Quote:
Originally Posted by perezfan
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and although I don't agree, I do respect it. People collect for different reasons... some for profit, and others for the love of the hobby. I suppose I'm one of the voices for the latter.
Not part of a mob... just someone who does not want to see the collectors get burned. PSA/Sloan's Letter directly states that the affected collectors should go to the SELLER (not PSA) for refunds. PWCC has already demonstrated that they intend to make this process very cumbersome and difficult. And thus, it is the collector who is screwed.
So while we are apparently miles apart on this, we can still have a good conversation. I don't want to see Collectors take the hit for this, and do want PSA to live up to its long-stated guarantee. Otherwise, it's all just meaningless lip service.
|
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.
06-05-2019, 02:53 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode