PSA Response from President Steve Sloan

[Scott L.]

Originally Posted by swarmee

It's funny; I think I gave him that idea when I recommended in email that he have all PWCC customers send them back to PWCC for refunds.

My reasoning was that if the purchase never happened, and PWCC was in on the fraud, PSA would have minimal or zero liability.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

[MULLINS5]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

The right thing would be for PSA to get those cards in their possession, but it would cost a small fortune.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

Brent is on video promising to reimburse buyers for fraudulent cards submitted through PWCC. Watch the 1 hour long video. He doesn't say which cards those are, so all of them should go back to PWCC. Maybe his lawyer will come out with a list of affected cards submitted by PWCC so that he won't get every single one back to his company.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Brent is on video promising to reimburse buyers for fraudulent cards submitted through PWCC. Watch the 1 hour long video. He doesn't say which cards those are, so all of them should go back to PWCC. Maybe his lawyer will come out with a list of affected cards submitted by PWCC so that he won't get every single one back to his company.

He admitted submitting cards for Gary?

[swarmee]

He says he submitted cards for consignors, nonspecifically.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by swarmee

He says he submitted cards for consignors, nonspecifically.

That might be his downfall.

[Fballguy]

Sounds like he's pointing the finger away from PSA...talking only about the "actors" who submit. What about the "actors" who graded them? How does that get explained?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

Sounds like he's pointing the finger away from PSA...talking only about the "actors" who submit. What about the "actors" who graded them? How does that get explained?

Under oath. They’re getting sued.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Under oath. They’re getting sued.

Really? Love to see it.

[CuriousGeorge]

Sloan is living in fantasyland. Yup, we should just trust him to handle this privately like we trusted him to grade our cards privately and then rely on the results the same way. A fraction of the people who have been directly impacted by this are probably even aware as to what has transpired so doing this his way will result in a very small percentage of cards getting returned for refunds. Well unfortunately for Mr. Sloan I'm pretty certain this time is going to be different and this is not going to get swept under the rug like it has in the past.

I can assure you lawyers are actively searching for plaintiffs to file lawsuits against PSA and others and they will be forced to turn over entire lists of cards submitted by the offending parties so that everyone impacted has an opportunity to be made whole. And then, whether it's found to be $1 or millions of dollars that need to be paid back, I suspect the courts or law enforcement will then determine who has liability for what and the chips will fall as they may.

And while it's mighty nice of you to pass the buck to the "few dishonest actors," perhaps it might be a better idea to look in the mirror and ask why at best your graders were completely incapable of stopping much of this? Why were you continuing to accept cards from known fraudsters? And finally why, if you "take consumer protection seriously" are you forcing people to sue you to get the lists of all cards submitted by Moser and PWCC instead of releasing it yourself? We are spending upwards of $5000 per card to rely on you to catch these folks and instead you chose to cash our checks and laugh. I'll be very surprised if you'll be laughing for long.

[doug.goodman]

From Sloan's note : "PSA processes more than two million cards each year"

40,000 per week (based on a 50 week year)
8,000 per day (based on a 5 day week)
666 per hour (based on a 12 hour day, and my love of Satan)
11 per minute

That means 5.4 seconds multiplied by the number of graders there are, per card.

Doug "just saying" Goodman

[rdwyer]

Back in the day, I was privileged to enter the "Vault" at GAI. I was there to educate the authenticator of cigarette packs per Steve Rochi's request. I was shown the process of grading cards. The first thing they always did was measure the card. Doesn't make any sense to do anything else after that if the card was trimmed because the card would be graded authentic. They then looked for altering. Same thing, doesn't make any sense to do anything else after that if the card was altered because the card would be graded authentic.. Then they look at the centering, corners. etc. And further evaluated the card for printer defects, creases, etc.

So how is it that PSA could skip the first part of the process for all those trimmed cards unless it was deliberate? I know that GAI was doing the same, and that their opinion on cards today are worthless. But still they had a procedure.

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by rdwyer

Back in the day, I was privileged to enter the "Vault" at GAI. I was there to educate the authenticator of cigarette packs per Steve Rochi's request. I was shown the process of grading cards. The first thing they always did was measure the card. Doesn't make any sense to do anything else after that if the card was trimmed because the card would be graded authentic. They then looked for altering. Same thing, doesn't make any sense to do anything else after that if the card was altered because the card would be graded authentic.. Then they look at the centering, corners. etc. And further evaluated the card for printer defects, creases, etc.

So how is it that PSA could skip the first part of the process for all those trimmed cards unless it was deliberate? I know that GAI was doing the same, and that their opinion on cards today are worthless. But still they had a procedure.

According to their website, they're not skipping it. It says so right here.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

Sounds like he's pointing the finger away from PSA...talking only about the "actors" who submit. What about the "actors" who graded them? How does that get explained?

This is the first thing that hit me as well...

Everyone who's been wondering whether it is

A. Incompetence

or

B. Favorable Grading to preferred customers

Got nothing answered. Zero explanation for the hundreds of glaring mistakes they've recently made (likely thousands before this is put to bed). Why would we continue to put our faith in this company, with a pathetic canned "pass the buck" response like that? Written by some faceless attorney who doesn't give a crap about what's right, or the state of the hobby. Screw them.

[Goudey77]

I would have liked to be the fly on the wall in that conversation between Mr Sloan and Mr Huigens.

This pretty much sums it up. PSA stands by their process. Go through the red tape for any concerns. customerservice@collectors.com business as usual.

[swarmee]

Maybe they'll rent PWCC's booths at the National to set up a refund line.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Goudey77

I would have liked to be the fly on the wall in that conversation between Mr Sloan and Mr Huigens.

This pretty much sums it up. PSA stands by their process. Go through the red tape for any concerns. customerservice@collectors.com business as usual.

I'm guessing that you're way off on that one.

[dwinters]

I started sending links of the recent scandal(s) to the major holders of CLCT stock today. It really bothers me that people are making a profit based on high grading fees (and will not stand behind the product). Everyone should contact the principals of these organizations and let them know what they are holding.

Top Institutional Holders
Holder Shares Date Reported % Out Value
Renaissance Technologies, LLC 726,863 Mar 30, 2019 7.95% 12,734,639
Dimensional Fund Advisors LP 333,701 Mar 30, 2019 3.65% 5,846,441
North Star Investment Management Corp 302,325 Mar 30, 2019 3.30% 5,296,734
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 293,803 Mar 30, 2019 3.21% 5,147,428
Sterling Capital Management LLC 202,090 Mar 30, 2019 2.21% 3,540,616
Dalton, Greiner, Hartman, Maher & Company 194,472 Mar 30, 2019 2.13% 3,407,149
Royce & Associates LP 180,575 Mar 30, 2019 1.97% 3,163,674
Pembroke Management, LTD 138,337 Mar 30, 2019 1.51% 2,423,664
FMR, LLC 132,366 Mar 30, 2019 1.45% 2,319,052
Wells Fargo & Company 130,498 Mar 30, 2019 1.43% 2,286,324

[joshuanip]

Originally Posted by dwinters

I started sending links of the recent scandal(s) to the major holders of CLCT stock today. It really bothers me that people are making a profit based on high grading fees (and will not stand behind the product). Everyone should contact the principals of these organizations and let them know what they are holding.

Top Institutional Holders
Holder Shares Date Reported % Out Value
Renaissance Technologies, LLC 726,863 Mar 30, 2019 7.95% 12,734,639
Dimensional Fund Advisors LP 333,701 Mar 30, 2019 3.65% 5,846,441
North Star Investment Management Corp 302,325 Mar 30, 2019 3.30% 5,296,734
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 293,803 Mar 30, 2019 3.21% 5,147,428
Sterling Capital Management LLC 202,090 Mar 30, 2019 2.21% 3,540,616
Dalton, Greiner, Hartman, Maher & Company 194,472 Mar 30, 2019 2.13% 3,407,149
Royce & Associates LP 180,575 Mar 30, 2019 1.97% 3,163,674
Pembroke Management, LTD 138,337 Mar 30, 2019 1.51% 2,423,664
FMR, LLC 132,366 Mar 30, 2019 1.45% 2,319,052
Wells Fargo & Company 130,498 Mar 30, 2019 1.43% 2,286,324

LOL, I find it funny that the largest holder is a quant fund. That's what you get for straying from fundamental investing.

[griffon512]

"[PSA] will not let isolated acts from a few dishonest actors deter consumer confidence in our brand."

Ummm...aren't you the ones people are largely relying on and paying to deter the dishonest actors? Do that and maybe people will have confidence in the brand. Can't make this stuff up.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Brent is on video promising to reimburse buyers for fraudulent cards submitted through PWCC. Watch the 1 hour long video. He doesn't say which cards those are, so all of them should go back to PWCC. Maybe his lawyer will come out with a list of affected cards submitted by PWCC so that he won't get every single one back to his company.

I watched the hour long video & thought it was all B.S. He tried to stick up for PSA about not being able to see alterations. I think it's called CYA.

[Tennis13]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I watched the hour long video & thought it was all B.S. He tried to stick up for PSA about not being able to see alterations. I think it's called CYA.

I don’t know about CYA. From what I saw on The Wire and Breaking Bad, when you may be charged with a cime or a lawsuit, you should definitely NOT talk for 60 minutes on the record.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

Is PWCC considered the seller or the auctioneer?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Is PWCC considered the seller or the auctioneer?

That's for them to pass the buck down to the consignor. Except I bet those PayPal accounts are bone dry.

[Brian Van Horn]

Peter,

Thank you for the subtle and understated images. I was thinking about the T206 Wagner when I saw your images and it all just drove home the point.

[taul166]

Back to the upcoming National, which is what 5 or 6 weeks away where they will be many, many attendees.....some being well versed on what has been uncovered.

Do you think PSA and PWCC will have more to formally say before then? Didn't they both commit to their own investigations and to say more after those investigations are completed. If they don't say anymore, they will likely be on the defensive. But maybe that won't bother them and they will simply give a further tepid response as they interact with dealers, collectors, by saying our investigations are still on-going. For PSA, let's take the PSA Registry Luncheon, for example. Are they going to just hand out their awards, maybe cover some other Registry changes, and in a large forum like that, not address this major issue knowing many in the audience want to hear more from PSA?

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by taul166

Back to the upcoming National, which is what 5 or 6 weeks away where they will be many, many attendees.....some being well versed on what has been uncovered.

Do you think PSA and PWCC will have more to formally say before then? Didn't they both commit to their own investigations and to say more after those investigations are completed. If they don't say anymore, they will likely be on the defensive. But maybe that won't bother them and they will simply give a further tepid response as they interact with dealers, collectors, by saying our investigations are still on-going. For PSA, let's take the PSA Registry Luncheon, for example. Are they going to just hand out their awards, maybe cover some other Registry changes, and in a large forum like that, not address this major issue knowing many in the audience want to hear more from PSA?

How would you like to be the poor schlep employees from PSA that have to go to the National, to stand at their booth and answer questions? Those buggers better be getting some hazard pay.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by taul166

Back to the upcoming National, which is what 5 or 6 weeks away where they will be many, many attendees.....some being well versed on what has been uncovered.

Do you think PSA and PWCC will have more to formally say before then? Didn't they both commit to their own investigations and to say more after those investigations are completed. If they don't say anymore, they will likely be on the defensive. But maybe that won't bother them and they will simply give a further tepid response as they interact with dealers, collectors, by saying our investigations are still on-going. For PSA, let's take the PSA Registry Luncheon, for example. Are they going to just hand out their awards, maybe cover some other Registry changes, and in a large forum like that, not address this major issue knowing many in the audience want to hear more from PSA?

Lawyers advise their clients not to say anything. I assume that's why PSA never says anything. After all, it's been years, court convictions, courtroom admission by the very trimmer and hobby common knowledge later, and PSA has still never admitted publicly the Gretzky Wagner is misgraded. Authenticating and dishonesty are supposed to be mutually exclusive words-- but not always in this hobby. And one can lie by omission.

This is why I've often said authenticators and graders like PSA shouldn't also be in the 'insurance' and 'financial guarantee' business because that latter stuff only serves to get in the way of the intellectual honesty and discussion of the latter. They should just be in the business of giving honest, open, learned independent opinions-- and that's all collectors should expect and want--, and anything that gets in the way of that should be removed from the equation.