[pacrimcollectibles]

Just file a claim for item not as described and not the damage that was not in the description, chances are you'll get your money back and keep the card

Not quite. You would have to return it at your expense unless the seller agreed to let you keep it.

[superynaldo]

Just file a paypal claim of not getting what you paid for... Problem solved...

[JeffreyAndrew]

If that is what he said in the auction, you will have no problems getting your money back from PayPal as an "item not as described". Just show them the pictures. The only thing I'm not sure about is if you get to leave feedback after winning and getting your money back. It's as if the transaction never occurred.

Yeah you can leave feedback after getting a refund. I did it 2 days ago.

[kstjst]

Thanks everyone who put in their thoughts. I wanted to see what others thought after seeing the pictures. with all of your input leaning more towards putting in a paypal claim, I am thinking that it's the right thing to do.

[dmasci]

My two cents are 1) yes, go ahead with the paypal claim and get whole on your money since you obviously don't want the card...but 2) never buy a card for that much money without seeing good pictures or ask questions first, you just can't tell what a card's condition is when it's in a case.

[jt65]

Looking at this from the sellers' point of view. You were editorializing and accusing the seller of being shady and unwilling to refund, neither of which may be true. The seller could have used the opportunity to explain what happened and perhaps offer a full or partial refund, but it's hard to blame him for being grumpy after that attack. As far as filing claims go, that should only be done if the seller is not cooperative dealing with a return/refund. All it takes is a few unnecessarily opened cases for a seller to lose the "best seller" badge or even get suspended.

[kstjst]

Looking at this from the sellers' point of view. You were editorializing and accusing the seller of being shady and unwilling to refund, neither of which may be true. The seller could have used the opportunity to explain what happened and perhaps offer a full or partial refund, but it's hard to blame him for being grumpy after that attack. As far as filing claims go, that should only be done if the seller is not cooperative dealing with a return/refund. All it takes is a few unnecessarily opened cases for a seller to lose the "best seller" badge or even get suspended.

I filed the claim, sent the card back (with signature required of course) and the seller did give me back my money...so I just closed the claim and will have no more dealings with that person.

But in response to your comment, I didn't accuse him of being shady and unwilling until he replied to my initial contact which ONLY read "I'm a little disappointed in the condition of the card. You didn't disclose that there is a chip in the back of card, on the right middle. This really brings down the value of the card." That's when he/she went off on me with "I dare you to find one of these for 200 or less." So was I in the wrong? Do I not have a right to be just as "grumpy" about the whole deal?!

By the way, just as an update, the seller listed the card again...with the same picture of the card in the case, the same statements in the auction that the card is "nr-mt to mint condition," and NOT disclosing the chip on the back. So do you think that me calling the deal "shady" is still inappropriate?!

[rjcj2017]

Am I the only one who thinks the wear was visible on the picture, even if you had to look closely?

Not siding with the seller at all, but cards that have been sitting around a few years generally aren't in that great of shape.

I think the whole thing was handled poorly all around, but I'm glad you got your money back.

[kstjst]

Am I the only one who thinks the wear was visible on the picture, even if you had to look closely?

Not siding with the seller at all, but cards that have been sitting around a few years generally aren't in that great of shape.

I think the whole thing was handled poorly all around, but I'm glad you got your money back.

You can be the judge of it...the pic I posted was much larger than the one in the auction. Here's the relisted auction:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tom-Brady-Fleer-...2a1d436552

If you can't link to that, then the auction number is 180879582546

I'd like to think that most sellers are honest...and if they aren't, then when you're called on it, then you "man up" to the error. So yes, you can say that I was wrong for not asking about the condition or getting a better picture for an auction for $200, but the seller seemed reputable up to that point with 628 feedback and a 99.6% rating.

[all day baby]

First to the OP -- You cannot link to a live auction. You should remove the link before you get in trouble.

Now...

Am I the only one who thinks the wear was visible on the picture, even if you had to look closely?

Not siding with the seller at all, but cards that have been sitting around a few years generally aren't in that great of shape.

I think the whole thing was handled poorly all around, but I'm glad you got your money back.

1) Yes, it IS visable because the damage was pointed out to you. If you were to look at the auction, you wouldn't know to look THAT closely to see that the seller was not being truthful with his description.

2) If you take care of your cards, then the age and condition will not affect them.

3) The OP did nothing wrong, other than buy a card from a crooked seller.