Interesting email I have not seen

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Leon

Sometimes when ya' sit back and think about it, resubmitting in a holder shouldn't be allowed. If you want to resubmit you have to crack it and send it in. And all submissions would truly be anonymous to the graders. Whatever it gets it gets. That would seem more arms length than submitting in a holder and not being able to go down in grade or arguing, especially in person, for a better one (admittedly I have done that and rarely succeeded . )
.

Yes. I've commented before that this not being able to go down flies in face of objective grading.

Sumbit the card for a new grading and get a new grading, up, down or the same.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Empty77

Agree. I guess one key issue is how, in practice, does it all actually take place. So we know PSA goes to the big shows and sets up shop to do same day turn around without people having to put their precious items in the post. But does it happen as plainly as the email stated, that they "meet with graders", or was that an inarticulate and imprecise way to explain what seems more likely to me (granted just guessing and I've never been to see it): that the actual graders are behind the scenes (and chained to their chair given the quotas they are presumably forced to maintain), with the special tables, lights and magnifiers setups that are required, and it's just the front-facing staff that are receiving the submissions and making notes about whatever concerns/suggestions the submitter has.

I don't exactly like the above either, but that would not be as bad as the other visual, which is the VIP submitter actually standing over the grader while squinting through the same magnifier, with a hand on their shoulder...

Where are these shows with same day grading? I know they do the national and offer by the end of show grading three times a year in Long Beach but where else does this occur in 2019? Now I agree this was standard in 1999 but nowadays not so much.

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by Leon

Sometimes when ya' sit back and think about it, resubmitting in a holder shouldn't be allowed. If you want to resubmit you have to crack it and send it in. And all submissions would truly be anonymous to the graders. Whatever it gets it gets. That would seem more arms length than submitting in a holder and not being able to go down in grade or arguing, especially in person, for a better one (admittedly I have done that and rarely succeeded . )
.

I don't disagree with your point that resubmitting in a holder should not be allowed, but it seems to me that (going forward) it should not be possible to resubmit a previously-graded card (after cracking it out) without the TPG "knowing" it. The TPG has to create and retain a data base (and a system for recording and/or inserting tell-tale markers) of previously-graded cards that allows it to determine whether a newly-submitted card was previously graded. If so, the TPG should check it for alteration against the previous image. If it has been freshly altered, it should be graded A. If not, it should be graded anew, with the possibility of receiving a slightly higher or lower grade. It may not be possible to determine that a never-graded card was altered, but it should be possible (again, going forward) to determine that a newly-submitted, but previously-graded card has been altered to improve its appearance after it was previously graded. The TPG has to replace Blowout as the detective that prevents the card doctors from surreptitiously buying graded-cards, busting them out, altering them, and resubmitting them at higher grades.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I don't disagree with your point that resubmitting in a holder should not be allowed, but it seems to me that (going forward) it should not be possible to resubmit a previously-graded card (after cracking it out) without the TPG "knowing" it. The TPG has to create and retain a data base (and a system for recording and/or inserting tell-tale markers) of previously-graded cards that allows it to determine whether a newly-submitted card was previously graded. If so, the TPG should check it for alteration against the previous image. If it has been freshly altered, it should be graded A. If not, it should be graded anew, with the possibility of receiving a slightly higher or lower grade. It may not be possible to determine that a never-graded card was altered, but it should be possible (again, going forward) to determine that a newly-submitted, but previously-graded card has been altered to improve its appearance after it was previously graded. The TPG has to replace Blowout as the detective that prevents the card doctors from surreptitiously buying graded-cards, busting them out, altering them, and resubmitting them at higher grades.

Good point

[steve B]

The problem with that is that cards don't all have unique identifying marks. As manufactured items, the whole point is for them to be as nearly identical as possible.

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by steve B

The problem with that is that cards don't all have unique identifying marks. As manufactured items, the whole point is for them to be as nearly identical as possible.

If the cards don't all have unique and permanent "fingerprints", which Blowout seems to think they do, then a marker of some kind would have to be introduced by the TPG during grading. Or something -- let the rocket surgeons figure it out. Saving their business model provides significant incentive to the TPGs to figure out a way to do it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

If the cards don't all have unique and permanent "fingerprints", which Blowout seems to think they do, then a marker of some kind would have to be introduced by the TPG during grading. Or something -- let the rocket surgeons figure it out. Saving their business model provides significant incentive to the TPGs to figure out a way to do it.

Some sets do have identifying marks. The most reliable are the ones that are occasional darker fibers in the paper.
Most of the print markers they use are not 100%.
Cards done on consistently white cardboard (Or really any where the fibers are fine enough) won't have easily visible fiber markers. Looked at closely enough, some may have enough of a pattern, but it takes a much closer look.
Cardstock that's very regular with fine fibers would be difficult to fond any reliable markers.
Ones done on coated stock, especially modern stuff printed on both sides, won't have those markers.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I think that Dave Thorn has very eloquently documented some of PSA's unethical habits. At least now the collectors who wear blinders can take them off and put on sunglasses instead.

I do not think most of us in Dave's position would have elected to document, in email, said PSA behavior, but it might have made financial sense for him, letting his customers officially know what they should already have known.

I wonder how PSA feels about the email?

Interesting to read this quote from over 6 years ago. Regarding the part highlighted in bold, it's both funny and sad that collectors' blinders are more firmly connected than ever, with PSA submissions at an all-time high. You can't say they weren't warned...

Wishful thinking and greed continue to dominate the consumer side of this hobby, while fraud and deception continues to run rampant in Newport Beach.