Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag
IMO most people buy the slab, not the card. So we do not know what they believed. And I suspect many of those who did take the time to think about it probably assumed PSA applied methods a bit more sophisticated and time consuming then in fact they did. Then there are those overtaken by suspended disbelief -- they wanted what they were told to be true so they bought into it.
I also question how sophisticated many of these people are.
Whatever the case, when many people find they have lost large sums of money they are going to be looking for someone to blame. And I think PSA will be held to a higher standard of expertise than the customers they are selling to.
When I spoke to the FBI at the National they seemed well aware as to the limitations of the PSA business model, and I'll be curious to see if one of the results of this situation is that PSA will add some qualifying language as to the limitations of what they can detect.
EDITED to add that I am not saying litigation against PSA will be successful. And as has been noted before, people who buy the slab and not the card to some degree have made their own bed. But I would not be surprised if it gets messy and there is litigation.
|
I'm not sure what type of qualifying language they can use. If their business model is that they can examine a raw card and detect if it's been altered, but in practice they really do not have the ability to detect alterations, what will be their out? That if they miss the alteration entirely, they are not responsible?
That's kind of like a restaurant putting up a sign "if you eat our food, and it happens to contain poison, and you die from it, we are not responsible."