Joseph M Pankiewicz, you are a disgrace to this hobby!

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by tschock

In the PSA agreement: "Customer represents and warrants that it has no knowledge and no reasonable basis to believe that any card submitted for grading has been altered in any way or is not genuine."

That's an excellent point. I read that not too long ago and I was wondering how long has PSA had that agreement on their submission forms. Does anyone still have some really old submission forms to verify that this disclosure existed a long time ago or was it rather a relatively recent addition?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ya think that clause has been violated a couple of times here and there? LOL.

[botn]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

That's an excellent point. I read that not too long ago and I was wondering how long has PSA had that agreement on their submission forms. Does anyone still have some really old submission forms to verify that this disclosure existed a long time ago or was it rather a relatively recent addition?

No idea when the PSA Collector's Club Agreement reflected that language but I do know that this language was not present on the submission forms until sometime in late 2012. I have all my submission forms going back to the mid 1990s. Still does not excuse them from doing their job and pretty pointless as they rarely buy back cards that are altered. At least now if they buy back a card (hilarious concept) they can try to go back to the submitter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

They had this provision on the coin side for some time -- was the basis for a lawsuit that quick research shows was filed but never actually served.

http://www.coinlink.com/News/pdf/CU_vs_Coin_doctors.pdf

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They had this provision on the coin side for some time -- was the basis for a lawsuit that quick research shows was filed but never actually served.

http://www.coinlink.com/News/pdf/CU_vs_Coin_doctors.pdf

As I recall the judge threw out the case for a number of reasons. One reason was several of the defendants were from California, so the Federal court had no jurisdiction. As for the rest, as I recall, the judge threw it out because it basically amounted to CU suing it's dealers for damages incurred for CU's own incompetence. It should be on PACER.GOV.

[ajg]

Far above Cayuga's waters class of 1984

[Cardboard Junkie]

Originally Posted by ajg

Far above Cayuga's waters class of 1984

"Blackbird" The Beatles, class of 68

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

As I recall the judge threw out the case for a number of reasons. One reason was several of the defendants were from California, so the Federal court had no jurisdiction. As for the rest, as I recall, the judge threw it out because it basically amounted to CU suing it's dealers for damages incurred for CU's own incompetence. It should be on PACER.GOV.

Dan it was a Lanham Act suit diversity or not would have no relevance to a federal question case.

This article suggests the suit was never served.

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/de...erse-attorneys

[barrysloate]

Scariest thing about the coin doctoring is the surfaces are smoothed using a laser. Wouldn't that be virtually impossible to detect?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Scariest thing about the coin doctoring is the surfaces are smoothed using a laser. Wouldn't that be virtually impossible to detect?

With enough magnification ? No.

With the usual 10X magnifier? Yes.

I've seen only one altered coin that I know of, and it was done well before the laser stuff. Added mintmark, not really obvious, but it also didn't look right either. The dealer whose shop I hung out at had just taken it back, having sold it 15+ years earlier. (It failed TPG when the buyer wanted to sell)
Easy return too, basically a "Hey, that coin I bought a long time ago turned out to be altered" "Really? Do you have it with you?" "Yes, here it is" "Jeez how did I miss that? How much did you pay? I seem to remember $X" "Yeah, that sounds about right" " Is a check ok" - Not even a question of whether he'd take it back. He used it as an example of what to look for for a while, last I saw it it was in a cardboard 2x2 holder with a lot of writing describing the alteration and a couple big red stripes. It probably found it's way to the smelter eventually.

That's one of the reasons I still visit and buy stuff from him. No drama, even when there's a problem.

Steve B



Steve B

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by botn

No idea when the PSA Collector's Club Agreement reflected that language but I do know that this language was not present on the submission forms until sometime in late 2012. I have all my submission forms going back to the mid 1990s. Still does not excuse them from doing their job and pretty pointless as they rarely buy back cards that are altered. At least now if they buy back a card (hilarious concept) they can try to go back to the submitter.

This was still a good move by PSA in my opinion. If anything, from a civil law standpoint, it gives the consumer clear recourse against the card doctor.