Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss
Juice ain’t worth the squeeze considering the slab is already real or fake. The only person who would counterfeit the sticker is someone who has already counterfeited the underlying slab.
|
I was thinking more in terms of someone selling something on Ebay. I would assume that if you had to send a slabbed card to PSA for authentication per Ebay rules, even if it is a PSA graded card, that once PSA gave it the thumbs up per Ebay rules, a subsequent resale of the exact same item on Ebay wouldn't then require still another trip back to PSA to authenticate it once again. Some type of a sticker would hopefully make such an additional endeavor needless, or so one would think. But of course, that would make too much logical sense, which none of this appears to be, making logical sense that is.
The entire idea and concept behind third party grading and encapsulation to begin with was to ease remote/internet online buyer's minds when purchasing cards they couldn't first examine in person to determine authenticity or true condition. This new Ebay requirement is tacit accusation of the various TPG's that they can't competently authenticate cards, nor have created slabs that are effectively able to deter tampering and/or easily display that they have been tampered with. In other words, Ebay is effectively saying the TPGs are unable to safeguard and prove their graded cards are what they say they are. And to make matters even more ludicrous, Ebay has elected the same TPGs that they have apparently have no faith in (PSA for now) to be the ones to re-examine these graded cards being sold on Ebay. So some PSA graded cards are going to be sent back to PSA to confirm that they were originally correct in their assessment of them and haven't been tampered with.
It would not behoove PSA to find that a lot of their previously graded items were wrongly authenticated, or that their slabs were easily compromised/faked. Doing so would seem to indicate that they couldn't do something right the first time, and only help to indicate their errors/inadequacies. And simply agreeing that what they did originally was okay doesn't help them at all. They did what they were supposed to do, and were paid handsomely to do! For them it can only be a losing situation, and potentially serve to undermine people's faith in them; and potentially other TPGs as well. So that immediately puts a conflict of interest/bias in anything they do for Ebay regarding items they re-examine that were previously graded by them. And with the history of how TPGs seem to have historically looked at re-grading crossovers from other TPG's graded cards, what is to give people any assurance that PSA personnel may not view items submitted to them under this Ebay sponsored program that were originally graded by other TPGs with an inherent bias as well? The more they claim that other TPG graded slabs, and by extension the encapsulated cards in them, are not authentic, the worse they look in comparison to PSA. So, there is obviously no potential conflict of interest existing, now is there?
I can understand possibly trying to fight fraud and such on cards being sold on their platform. And give them props for that. But using the same parties to do so that were originally grading them and possibly being part of the problem may not be the best answer. And is there something better, I don't know. But it clearly seems to be another party in the industry is now jumping in to decide what is best for people in the hobby. My question is when is the industry going to start listening to people in the hobby, rather then simply deciding what is best for them and shoving it down our collective throats?