PSA Response from President Steve Sloan

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

They're not the ones who trimmed it? What kind of excuse is that? They could use that excuse for all wrong doing. "We weren't the ones who re-colored it." "We weren't the ones who rebuilt the corners" "We weren't the ones that chemically cleaned it." How lame! Then what does their guarantee cover?

If this guy was burned in the WIWAG scandal, which I had to look up because I've only been back into cards/grading for five years, it makes some sense.

WIWAG was accused of busting the holders, swapping out cards with lower grade ones, and resealing. So PSA according to the terms of their current Grade Guarantee would not be liable because the holders have been cracked. Not sure if that was the same-worded guarantee from 15 years ago or not, or if they added that the holders had to be undamaged.

Should PSA really be on the hook for the Mexico guy and the craigslist guys who are cracking/resealing cases? Shouldn't the customer inspect the case to make sure it hasn't been tampered with? I understand it.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by swarmee

If this guy was burned in the WIWAG scandal, which I had to look up because I've only been back into cards/grading for five years, it makes some sense.

WIWAG was accused of busting the holders, swapping out cards with lower grade ones, and resealing. So PSA according to the terms of their current Grade Guarantee would not be liable because the holders have been cracked. Not sure if that was the same-worded guarantee from 15 years ago or not, or if they added that the holders had to be undamaged.

Should PSA really be on the hook for the Mexico guy and the craigslist guys who are cracking/resealing cases? Shouldn't the customer inspect the case to make sure it hasn't been tampered with? I understand it.

I don't disagree that PSA should not be on the hook for an altered card inserted in a cracked/resealed case. PSA's statement however, as I read it, doesn't refer to that situation when it says to first go back to the seller. I wonder if they are raising the privity argument, or at least trying to keep that defense viable should the matter become the subject of litigation.

As has been discussed in previous threads, their warranty would seem to be of the type to run with the card, and therefore not to require the person invoking it to be the person who originally submitted it for grading. I would not be surprised if PSA does try to raise the privity issue if they perceive guarantee claims to be an existential issue. And probably too we can count on statute of limitation defenses to be thrown in as well.