts a thread saying don't buy from this guy because he overgrades, which he clearly did.
4) Forum members jump on buyer??!!!!
Now being familiar with these two guys, my guess is that Roger got the cards and was somewhat offended that a veteran board member had the balls to overgrade by two. I'm guessing he submitted the cards out of curiosity more than anything else. Why is Roger the bad guy here? I guess you guys are arguing that Roger should have sent them back for a refund, but why? He did us a service by exposing Ron as a potential overgrader. How is this bad for the boards? Ron should know better and I won't be buying raw from him any time soon.
I think you guys are defending Ron because you like him, not because you think he did no wrong. He clearly overgraded these cards and should get some crap for it. I would expect to get crap if I overgraded on here, or overcharged for shipping, or did anything that the typical ebay seller would do. This is a board of knowledgeable hobbyists and for people to misguide others about merchandise they're selling on here is not cool.
Lee
Edit to add- This isn't a slight overgrading we're talking about. Taking into account the qualifiers, this lot was overgraded by two full grades. I'm pretty sure this isn't about the money for Roger.
I agree with Exactly what Lee is saying, He sums it up perfectly.
I have also dealt with Roger and he is one of the top sellers I have ever had the pleasure of purchasing from.
If I may indulge you for a second, please take a look at this completed auction for a RAW 1955 Topps Roberto Clemente that sold for a Best Offer of $2,500.00. Here's the seller's description word for word. (I've reduced the font size.)
1955 TOPPS ROBERTO CLEMENTE ROOKIE, #164!!
THIS NEAR MINT/MINT BEAUTY IS SIMPLY DROOL WORTHY AND INCREDIBLY RARE IN THIS CONDITION!! FANTASTIC AND VIRTUALLY PERFECT!!!
I GUARANTEE THAT THE CARD IS 100% AUTHENTIC, UNALTERED, UNTRIMMED. CARD MEASURES PERFECTLY AND EXHIBITS A VERY CLEAN SURFACE, SHARP CORNERS, SMOOTH EDGES, AND NO SCRATCHES, CREASES OR WRINKLES!!!
SIMPLY AMAZING!!!
I CANNOT STRESS HOW HARD IT IS TO FIND CLEMENTE ROOKIES IN THIS HIGH-GRADE CONDITION!!
THIS MAY BE YOUR ONLY CHANCE!!!
WHAT AN ALMOST PERFECT AND TOUGH ROOKIE CARD OF THE BASEBALL HALL OF FAMER!!
TAKE A LOOK!!
DON'T PASS UP THIS OPPORTUNITY!!!
$5250.00 SMR FOR A 8 (NM/MT)!!!
I don't know about you, but for me, that's an awfully dangerous item description. Is the seller guaranteeing that the card will grade a PSA 8 if submitted? If you were a member of a jury, can you confidently say no? As a seller, if I am going to describe a card like that, I better be fully prepared to refund a dissatisfied buyer. And what's a dissatisfied buyer? Would the buyer be dissatisfied if the card came back
1. Not Holdered Due To Evidence Of .... Definitely. 2. PSA 8 ... Probably not. 3. PSA 7 ... Small possibility. 4. PSA 6, 5, 4, etc. ... Likely.
While this is an extreme example of a very expensive card, I think it serves to demonstrate the key issue here; that the item advertised for sale was misrepresented.
I submitted the card below thinking it would be a 10. I pulled it myself - all 4 original corners are perfect, centering & surface are GEM quality and THE EDGES ARE THE WILDCARD - just loaded with extra fuzz from the rough cut. I was off by 2 grades.
If these were non-rough cuts this might be a fairly objective critique. But these cards sure seem to be graded subjectively (like 62's & 71's) - you get a different grader on a different day and you'd get a different result.
Ron's scans sure look 8-ish to me (thanks to Jim for the link). But who knows what a grader will do with the fuzzy edges?
edit: ignore the dingleberry on the bottom of the reverse - it's on the holder not the card.
I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion, "...but none of those cards looked like it NEEDED to be graded, certainly not for the purpose of making a profit.....they would look fine in a raw collection, and there they should have stayed."
Grading is useful either to turn a significant profit or for Registry purposes. I love raw cards and crackout the graded cards that I buy. Just as an aside, I've had countless overgraded PSA cards, just as Roger had some overgraded raw cards in this instance. Card grading is inherintly subjective. I trust my own opinion as much as anyone else's, regardless of whether he or she is a professional grader. The danger is in assuming that PSA or any other TPG is going to agree with your seller's evaluation. Unless there is obvious damage like creases, wrinkles, paper loss, or layering, grading is all a crap shoot.
By the by, the average grade for the 24 cards in the OP is nearly 6.8. Not all that far off from 8. Ultimately, grading is a matter of opinion. The fact that some have qualifiers doesn't change the grade. An 8 OC is still a nm-mt card. It just doesn't carry as much weight on the Set Registry. Obviously, we all prefer NQ cards to Q, so don't think that I am equating their respective values.
<< <i>This situation is laughable. let's take who these people are out of the equation- many of us have dealt with Roger, many have dealt with Ron, many have dealt with both. I have not bought or sold anything to either if I'm not mistaken. Let's just look at the situation:
1) Seller advertises cards as NM-MT across the boards with many better- I would expect that someone who has submitted to PSA many times knows the grading standards and knows what the cards will grade.
2) Buyer gets cards and sends to PSA. They come back mostly 5-7.5. Only 4 cards fit the NM-MT or better description.
3) Buyer starts a thread saying don't buy from this guy because he overgrades, which he clearly did.
4) Forum members jump on buyer??!!!!
Now being familiar with these two guys, my guess is that Roger got the cards and was somewhat offended that a veteran board member had the balls to overgrade by two. I'm guessing he submitted the cards out of curiosity more than anything else. Why is Roger the bad guy here? I guess you guys are arguing that Roger should have sent them back for a refund, but why? He did us a service by exposing Ron as a potential overgrader. How is this bad for the boards? Ron should know better and I won't be buying raw from him any time soon.
I think you guys are defending Ron because you like him, not because you think he did no wrong. He clearly overgraded these cards and should get some crap for it. I would expect to get crap if I overgraded on here, or overcharged for shipping, or did anything that the typical ebay seller would do. This is a board of knowledgeable hobbyists and for people to misguide others about merchandise they're selling on here is not cool.
Lee
Edit to add- This isn't a slight overgrading we're talking about. Taking into account the qualifiers, this lot was overgraded by two full grades. I'm pretty sure this isn't about the money for Roger. >>
Just plain common sense with no bias to either guy!
The fact that some have qualifiers doesn't change the grade. An 8 OC is still a nm-mt card.
An 8OC is absolutely not NM/MT. What it means is that the card would be NM/MT if it had better centering. If he requests no qualifiers he gets a 6 on the card. Not to mention that cards with qualifiers usually sell for two grades lower in most cases.
Comments
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>All -I am on the road, where I have been all week except briefly yesterday morning. I will respond when I return home this evening. Thanks.
Ron >>
Well there ya go.
I certainly think that could be relevant here.
Sorry, a feeble stab at humor in a time of stress.
Take it for what its worth.
If i am the bad guy then so be it.
Take care. Wont be responding anymore to this thread.
If anyone can claim that I should be happy with the grades based on his description then you obviously have a very low opinion of these boards.
If anyone does not want to deal with me because of this thread then so be it.
I am not asking for a refund, partial refund, apology or anything of that sort.
What I am asking for is some integrity when I deal with people on these boards.
If it were an eBay purchase and you realized the cards weren't as stated, would you still have them graded or ask for a refund from the seller?
On a side note, I have only had one dealing with Ron and it went very smoothly and the card was exactly as described.
<< <i>If anyone does not want to deal with me because of this thread then so be it.
I am not asking for a refund, partial refund, apology or anything of that sort.
What I am asking for is some integrity when I deal with people on these boards. >>
I have to say I have dealt with Roger many, many times.
He is one of the best guys I have ever dealt with hands down.
That's all I have to say
Matt
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>I have to say I have dealt with Roger many, many times.
He is one of the best guys I have ever dealt with hands down.
That's all I have to say
Matt >>
Ditto.
Have purchased some cards from Roger and have always been happy.
Likewise, my best purchase on this board was from Ron. Noone likely remembers but it was like 150 cards, mostly HOF'ers, about 1/3rd graded for $150. I imagine I have at least doubled my money on that lot and kept everything I wanted.
Anyway, hope you two can work it out.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Frankly, I am surprised that people are being so harsh against Roger. The cards were simply not as stated. He, and I, expect better when buying from a fellow board member. When buying on Ebay it's buyer beware. When buying on these boards, from a veteran board member, I expect to get accurately described cards. I think Roger's original post is totally fair. I enjoy gang tackling a lot of the dumb s$$$s that post on here but, in my opinion, the original post is not as off base as some seem to think. Simply put: It seems that Ron overgrades his raw cards even when selling to board members. >>
I agree. If Roger had come here and not mentioned who the seller was and instead stated all other facts, I think the responses would have been different. People would have been asking for the seller's name so they wouldn't deal with them in the future.
For those that are questioning Roger's reasoning for submitting the cards after having them in hand, who cares? I don't follow Roger's collecting habits. Maybe he doesn't have a lot of history with OPC cards. We ALL know that OPC cards get special treatment when graded (edges, etc). Maybe he figured that if someone with purported knowledge of the product said they would grade higher than his own eye told him, he would trust the seller.
Roger stated that he was considering purchasing many more cards from this seller and wanted to do a sample run at them. If that's worth $250 (cards & grading) for Roger, then that's his business. It was a $250 lesson, of which he'll recover some. However, all things considered, maybe the seller should change his name to BrickTamland.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have to say I have dealt with Roger many, many times.
He is one of the best guys I have ever dealt with hands down.
That's all I have to say
Matt >>
Ditto. >>
Double ditto, and I have had the pleasure of dealing with Roger in person as well as on these boards. Top notch all the way.
<< <i>The thing about this that I don't understand is that if you realized they weren't in the described condition when you received them, why didn't you contact Ron BEFORE you had them graded rather than wait until after you had them graded?.......... >>
All that would have done is get Roger into a.......yes they are, no they arent, yes they are, no they arent.........with Ron. Roger's way took all the grey area out of the equation.
Psa gave you an opinion like Ron did on the condition of the cards, There is a fine line between ex-mint and near mt/mt
I bet if you resubmitted the cards you would get different grades on 90% of them.
<< <i>For those that are questioning Roger's reasoning for submitting the cards after having them in hand, who cares? >>
I do! That is not how business is done. Any business, not just baseball cards. Roger knew when he had the cards in hand that they did not meet his expectations. If you purchase a product and are not happy with that product because you feel it was misrepresented, you address the situation RIGHT THEN! Not three months down the road.
Come on guys, let's be reasonable! Forget that Roger is a board member. If you sold an item on eBay and the buyer tells you three months down the road that he is not happy with the purchase, what would you do? Personally I would tell them to pound sand!
<< <i>
<< <i>For those that are questioning Roger's reasoning for submitting the cards after having them in hand, who cares? >>
I do! That is not how business is done. Any business, not just baseball cards. Roger knew when he had the cards in hand that they did not meet his expectations. If you purchase a product and are not happy with that product because you feel it was misrepresented, you address the situation RIGHT THEN! Not three months down the road.
Come on guys, let's be reasonable! Forget that Roger is a board member. If you sold an item on eBay and the buyer tells you three months down the road that he is not happy with the purchase, what would you do? Personally I would tell them to pound sand! >>
Roger's words:
I am not asking for a refund, partial refund, apology or anything of that sort.
What I am asking for is some integrity when I deal with people on these boards.
Bosox1976
Someone is upset because they got 5s, 6s,7s, and 8s for cards advertised online as NM+?
I would be happy with those grades. If I buy something online advertised as NM, 5 or better would be good for me....No one would really expect to get all 7s or higher, would you?
In all seriousness I have had transactions with both Roger and Ron. Both had positive outcomes, with one exception which I will not mention because the value was minimal. I have also been quite irritated lately by buying something from a board member and that board member not responding to PM's. With my situation I also felt there was no other option but to post it publicly. The situation was resolved and I hope this one will be too.
BTW, I still personally feel that both are good guys and I would not hesitate to buy raw cards from either one of them.
YES. If I bought from a fellow board member I would expect to get close to what he described. About 1/2 of the grades received are lower than NM... just one notch lower than NM but they are lower. I think that's a high percentage. I am not trying to pile on Ron because I don't know him at all. Maybe he just slightly overgraded them. It would have been nice if he had replied to Roger and then this whole thread would not have been started. I just think people were quick to pile on Roger. The title to his thread may be a bit harsh but I think it's fair to point out that a seller on the boards may overgrade his cards. Judging from other posts it appears this may be a one time situation that Ron overgraded his raw cards.
<< <i>If I buy something online advertised as NM, 5 or better would be good for me.... >>
The cards weren't advertised as NM. NM = 7.
The cards were advertised as: "Cards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9."
NM/MT = 8. By further stating "A few could go 9.", that validates that PSA's grading standards were being applied by the seller. Seems fairly misleading to me.
Bob...
<< <i>What I am asking for is some integrity when I deal with people on these boards. >>
I'm not saying that the cards couldn't have been overgraded. Perhaps they were because as I have heard many times, grading is subjective. Does that mean Ron lacks integrity because his opinion is different that PSA's? No!
So, let me make sure I am understanding Roger right on this. I think we can all agree that the card below is definitley not a 10 (bad bottom right corner and all). So, since PSA said it was a 10 (which it obviously isn't), do they lack integrity? According to Roger they do because it is obviously over graded.
Can't we all just get along and stuff? Hi CarolJ! How are you? This thread may go POOF? But why?
It looks like the ones that took the hardest grading hits were from cards that were off-center a tad, which Psa is notoriously known for downgrading.
Not a bad lot overall, Could have been better but nothing to start accusations over.
While this is Wikipedia and not law per se, it is essentially correct.
So let's take a look at RonBurgundy original post.
<< <i>These are some of the best of the huge OPC lot I sold a few months ago. 24 cards in all:
1972: Seaver IA, 307, 178, 220, 334, Piniella boyhood photo
1973: 520, 455, 655, 570, 583, 597, 502, 295, 640, 533, 544, 595, 318.
1974: 75
1975: 390, 470.
1977: Fred Lynn #163
1985: Rose #116.
Cards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9. Total raw value is $71, they're yours for $50 delivered.
Thanks,
Ron >>
Is not RonBurgundy saying IF YOU SUBMIT THESE CARDS TO PSA, THEY WILL COME BACK GRADED PSA 8 AND SOME COULD COME BACK GRADED PSA 9? What else could the "[c]ards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9" mean?
The reference to "NM/MT" could be ambiguous. But when read in context of "a few could go 9", it is clearly a reference to PSA's grading standards. As such, I believe Rogermnj was clearly justified in sending the cards in for grading regardless of his subjective beliefs as to what he thought the cards might grade.
Moreover, as nam812 said, if Rogermnj emailed RonBurgundy saying the cards are not "NM/MT" or "could go 9", that likely would have resulted in a "yes they are, no they arent, yes they are, no they arent........."
Reading this thread, it appears that most would disagree with my position, except for maybe larryallen73, but that's my $0.02.
/s/ JackWESQ
<< <i>I personally don't think the grades are that far off from what was described, Especially for Opc cards.
Psa gave you an opinion like Ron did on the condition of the cards, There is a fine line between ex-mint and near mt/mt
I bet if you resubmitted the cards you would get different grades on 90% of them. >>
To elaborate a bit on this point, I have read post after post about the same card or cards being resubmitted numerous times until the desired grade is achieved. Also, I've read many posts where the OP is encouraged to crack and resub a card because a higher grade will likely be given. I can't say with certainty, but I believe such posts encouraging resubs have been made by some in this thread who are being critical of Ron's assessment of his raw cards. It can't work both ways. Either one has confidence in PSA's card grading, or not.
The scans Ron provided when selling the OPC lot give as good a look as a scan generally can. The cards look very nice and a raw assessment of nm-mt does not at all seem out of line. 15 of the 27 cards graded were 6.5 or better, with 7 more being straight 6. We all know that an 8 should and generally does look much better than a 6. However, considering the wild inconsistency with TPG (and yes, PSA is as inconsistent as any), 22 out of 27 within 2 of the stated grade is not that bad. If one subscribes to the continuous resub philosophy, then one is sitting pretty. Your dissatisfaction, then, should lie with PSA and their inducement of multiple submissions.
Personally, I detest the multi-resub method of achieving a desired grade. It has shaken my confidence in the entire TPG process. I submit cards based my own assessments, not those of the seller from whom I bought the cards. If the raw cards appear to have been clearly overgraded by the seller, I will deal directly with him. Under no circumstances will I submit cards which I suspect are substandard, whether or not the seller responds to my concerns.
<< <i>Misrepresentation is a contract law concept. It means a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation. A finding of misrepresentation allows for a remedy of rescission and sometimes damages depending on the type of misrepresentation.
While this is Wikipedia and not law per se, it is essentially correct.
So let's take a look at RonBurgundy original post.
<< <i>These are some of the best of the huge OPC lot I sold a few months ago. 24 cards in all:
1972: Seaver IA, 307, 178, 220, 334, Piniella boyhood photo
1973: 520, 455, 655, 570, 583, 597, 502, 295, 640, 533, 544, 595, 318.
1974: 75
1975: 390, 470.
1977: Fred Lynn #163
1985: Rose #116.
Cards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9. Total raw value is $71, they're yours for $50 delivered.
Thanks,
Ron >>
Is not RonBurgundy saying IF YOU SUBMIT THESE CARDS TO PSA, THEY WILL COME BACK GRADED PSA 8 AND SOME COULD COME BACK GRADED PSA 9? What else could the "[c]ards are NM/MT across the board, and some better. A few could go 9" mean?
The reference to "NM/MT" could be ambiguous. But when read in context of "a few could go 9", it is clearly a reference to PSA's grading standards. As such, I believe Rogermnj was clearly justified in sending the cards in for grading regardless of his subjective beliefs as to what he thought the cards might grade.
Moreover, as nam812 said, if Rogermnj emailed RonBurgundy saying the cards are not "NM/MT" or "could go 9", that likely would have resulted in a "yes they are, no they arent, yes they are, no they arent........."
Reading this thread, it appears that most would disagree with my position, except for maybe larryallen73, but that's my $0.02.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
AMEN!
can wait to hear ron's side
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
I disagree with your assessment. I don't think Ron was saying, "IF YOU SUBMIT THESE CARDS TO PSA, THEY WILL COME BACK GRADED PSA 8 AND SOME COULD COME BACK GRADED PSA 9." That is how one may choose to interpret what he said, but what he said was that, in his opinion, the cards are nm-mt with some possibly better. Ultimately, PSA agreed that some were, and some were not. Given the inherint subjectivity of card grading, it is not in a buyer's best interest to assume that PSA or any other TPG will agree with anyone's evaluation of raw cards. Even PSA does not agree with THEIR OWN evaluations, as the crack-and-resub carousel can attest.
1) Seller advertises cards as NM-MT across the boards with many better- I would expect that someone who has submitted to PSA many times knows the grading standards and knows what the cards will grade.
2) Buyer gets cards and sends to PSA. They come back mostly 5-7.5. Only 4 cards fit the NM-MT or better description.
3) Buyer starts a thread saying don't buy from this guy because he overgrades, which he clearly did.
4) Forum members jump on buyer??!!!!
Now being familiar with these two guys, my guess is that Roger got the cards and was somewhat offended that a veteran board member had the balls to overgrade by two. I'm guessing he submitted the cards out of curiosity more than anything else. Why is Roger the bad guy here? I guess you guys are arguing that Roger should have sent them back for a refund, but why? He did us a service by exposing Ron as a potential overgrader. How is this bad for the boards? Ron should know better and I won't be buying raw from him any time soon.
I think you guys are defending Ron because you like him, not because you think he did no wrong. He clearly overgraded these cards and should get some crap for it. I would expect to get crap if I overgraded on here, or overcharged for shipping, or did anything that the typical ebay seller would do. This is a board of knowledgeable hobbyists and for people to misguide others about merchandise they're selling on here is not cool.
Lee
Edit to add- This isn't a slight overgrading we're talking about. Taking into account the qualifiers, this lot was overgraded by two full grades. I'm pretty sure this isn't about the money for Roger.
<< <i>I have seen Ron post cards(over the last 2 yrs.) that he said were NM come back as 7s, I have seen him post cards as NM that come back as a 6. I have also seen him post scans(58 Topps) stating NM/MT that came back as a 9. I have never bought from him yet but this won't deter me at all from buying from him in the future. The funny thing to me; and maybe I'm wrong was that this was over a $50 lot of cards...LOL. If any of you have a 401K you have lost that much in a matter of seconds this week. I know this has nothing to do with the transaction that took place but c'mon... a $50 lot of 70s OPC. I think this original post was a little overboard. >>
Why on earth would $50 play any part in this situation. I said I wasnt going to post again but this is so ridiculous. People that know me know that I will burn a $50 bill if asked nicely.
Looking at the scans, it looks like Roger got hammered on some of the cards, but many of them were clearly off-center and that information was provided to the buyer. Maybe "ron" knew the cards had flaws such as minute wrinkles or corner bends that would make them grade low, but based on his track record here with the more valuable raw cards he has sold, I doubt it. More likely, he probably didn't spend enough time examining them, and that's probably not a mistake he'll repeat.
MY GOLD TYPE SET https://pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/complete-type-sets/gold-type-set-12-piece-circulation-strikes-1839-1933/publishedset/321940
1) Seller advertises cards as NM-MT across the boards with many better- I would expect that someone who has submitted to PSA many times knows the grading standards and knows what the cards will grade.
2) Buyer gets cards and sends to PSA. They come back mostly 5-7.5. Only 4 cards fit the NM-MT or better description.
3) Buyer starts a thread saying don't buy from this guy because he overgrades, which he clearly did.
4) Forum members jump on buyer??!!!!
Now being familiar with these two guys, my guess is that Roger got the cards and was somewhat offended that a veteran board member had the balls to overgrade by two. I'm guessing he submitted the cards out of curiosity more than anything else. Why is Roger the bad guy here? I guess you guys are arguing that Roger should have sent them back for a refund, but why? He did us a service by exposing Ron as a potential overgrader. How is this bad for the boards? Ron should know better and I won't be buying raw from him any time soon.
I think you guys are defending Ron because you like him, not because you think he did no wrong. He clearly overgraded these cards and should get some crap for it. I would expect to get crap if I overgraded on here, or overcharged for shipping, or did anything that the typical ebay seller would do. This is a board of knowledgeable hobbyists and for people to misguide others about merchandise they're selling on here is not cool.
Lee
Edit to add- This isn't a slight overgrading we're talking about. Taking into account the qualifiers, this lot was overgraded by two full grades. I'm pretty sure this isn't about the money for Roger.
I agree with Exactly what Lee is saying, He sums it up perfectly.
I have also dealt with Roger and he is one of the top sellers I have ever had the pleasure of purchasing from.
If I may indulge you for a second, please take a look at this completed auction for a RAW 1955 Topps Roberto Clemente that sold for a Best Offer of $2,500.00. Here's the seller's description word for word. (I've reduced the font size.)
1955 TOPPS ROBERTO CLEMENTE ROOKIE, #164!!
THIS NEAR MINT/MINT BEAUTY IS SIMPLY DROOL WORTHY AND INCREDIBLY RARE IN THIS CONDITION!! FANTASTIC AND VIRTUALLY PERFECT!!!
I GUARANTEE THAT THE CARD IS 100% AUTHENTIC, UNALTERED, UNTRIMMED. CARD MEASURES PERFECTLY AND EXHIBITS A VERY CLEAN SURFACE, SHARP CORNERS, SMOOTH EDGES, AND NO SCRATCHES, CREASES OR WRINKLES!!!
SIMPLY AMAZING!!!
I CANNOT STRESS HOW HARD IT IS TO FIND CLEMENTE ROOKIES IN THIS HIGH-GRADE CONDITION!!
THIS MAY BE YOUR ONLY CHANCE!!!
WHAT AN ALMOST PERFECT AND TOUGH ROOKIE CARD OF THE BASEBALL HALL OF FAMER!!
TAKE A LOOK!!
DON'T PASS UP THIS OPPORTUNITY!!!
$5250.00 SMR FOR A 8 (NM/MT)!!!
I don't know about you, but for me, that's an awfully dangerous item description. Is the seller guaranteeing that the card will grade a PSA 8 if submitted? If you were a member of a jury, can you confidently say no? As a seller, if I am going to describe a card like that, I better be fully prepared to refund a dissatisfied buyer. And what's a dissatisfied buyer? Would the buyer be dissatisfied if the card came back
1. Not Holdered Due To Evidence Of .... Definitely.
2. PSA 8 ... Probably not.
3. PSA 7 ... Small possibility.
4. PSA 6, 5, 4, etc. ... Likely.
While this is an extreme example of a very expensive card, I think it serves to demonstrate the key issue here; that the item advertised for sale was misrepresented.
/s/ JackWESQ
I submitted the card below thinking it would be a 10. I pulled it myself - all 4 original corners are perfect, centering & surface are GEM quality and THE EDGES ARE THE WILDCARD - just loaded with extra fuzz from the rough cut. I was off by 2 grades.
If these were non-rough cuts this might be a fairly objective critique. But these cards sure seem to be graded subjectively (like 62's & 71's) - you get a different grader on a different day and you'd get a different result.
Ron's scans sure look 8-ish to me (thanks to Jim for the link). But who knows what a grader will do with the fuzzy edges?
edit: ignore the dingleberry on the bottom of the reverse - it's on the holder not the card.
Bosox1976
I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion, "...but none of those cards looked like it NEEDED to be graded, certainly not for the purpose of making a profit.....they would look fine in a raw collection, and there they should have stayed."
Grading is useful either to turn a significant profit or for Registry purposes. I love raw cards and crackout the graded cards that I buy. Just as an aside, I've had countless overgraded PSA cards, just as Roger had some overgraded raw cards in this instance. Card grading is inherintly subjective. I trust my own opinion as much as anyone else's, regardless of whether he or she is a professional grader. The danger is in assuming that PSA or any other TPG is going to agree with your seller's evaluation. Unless there is obvious damage like creases, wrinkles, paper loss, or layering, grading is all a crap shoot.
By the by, the average grade for the 24 cards in the OP is nearly 6.8. Not all that far off from 8. Ultimately, grading is a matter of opinion. The fact that some have qualifiers doesn't change the grade. An 8 OC is still a nm-mt card. It just doesn't carry as much weight on the Set Registry. Obviously, we all prefer NQ cards to Q, so don't think that I am equating their respective values.
<< <i>This situation is laughable. let's take who these people are out of the equation- many of us have dealt with Roger, many have dealt with Ron, many have dealt with both. I have not bought or sold anything to either if I'm not mistaken. Let's just look at the situation:
1) Seller advertises cards as NM-MT across the boards with many better- I would expect that someone who has submitted to PSA many times knows the grading standards and knows what the cards will grade.
2) Buyer gets cards and sends to PSA. They come back mostly 5-7.5. Only 4 cards fit the NM-MT or better description.
3) Buyer starts a thread saying don't buy from this guy because he overgrades, which he clearly did.
4) Forum members jump on buyer??!!!!
Now being familiar with these two guys, my guess is that Roger got the cards and was somewhat offended that a veteran board member had the balls to overgrade by two. I'm guessing he submitted the cards out of curiosity more than anything else. Why is Roger the bad guy here? I guess you guys are arguing that Roger should have sent them back for a refund, but why? He did us a service by exposing Ron as a potential overgrader. How is this bad for the boards? Ron should know better and I won't be buying raw from him any time soon.
I think you guys are defending Ron because you like him, not because you think he did no wrong. He clearly overgraded these cards and should get some crap for it. I would expect to get crap if I overgraded on here, or overcharged for shipping, or did anything that the typical ebay seller would do. This is a board of knowledgeable hobbyists and for people to misguide others about merchandise they're selling on here is not cool.
Lee
Edit to add- This isn't a slight overgrading we're talking about. Taking into account the qualifiers, this lot was overgraded by two full grades. I'm pretty sure this isn't about the money for Roger. >>
Just plain common sense with no bias to either guy!
PoppaJ
An 8OC is absolutely not NM/MT. What it means is that the card would be NM/MT if it had better centering. If he requests no qualifiers he gets a 6 on the card. Not to mention that cards with qualifiers usually sell for two grades lower in most cases.