lol, you beat me to it. I was going to ask the same thing.

I always try and straddle the issue...:D:D

No. Not always. I own a Nissan Titan. I bought it used from Ford franchise dealership. When my Titan did have a recall, I didn't take it back to the Ford dealership, I took it to the Nissan dealership. The warranty it through Nissan, not Ford.

Yeah, I get that...kind of an apples to oranges thing. While I do agree the liability falls back on PSA, I would attempt to get my money back from the person that sold it to me. This isn't with just in regards to this situation, just my general opinion. "You sold me a piece of crap, you take the time to deal with it.... return my money now". I don't care what the item was, whoever sold it to me should take their time and money to have to return the item.
As noted before, I think this will possibly their stance.
1. Return the item to the person that sold it to you for a refund.
2. That person(PWCC) can try to return in to PSA under the guarantee.
3. They get denied for violating the terms and conditions by submitting knowingly altered items.

What if you now discover a card on the list you bought 5 years ago? Not fair to go back to the seller IMO. Sellers who are innocent are entitled to repose at some point, I would think much sooner than that. It's PSA's eff-up if something is wrong, not the seller, IMO, unless the seller was complicit.

I think rather than taking $10 to crossover cards SGC should be offering to independently look at any cards and give their professional opinion as to whether the card has been altered. If it hasn’t they can crossover and if it has then the owner can go to PSA for recourse.

Isn't an authenticity review implicit here?

You would think it is but I know I would pay a nice sum to have someone take a professional and unbiased look at my overpriced cardboard without necessarily being forced to cross them over.

Upcharges ONLY apply if the card "crosses" to the designated minimum grade or higher (we will always call for approval for any upcharge necessary).


sounds like $10 gets you a review, and if it meets your minimum grade or higher for crossover, you pay a little more? The regular grading fee?

Ah got it. Well, it's a good idea, I would convey it to SGC. One issue though is any in slab review is limited in its ability to see the edges. In fact I often question how the TPGs really can do cross-overs properly with the cards in slabs.

I don’t think we are miles apart at all. We both want integrity. Neither of us want to see innocent collectors take a hit on this. But innocent collectors could take a hit in a number of ways. Beyond the affected cards themselves, the whole hobby could take a major hit if psa’s credibility were undeservedly and excessively undermined. Driving PSA into financial instability or insolvency could also cause a hit to innocent collectors.

I read Steve Sloan’s statement and I see a corporate executive trying to leverage what resources he has to protect the company during the early stage of a potential problem. This thing has a long way to go and could play out in many unexpected ways. Unless they have fools as attorneys I can’t believe that PSA would do anything with respect to their guarantee that contradicts what is written in their guarantee.

PWCC has admitted some responsibility for the current situation and has made a public statement saying they will do all that they can to make things right. It is not unreasonable for PSA to try and use that to their advantage, especially if PWCC is actually mixed up directly in it.

I see nothing in the PSA statement that says they won’t do a guarantee review if one is requested. And I think there are plenty of times in all of our lives that we’ve purchased something that had an issue and our first call was tonthe party we purchased it from, not immediately to the party that provides the warrantee.

Within the above contexts Sloan’s statement does not strike me as so far out of the norm.

I think after we see what has gone on here they use the word “properly” very loosely.

How many years later is it legitimate to go back to an innocent seller?

What is an "unknown" seller and why did Sloan limit the guarantee to that?

I think you are being too kind here. Way too kind. Sloan should be manning up not looking to say we're your court of last resort.

THEY graded the cards not the sellers.

I find both PSA's and PWCC's responses to this situation pathetic and ill-advised. If they want to regain trust in their brands, they should ONLY be responsive, helpful and proactive. They are being deflective and standoffish. Bad business.

Old established problem, but suddenly it's now a crisis?
 

I've been on a hiatus of sorts for the past four years or so, but just happened to look at the message board for old time sake and noticed the proliferation of threads regarding altered PSA cards. Needless to say, it should have not come as a surprise to me. Why it now seems like a scandal is perplexing.

I thought the issue of a substantial amount of altered cards being systematically slabbed and graded by PSA is old news going back at least 10 years. Was it just skepticism in the past and now it's an irrefutable crisis? What am I missing?

As for PSA's response regarding altered cards, based on my past experience, one should be cynical regarding PSA's disturbing history of dealing with the problem.

No argument here. I don't see anyone defending PWCC at this point, and I truly do not understand the defense of PSA's statement pushing burden back on to the collector, minimizing the issue, and disowning the full scope of the guarantee. I get it of course from a corporate standpoint. Not an ethical one.

Who cares. It's happening now. The past does not define the present.

Holy sheet is that really you? How are you my friend?

You cant properly examine a card in a slab.

Honestly, I don't even get it from a corporate standpoint. From a business standpoint, it makes zero sense to continue to damage your reputation with those who supply your profits. A smart business decision would be to immediately bite the bullet to regain consumer confidence. They aren't thinking long term, and that is bad business and shows me those in charge over there aren't very bright. If I had stock in PSA, it would be gone before it gets much worse. PWCC is signing their own death warrant. Even if getting through this costs them a couple million, it would benefit them greatly to be proactive and helpful. But they are clearly digging in, and that is bad news for anyone with stock or with investments in their graded cards.

No major complaints here Peter. Just enjoying life outside of baseball cards. :D

I'm glad to see you're still here fighting for truth, justice and the American way.

89 degrees uphill I am afraid.

I think their experience tells them all scandals blow over so preserve the bottom line.

Well then I hope it backfires on them.

I vote for REA. I’ve never had a moment when I doubted they would do the right thing.

Of course not but so what. :eek: A partial second opinion is better than none here.

It should have been dealt with twelve years ago when I approached PSA Customer Service about the problem and other times since and consequently more than likely tens of thousands of altered cards have been sold to unsuspecting collectors and the cards will exist longer than the collectors and just be repeatedly sold and bought with no knowledge of the alterations.

At this point, I would feel better with a TPG that ONLY slabs unaltered cards and does not do numerical grades. So their only focus is spotting fakes and alterations while using the best possible slabbing techniques and tech to keep cards safe. PSA and BGS are done, IMO. I love the BGS slabs, but they slab sheet cuts and can't spot alterations. I hate PSA slabs and they can't spot alterations. SGC slabs are ugly and flimsy. So now what?

Okay, but it wasn't. Should it be ignored now because it wasn't taken care of earlier.

You may have to bust wax, John.

I've not posted much at all on this, but have certainly been active in reading as much as I can. Maybe that's because I have a job, and a second small business on the side (not card related).

What bothers me about going back to the seller is what happens if that seller bought the card from another seller earlier. Now is that seller supposed to go back to the last seller? And then so on? Not all sellers are the original graders.

Back to the car comparison, if you buy a used (and relatively new) car from someone, and that car has a recall, do you go back to the guy you bought it from? Of course not.

The whole premise of PSA's business model is to remove the doubt around the product they viewed.

For me right now, my buying habits have in fact simply stopped. Have been that way for about three weeks now. This makes me sick, and I'm not sure how much I want to continue at the moment. While I'm a small fish, this hurts all dealers, and I will guess am not alone at eliminating my purchases.

Further, this fall I have planned and booked a trip to New York, primarily around finally bringing a large amount of my collection into the PSA offices in NJ, or at the New York Comic Con. My wife and I are spending ten days in the city, but the destination for this vacation was predicated around getting some of my higher end stuff graded. While it may not be much to some collectors here, it is a lot for me. Included in the batch is a complete set of V145-1 hockey with a nice Morenz, Clancy, and Joliat RC's and a host of HOF'ers, some 52 Topps including Matthews and Mays, and dozens and dozens of other cards in the $100-$1000 range. It would cost me, I don't know, a couple of thousand to grade them, if not more? In any case, it is now off the radar. Not giving these guys four figures of cash for an "opinion" that cannot be backed up. I will, however, have an extra day or so in New York, and some extra cash.

Dan whatever became of our buddy Scottie Scissors?

Did you make that number up? Nobody is saying it’s possibly 1,000 cards. There were 950 cards in just 1 submission.

I think he's playing the spin game of limiting it to ones with actual conclusive before and after photos. Whatever.

Excellent point... that "side view" is really obscured by the slab.

According to the link that was posted earlier in this thread there are about 350ish “verified” items that people bought for an aggregate of around $750k.

If you eyeball the list of alleged flip number ranges of suspected cards that is posted on BO the last time I checked it looked like there were on the order of 1000 items. I did say “so far”.

It’s early into this. Nobody knows how deep this rabbit hole goes. I also said I expect that the number would grow.

What you call spin I call letting it play out and in facts before rushing to judgment. Anyone who owns a significant number of PSA authenticated items has a vested interest in what ultimately comes out of this. I see no one questioning the person who posted that there were over 100,000 items about how he came up with that number.


I don’t understand the predominant need to try to hang PSA and significantly increase the damage to innocent collectors based on what we have learned so far.

Well, that was the sum of like 6 submissions. But there have been another 1000 just from Moser in the recent few years. The fact that Joe Orlando was quoted as knowing Moser was submitting bad cards 15 years ago and they did not ban his account is very telling.

You need to send a check or credit card in order to pay for the items, and who would vouch for Moser time and time again to cover his items or pay for his services? (Well Brent, but who else?)

They need to release all of his submitted cards, decertify them so that the website tells them to return them for a review under the grade guarantee, and then actually do their job a second time. If they have to crack the card to see the edges, no problem. They have the slabbing machines. No reason they shouldn't see the edges clearly and not have to worry about glare to detect reglossing/recoloring.

They need to post on the front page of the website their lukewarm initial answer to make their owners more aware of the issue. I did get an email response from Mr. Sloan today.

That’s along the lines of the J&J approach that was used with the Tylenol issue years ago. It was the classic “right” way to handle a problem of this nature, although admittedly the consequences of that one were potentially life and death

It would be nice to have that kind of approach taken, but given what has been done in the past by PSA I doubt we will see anything near that. The more familiar “circle the wagons” approach is more typical from their playbook.

And handling cards with “razor sharp” corners is not potentially a life and death issue?

and so is the second...DFA

Hi Dan,
Welcome back to the board. A lot of us knew 10-15 years ago that altered cards were getting slabbed, and at an alarming rate. I know that when I told collectors about it, they thought it was just some harebrained idea, so most of us didn't publicize it. Now it's out in the open, which is a good thing. Maybe it will finally be properly addressed (not guaranteed).

You have a raw Paterson set? That’s awesome. Pics??

I would keep those beauties raw. I wish I had kept my set raw tbh

That is pretty much the position I am in. I have a Moser card that I purchased through PWCC over two years ago.

I've seen a dealer take a return on an altered coin that was sold something more than 10 years earlier.
The "negotiation" of the return was very brief.
Hi, do you recall selling me this half dollar?
Yes, that was a while ago.
I sent it in before selling it, and it came back as altered
Oh, can I take a look?
Sure, I think the mintmark was added.
Well, you're right. It has been. I don't know how I missed it. What did you pay
I think it was $X
That sounds about right, is a check ok?

I still visit his shop, and that was in I think 87.
Of course, he wasn't the one doing the altering.

I also got a good look at the altered coin, especially the added mintmark. It was a neat learning experience for me, not such a good day for him. I think the coin went on the next trip to the smelter along with the rest of the junk silver.

I can just imagine calling a big AH and saying I won a card from you 5 years ago that I would now like to return for a refund because I suspect it's altered. Or even better, a small ebay seller. The statement is obnoxious, in my view.

From what I've been given to understand, in both stamps and coins, the good dealers have an unstated lifetime warranty. I've never heard it said openly, but everyone I've talked about the business end with has told me that taking back mistakes, even if they're very old mistakes is just what's done.

When I was running the bicycle shop I do some work for, I essentially took the same view. I know my own work, and while we had a stated warranty of I think 90 days when I got a bike in that I'd worked on that wasn't really right, and that I could tell hadn't been ridden much in about 2 years, I fixed it free. New tires had been part of the original repair, and the little rubber bits from the mold venting hadn't even worn off.
Talk about a surprised and happy customer. :D

PSA is doing everything they can to:

1. Limit their liability for their own mistakes
2. Maintain their brand reputation as the preferred TPG
3. Not have the hobby go the way of stamps

They are digging in and denying accountability. Maybe they are preparing for a run in politics.

That is all.

Start with PWCC and let us know what happens, I guess.

It's up to you the collector to figure out if you have problem cards. We aren't going to help.

And if you do, don't bother us, call the seller.

If the seller is "unknown," we'll help you.

By the way, the incredible array of altered cards you're seeing on message boards -- don't worry, PSA is well-versed in detecting fraud.

Here is a copy of the message I sent to PWCC. I have pretty much zero optimism that there will be any understanding or accommodation from PWCC, but I guess we will see.

"Hello,

I purchased a 1900 Cope's Golfers Tom Morris card from PWCC for $757.76 plus $8 shipping.on May 23, 2017. With what has come to light in recent weeks, I now believe the card was consigned by Gary Moser and was previously in a PSA 2 holder before being altered/soaked. Had I known the card came from Moser and was likely tampered with, I never would have bid on the card.

I am reaching out to you to see what PWCC plans to do for customers who purchased Moser cards that were altered and now reside in higher-graded PSA holders?

Would you kindly advise me of the company's position for those customers who purchased Moser cards from you?

Sincerely,
Eddie Smith"