Looks like starting now any single ungraded cards purchased on eBay for at least $750 will be sent first to CGC or CSG for a “rigorous assessment” before being sent on to the buyer.
This is fantastic. This should weed out all these scams we see of high end cards being listed by stolen or sold ebay accounts.
Now the question is: who pays for this service - the buyer or the seller. Regardless of that answer, it will be baked into the original listing price. Maybe ebay will eat a portion of the service fee to attract more sales of high end cards. Who knows? We will find out this summer when it actually launches.
I wonder if they’ll expand on this in the future and give the buyer the option to have CGC/CSG grade and encapsulate the card when it is in their possession. Of course this would be at the buyer’s expense. I could see that being convenient in some situations.
Guys, I think this is a huge deal - this is eBay launching a card grading service - they’re gonna encapsulate, authenticate, and ensure the quality of the card. This is massive news; this could rival PSA or CGC given eBay’s resources.
It’s not their own they’re using CGC or CSG which they’re partnering with and the article doesn’t say that they will be actually grading it. I can see this being a good and bad thing. On one hand it’s buyer protection but there are some costs to be associated with this. The first one is obviously time. How long will this take? With all of the transactions happening, this is bound to get out of hand quickly. Sure a lot of cards are under the cutoff but still thousands of cards weekly are going to meet this requirement. Let’s say in the beginning this adds an extra 2 weeks, but this could take months if things get backed up enough. The wording of the article also insinuates that it is almost mandatory with language such as “will” or “…purchase is made, the seller ships it.” While it doesn’t happen often, cards can get lost in transit as I’m sure most of us have experienced. In my eyes, this is just adding another step that could be messed up or overlooked. The more things that can go wrong leave a higher likelihood of something actually going wrong. On top of all of this, it’s CGC who has been known to authenticate and grade some… questionable cards. I understand the reasoning behind this with eBay seeing as they probably get hundreds of complaints or refunds a day regarding fake cards, but this needs to be handled very carefully or people might just stop buying and selling cards through eBay entirely.
Imagine a situation where I buy a raw champions festival top 16 for a binder or simple display and I know its only a solid 7. The last thing I need is the seller (who I don’t know) to send it to CGC(sketchy and in over their heads already) and an authenticator (who doesn’t care about my card) checks it. That whole process adds about 10 extra hands to the process and 10 extra things that could go wrong whether that be damage or loss. Again, I understand the reasoning behind this and perhaps this article doesn’t have all of the information; however, I’m going to need to see more before I’m on board with this.
This just feels like an advertisement/paid partnership more than a necessity. It would make more sense with a lower price range, as that is where most fakes exist. How many people are spending $750 that need an authenticity service? Also how many people were submitting cards in that price range to cgc? I guess when most people use your service for low end cards, you have to force them somehow into submitting more valuable items.
In a perfect world it would be an additional option, like insurance. You win, click a checkbox when shipping to get it authenticated and after everything goes through everyone is happy. If it gets flagged as not authentic you get an email asking if you still want it or a refund. This would let people choose their risk.
Personally, this is 100% stopping me from ever buying any expensive cards from ebay ever again. I already don’t trust USPS, I’d rather not wait weeks for ebay and cgc to verify the card and then send it to me. I can’t imagine it’ll be free for either party, either.
You’re right, I don’t think many people spending $750+ on a raw card are purchasing it wondering if it’s fake or not. I honestly expected this to be for all cards, which I guess would be near impossible considering the amount sold per day. Although, I also thought it’d be optional.
Looking at the whole picture, I don’t see why anyone would choose this new added risk of the card being lost or damaged. Personally it drives me away from ebay for any future purchases like this.
ALSO, who knows how much CGC paid eBay to be their partner. There’s a reason PSA isn’t doing this even though they’re the most reputable authenticator with the most cards traded and sold on eBay
I’m going against the grain from the responses so far. When I was hunting Espeon and Umbreon gold star for my binder, it seemed the only sellers on ebay were people with 0 or 1 feedback. Makes some sense, create an ebay account to sell your most expensive card you had lying around in your binder from years ago.
So this is a nice service for sellers of higher end cards, and can alleviate any risk as a buyer from buying a card from a seller with 0 feedback.
I think the risk of getting lost in the mail is overplayed here. The card already travels with one tracking number, what’s an additional one to you?
But what about the implications of not choosing to have it authenticated, for reasons posted by others upthread (lead times, increased failure points, etc.) and then you receive it and realise independently that it is not genuine - will eBay be able to refuse reimbursement as you passed up their authentication service? Like others have said, this feels like eBay self-insuring themselves but may make transactions more burdensome, more risky and more costly (as the costs will inevitably find their way to prices).
Hmmm. Curious to hear more sellers opinions on this.
As mentioned above, I think all is well as long as the buyer can opt out. I suppose if the buyer can opt out, he’ll lose buyer protection. Which I’m gonna say is almost forcing the buyer to use it.
I’m definitely sceptical of any change, albeit they mean well. There will no doubt be a plethora of teething problems and I don’t envy anyone who gets to trial that first.
As others have said, lowering the risk of any situation is key. Having more moving parts forced upon you is far from ideal.
