PSA/BGS/PWCC dispute or refund thread

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Here's the wording of the "exceptions" language:

Certain exceptions to the Guarantee apply, including, but not limited to, the following: the Guarantee does not apply to any card as to which an obvious clerical error has been made with respect to the assigned grade or description; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been removed from the PSA holder or any card for which the PSA holder shows evidence of tampering; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been environmentally damaged due to improper storage or natural disasters, such as fire and flood; the Guarantee does not apply to cards exhibiting environmental deterioration subsequent to initial grading; the Guarantee applies only to the grade assigned to the card and does not apply to the authenticity of any autograph nor the grade assigned to any autograph; and the Guarantee does not apply to, and cannot be utilized by, the original submitter (or the original submitter’s agents, employees, affiliates or representatives) of the graded card.

The described exceptions are fairly comprehensive, and I wonder what PSA could hope to add that a court would enforce. In my experience when I see the phrase "including, but not limited" it refers to a somewhat specific category (e.g., nonstructural repairs) that in and itself is either reasonably self-explanatory or has a defined meaning. And even at that when I use such a term I try to list all the important examples I can think of. Here, the word "exceptions" is very broad and can mean essentially whatever PSA could want it to mean. I question whether if PSA tried to include something not already listed a court would enforce it.

PSA”s risk isn’t simply whether they have to pay out financially on the guarantee.

The bigger risk in my opinion is to their reputation. First risk is if the story gets out that a large portion of the cards they have graded are not the grade they assigned. If it could be proved the grading error was on purpose, that would be worse. It would compound the reputations damage if word got out that when they have made a mistake (assuming unintentional), that they don’t stand behind the Guarantee.

In that case word should spread that they are both incompetent and won’t stand behind the service they were paid for.

Or those who control the industry could have NYT or Forbes just issue an article that paints the collector claiming they are wronged as a crazy fringe element and the whole affair is just a matter of taste and opinion as to whether alteration and conservation are ok. Also the article might point out that some cards that are altered (like the most famous and expensive card in the world) are known to be altered but have increased in value.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you're Brent, and your reputation is at stake, and you're giving refunds, don't you WANT people to be talking about that?

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you're Brent, and your reputation is at stake, and you're giving refunds, don't you WANT people to be talking about that?

I'd imagine no. I wouldn't want additional cards and submissions added to the list of impacted cards. Nor would I want high rollers speaking publicly about getting swindled.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I'd imagine no. I wouldn't want additional cards and submissions added to the list of impacted cards. Nor would I want high rollers speaking publicly about getting swindled.

Oh, those are going to be added anyhow, I imagine.

Not sure his best road to restoring confidence is to ask us to take him at his word. We see where that's gone before.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh, those are going to be added anyhow, I imagine.

Not sure his best road to restoring confidence is to ask us to take him at his word. We see where that's gone before.

You might be right. Either way, I can’t see a benefit to PSA, BVG or PWCC in having settlement figures and details public knowledge

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

You might be right. Either way, I can’t see a benefit to PSA, BVG or PWCC in having settlement figures and details public knowledge

Yeah, honesty, openness and disclosure are not good things from their perspective I suppose. Sad but probably true. Considering who we're talking about, why would I expect it, so naïve of me.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah, honesty, openness and disclosure are not good things from their perspective I suppose. Sad but probably true. Considering who we're talking about, why would I expect it, so naïve of me.

Openness and disclosure has only led to additional liabilities for PWCC in the past. Eventually I’d think they’d learn from those mistakes.

[MULLINS5]

I wouldn't sign an NDA, but I can see why PSA would want it.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by MULLINS5

I wouldn't sign an NDA, but I can see why PSA would want it.

Agreed.