Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpeck100
There is absolutely no case here that can be brought against grading companies and I am quite surprised it is even being discussed in a serious matter as if one would ever have a legit chance of moving forward with any level of success.
Under no circumstances can anyone prove the motives of a grading company when it comes to analyzing cards in other companies holders.
|
I respectfully disagree with this view. To be clear, I am not saying that if A were to go after B in this instance, A could satisfy its burden of proof. But I can think of a way A could go about trying to do so that if successful could shift the burden of proof to B to establish that it did not have improper motives in its refusal to cross over.
Suppose A were to take 10,000 good candidates of A-slabbed cards for crossover, and only 8 cross over. A then takes the 9,992 that did not cross over out of the slab and submit them raw. 8,895 come back crossed over, and 4,583 of those at higher grades. I believe that if A was to submit such evidence, B would then have the burden to come up with a explanation to explain this. A far-fetched fact pattern, perhaps. But the story I recounted about the 50 out of 50 non-crossed cards being crossed over when resubmitted raw was told to me by a source I regard as credible. And I have heard other stories, though not as egregious. So while perhaps A has an uphill climb, for me at least I do not regard it as insurmountable.
My ire at this situation arises because B says that it objectively evaluates all crossover submissions, and that submitting it raw will make no difference. And when they refuse the crossover, they might tell you something untrue about your card. If B wants to have a blanket policy of refusing to cross over A's cards, then go ahead and announce it. That would be perfectly lawful and I would have no cause to complain. But don't go about saying you are doing one thing, when in reality you are doing something else.