Alteration vs. Conservation Defined

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I think PSA tries hard to identify doctored cards (as does SGC and Beckett) with less than perfect results.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, one of the very first things I educated myself on when I got into card collecting was how to distinguish between a factory cut and a non-factory cut. It's really not that hard. Look at the 3 cards in post #42. They all appear to be trimmed. How does PSA not catch a high end card that has been trimmed? Wouldn't a higher end card get more scrutiny? I don't fault them for letting "cleaned cards" slip by where there is not evidence left behind. You can't acknowledge what you can't see/smell. But how does a 'professional grader" not know how to determine a trimmed card?

Either way, you're still ignoring the issue. KNOWINGLY or not, why would you do business with a company that can't do what you're paying them to do?

[conor912]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

why would you do business with a company that can't do what you're paying them to do?

I think part of the rub is that PSA's customers are not the card buyers, they're the card sellers - and PSA does exactly what the sellers pay for....grade and slab the card. Buyers have been led to believe that TPGs have they're best interests in mind, when that runs counter to the business model.

[oldjudge]

Connor: The people who buy PSA graded cards probably also submit cards to PSA. Their business model should be to grade as accurately as possible. PSA is successful because of their registry which is collectors.Their business model cannot be auction house or dealer centric; it must be collector centric.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Connor: The people who buy PSA graded cards probably also submit cards to PSA. Their business model should be to grade as accurately as possible. PSA is successful because of their registry which is collectors.Their business model cannot be auction house or dealer centric; it must be collector centric.

I hear what you're saying, but I guess I would argue that the only reason to ever grade anything is because it will be sold, eventually. Maybe there are a few outliers who grade strictly for one asinine reason or another like set uniformity or whatever, but the lion's share of people who submit do so for re-sale purposes, whether it be in their lifetime or not.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by conor912

I hear what you're saying, but I guess I would argue that the only reason to ever grade anything is because it will be sold, eventually. Maybe there are a few outliers who grade strictly for one asinine reason or another like set uniformity or whatever, but the lion's share of people who submit do so for re-sale purposes, whether it be in their lifetime or not.

Look at the top registry sets. Many have been together for decades. All cards will eventually be resold, but that wasn’t the reason they were graded.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Look at the top registry sets. Many have been together for decades. All cards will eventually be resold, but that wasn’t the reason they were graded.

See my comment about other asinine reasons

[swarmee]

PSA has tremendous liability in this issue for their failure to detect these alterations, because of their Grade Guarantee. They don't really need to say anything about Brent's tenets because they run counter to PSA's longstanding grading practice. Many of the things Brent calls "conservation" is clearly defined in PSA's grading rules as Alteration; the rub is that they're not nearly as good at detecting them as they claim they are. Brent is putting this out there because he bears little to no risk; PSA is on the hook for doctored cards.

In the submission with the Mantle PSA 4.5, which was presumably submitted by Brent based on the number of cards that were immediately resold by PWCC, 29 of the cards were returned ungraded. Was it for Altered, MinSize, min grade? We don't know. Just that the certs aren't there for some reason. That's out of 79 cards submitted. So it's quite possible that PSA caught 29 of 79 with some type of alteration. That's a huge number. Should they have caught more in the same order? Maybe. Should they tell the submitter: you're dead to us! ? I don't know the answer to that. Were these directly submitted by PWCC or are some owned by PWCC? We don't know that either.

Someone on Blowout pointed out when you submit cards, you certify that the cards you're submitting are unaltered in the first place. Can they use this to invalidate claims against their Grade Guarantee against submitters that intentionally submit trimmed and altered cards? Guess we'll find out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have certainly heard in the past that PSA banned people from submitting, but as has been pointed out that's a pretty simple workaround.

It's certainly easier to hide, in general, in a world where so many sales are consignments to auction houses and major ebay sellers.

Way back in the day, everyone knew who the card doctors were, they were the guys buying centered EX and EX MT cards at shows, who at the next show would have the same cards in 8s and 9s.

Now they're buying online under anonymous IDs, and selling through third parties.

[oldjudge]

Pretty simple solution to all this, if you don’t like the way PWCC does business don’t deal with them. I was unhappy with a card I bought on EBay several months back. I returned it to PWCC, got a refund, and will not deal with them again. Everyone needs to decide for themselves who they choose to deal with.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by swarmee

PSA has tremendous liability in this issue for their failure to detect these alterations, because of their Grade Guarantee. They don't really need to say anything about Brent's tenets because they run counter to PSA's longstanding grading practice. Many of the things Brent calls "conservation" is clearly defined in PSA's grading rules as Alteration; the rub is that they're not nearly as good at detecting them as they claim they are. Brent is putting this out there because he bears little to no risk; PSA is on the hook for doctored cards.

In the submission with the Mantle PSA 4.5, which was presumably submitted by Brent based on the number of cards that were immediately resold by PWCC, 29 of the cards were returned ungraded. Was it for Altered, MinSize, min grade? We don't know. Just that the certs aren't there for some reason. That's out of 79 cards submitted. So it's quite possible that PSA caught 29 of 79 with some type of alteration. That's a huge number. Should they have caught more in the same order? Maybe. Should they tell the submitter: you're dead to us! ? I don't know the answer to that. Were these directly submitted by PWCC or are some owned by PWCC? We don't know that either.

Someone on Blowout pointed out when you submit cards, you certify that the cards you're submitting are unaltered in the first place. Can they use this to invalidate claims against their Grade Guarantee against submitters that intentionally submit trimmed and altered cards? Guess we'll find out.

Well...if our cards are no longer "cards" now they are "ASSets"...there has to be some form of regulation/control/accountability from all parties involved in the supply chain.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Either way, you're still ignoring the issue. KNOWINGLY or not, why would you do business with a company that can't do what you're paying them to do?

Exhibits A-C as to why I'm doing business with PSA:







I paid about 11K total for these three cards. Grading fees were less than $100. What are they worth now?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Exhibits A-C as to why I'm doing business with PSA:







I paid about 11K total for these three cards. Grading fees were less than $100. What are they worth now?

Post #42 - Exhibits A-C why I don't do business with PSA.

You guys are too funny. None of this will impact PWCCs business in the least little bit. If y'all really cared about all these doctored cards (and you really don't, you just want to complain), you would go after the TPGs that are grading this garbage. But, instead, your efforts are focused on the wrong party involved. Nothing changes until you place blame where it properly belongs.

PWCC- Profiting While Collectors Complain.

[steve B]

I don't know the Taylor postcards well, but unless they're typically cut with one end much narrower than the other that shouldn't be a 7 or any other numerical grade.

But PSA is the best because they sell for more!

Originally Posted by calvindog

Exhibits A-C as to why I'm doing business with PSA:







I paid about 11K total for these three cards. Grading fees were less than $100. What are they worth now?