Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Cole
Peter and Leon,
So its OK to pay for a "service" you evidently didn't get the first time around and be held up to pay for that same service again? I don't think so.
It seems to me that it is SGC's responsibilty to get it right the first time since accuracy is what they sell (and have presumably sold from the get go). Accuracy is precisely what was marketed and presumably what the buyer purchased even back when, according to what appears to be the current position, their grading was, at least sometimes, somewhat subpar.
I am not suggesting that SGC has to stick with the grade it previously assigned. It doesn't even do that now. I am, however, suggesting that if SGC backtracks on a grade it previously gave, it needs to make it right financially. The buyer should not be out because SGC did a poor job to begin with.
|
I don't agree. People who submitted under the old regime got what they paid for -- a card graded according to the standards of the day. That new management chooses to go forward with a more accurate grading system does not mean they "owe" anything to people who submitted in the past. If past submitters' cards deserve the same grade, fine; if not, why should they be compensated when they received what they paid for?
Example: I submitted a card that by today's standards deserves a 7 but back then it got an 8. So I have an 8 in an old holder, which the market will value accordingly -- probably the same as a 7 in a new holder. I have what I always had -- why am I entitled to a windfall?