Who would you side with?

General
1

Saw some interesting instagram drama today and thought it would make for a decent discussion.
Summary

Person A (buyer) contacts Person B (seller) to purchase a card. The card in question is a PSA 9 Mudkip Gold Star and advertised as such. B obtained this card from a trade and did not have the card physically in his possession (was in possession of a middleman at the time of sale).

A asks for pictures of the card, the middleman is able to provide a photo of the back and front while the card is in possession.

B was leaving the country for a trip and decided to have the middleman mail out the card for him to A, which they both agreed upon.

********Important distinction******

At no point in time did B ever physically handle the card, or ever have it in his possession.**A receives the card and the sale seems to have gone through with no hiccups.

Person A is a “flipper” and immediately puts the card up for sale after receiving the card (Only included this tidbit because it seems relevant to the situation).

2 weeks go by, and B is hit by a paypal claim. A, without any contact beforehand has issued a Paypal claim stating the card had defects.

A has discovered that there is a scratch on the card, and some wear on the back, and wants a refund. He states that the B should have notified A of the defects which would drop the card down to below an 8 (in his opinion).

Images of the damage

B argues that he was never in possession of the card and wasn’t aware of the defects. He did what he could to provide pictures (had the MM provide pics before shipping out and shows no visible damage from the photo).

Who would you side with?

I know there are some other E4 members who can probably add more details to the story, so feel free to share. I will edit the post accordingly to add relevant information.

Possible Arguments

For B - He sold the card as a PSA 9 mudkip gold star and delivered what was promised. A received what he purchased. If anything A should take it up with PSA not him. A could not flip the card and was having buyer’s remorse and wanted a refund. Why else would he wait 2 weeks before saying anything, and had put the card up for sale immediately after receiving it?

For A - B should not have sold the card without physically possessing it. It is on the seller, B to provide ample description. B should have provided ample details pertaining to the card. He did not disclose the damage and wanted to try to make a sale. B is refusing to refund because he knows what he did was shady and doesn’t want the card back.

1 Like
2

If you’re questioning what PSA deems a grade as you’re in the wrong to attack the seller. If you don’t like the grade take it up with PSA. Otherwise, you don’t understand what their service is all about.

Elaboration edit: If you buy a PSA 9 and get a PSA 9 the seller did what they were expected to do. If it’s labeled a PSA 9 and you don’t think it’s a PSA 9 that means you have an issue with PSA’s service.

21 Likes
3

Between A and PSA.

I’m in a situation like this myself, once I get the replacement card I will send the damaged card off to PSA to regrade most likely. At no time did I ask the seller for a refund.

2 Likes
4

Sounds like the guy @fourthstartcg had trouble with. Is it the same person?

1 Like
5

They’re both in the wrong.

2 Likes
6

Now if you’re paypal, who do you side with in this claim?

1 Like
7

I side with person “B” 100% without a doubt.

Person “A” AGREED to the terms of the sale, i.e.that person B never had the card, it’s also a PSA 9, which is exactly what person received.

Person “A” should not be contacting Person “B” at all, they should contact PSA

3 Likes
8

B is entirely innocent. A agreed to the risk of receiving the card without knowing anything other than it being a PSA 9. B delivered what was promised. Any issue with the grade should be taken up with psa as others have mentioned.

BUT the real fault is on person C who sold the card to B without disclosing such an obvious flaw on the card. We might have to crowdfund some glasses for the people working at PSA.

2 Likes
9

Person B should have been responsible and at least seen the product they were selling. Also, they should just stand behind their product whether they are right or wrong. B is kind of just passing off the responsibility to A. To me that is super shady. If “a 9 is a 9” then B won’t have trouble finding another buyer who feels the same. Not fully disclosing condition issues that might cause a dispute is wrong and makes it seem like they were intentionally hidden.
We all know that PSA is responsible for letting this card out into the population but B should also be more careful in the future about how they conduct business in general.

10

A flipped it B flipped it
lot of flipping going on.

If it was me I’d take it back and refund then I’d take it up with PSA if I believed they overlooked the damage. That’s the price B has to pay for hustling flips.

In a court of law: it would probably come down to what cullers said. After all, if it was a strong 9 and ended up getting a 10 would the buyer return some money?

6 Likes
11

Honestly person A should’ve made contact before opening a paypal claim. B could simply have him return the card and resell it to someone else. Remember, B didn’t even pay shipping to get the card to A so he’s not even losing out on shipping costs (unless A expects him to pay return shipping, which would still only amount to a couple bucks.)

B should have him return the card for a full refund and resell the card himself with clear pictures of the damage & include the damage in the description.

It’s not nice to open a paypal claim before giving the seller a chance to resolve the issue himself. For all we know B would’ve taken care of it. The damage itself is pretty bad. I’ve seen PSA 6 cards in much better condition. I personally would want to return it or receive a partial refund.

1 Like
12

I partially agree and think both sides could have done things differently

A should have contacted B first, before blindsiding B with a paypal claim.

B should have had physical possession of the card before selling it.

I think there was a rush by both parties (with different motives of rushing the transaction from both parties)

1 Like
13

Ultimately I agree with this. Were there things both parties could have done to better the transaction? Definitely. However, seller provided everything he stated. They both agreed on the 3rd party authenticator. I would say A should take it up with PSA, not take it out on B.

14

A is just a guy who can’t deal with any problem and can’t have his money on hold for the time PSA takes to rectify the mistake and pay him the diference. A is not a collector, A is someone who doesn’t care for the hobby and his only purpose is to make money. Greed bites you back, A got bitten and thinks he is the owner of all reason in every situation on the Insta PokĂ©mon World.

15

What a messy situation. We don’t have enough details
 Surely someone was aware of the damage on the card.

I would side with B from what we know from the OP, but I would also expect B to give some sort of compensation to A because we all know it’s going to cost time and money dealing with PSA. That being said, A made the mistake of filing a claim before even trying to resolve the situation. I’m also curious why it took that long to discover such flaws. Are we certain it’s the same cert/card that was sold?

One of these people is super shady, I just have no clue who it is.

16

This is my own opinion but having seen A’s IG posts, I think he received the card at a very good price, and noticed the damage then. However the belief that he could still flip the card and make a decent profit outweighed the risks in his mind. He had the card for 2 weeks and had it immediately listed UFS after receiving it. After not being able to get any bites for the card, he decided to make the claim.

TL;DR → took the risk and it didn’t pan out. Now instead of eating the loss, he’s trying to recoup his initial investment while justifying himself, garnering sympathy from the IG community, and getting attention for himself (when he took the problem public instead of trying to quietly work things out with the seller).

Edit : Yes it is the same card. Not sure if it’s been tampered with at all or not however.

17

It’s starting to seem like A,B,C,etc
 were all aware of the damage. I see no reason why A couldn’t otherwise flip it fast if he got it for a ‘very good’ price. There’s buyers lined up all day long for Mint Gold Stars. :blush:

Now that there’s a claim, everyone’s going to start acting innoncent about the whole deal.

18

I saw that card, the crease in it is massive and I highly doubt PSA missed it. Most likely done after the card was received back somehow. I think the flipper should take the card back and deal with the person that he bought it from.

19

Damage during encapsulation has happened before.

1 Like
20

I’m basing my opinion based SOLELY on reading the OP. I have not read any posts aside and will add in my later thoughts as edits.

I would side with B in this case. He is not “deceiving” – he is selling a mudkip gold star that is authenticated by a reputable company. Whether the card has scratches or not isn’t necessarily up for debate with B. It’s up for debate with PSA. In my opinion, it is A’s responsibility to discuss with PSA the defects and justifiable grade of the card if A is so inclined to do so.

Edit: Ok seems like most other members are in this sentiment, lol. Whether the card has a crease while it’s encapsulated is still dependent on direct interaction with PSA and not the flipper himself – it might be argued that Seller B was unethical in selling a clearly non-PSA 9 card within a PSA 9 case, but at the end of the day PSA is who you have to argue with if there’s a discrepancy regarding their services (unless the case has been evidently tampered with)