Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Cole
Jim,
I'm not riled up at all, at least not yet. I was simply commenting on what I understood to be a company response that I view as a complete cop-out -- i.e., we didn't do as good a job back then as we do now so we don't stand behind our previous product. IMO, that sort of company response is complete and absolute BS. I hope that my understanding of the company response is incorrect.
Moreover, to the extent its an issue, I don't think it should have to be the screwed consignor's responsibility to contact the company and try to get them to make it right years later. The consignor paid for a correct grade and that is what they should have gotten, be it 2000, 2005, or 2010. I don't even think that a contrary viewpoint is arguable.
|
I don't know what the company response is that you refer to. I have never heard of SGC failing to honor the guaranty in these circumstances. That is why it is a guaranty. If the card would not cross at the same grade under the current standards, they owe the owner some money (usually offered first as grading vouchers...cash is tough to part with).
The change of ownership issue is a red herring. I am 100% sure that when they did the deal there would have been some form of contingent liability reduction in the selling price of the company to account for future guaranty claims that the new owners would have to deal with...standard procedure.
Cheers,
Blair