PSA Response from President Steve Sloan

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 70ToppsFanatic

Selectively quoting me does not make your mob mentality valid.

“3/1000ths of a percent SO FAR!”

“I too believe there is more to be uncovered...”

This is still America people. Remember innocent until proven guilty?


From what has been discovered it appears that PWCC was somehow involved in some unethical and possibly illegal things with some know scams artists. It also appears that they managed to slip some things through PSA and other TPGs.

And here you are, part of a mob that is spouting off all sorts of wild ideas about PSA being complicit in this, PSA is going to weasel out of its guarantee, and other generally unflattering conspiracy theories without any real evidence to substantiate it.

PSA is doing what just about any other publicly traded corporation does when an apparent primary product/service failure has occurred; trying to weed out what of that which has come out is indeed true and what is not, trying to identify what risks exist for the company as a result of it, trying to identify other parties that could potentially be held accountable, trying to minimize the damages to the company, trying to reassure customers, etc.

It may ultimately be proven that there are 100,000 tainted items, but right now there isn’t any evidence to back that up. There is evidence that has been developed that suggests about 1,000 so far. Are 1000 too many? Yes, but it’s far from the epidemic level that the mob is currently panicking about.

For someone who claims to be so concerned about integrity you certainly don’t seem to be very worried about the integrity and fairness of passing judgment on people like myself, and PSA for that matter, without proper basis in fact.

IMO telling people to return the card to the seller, and only to go to PSA if the seller is unknown whatever that means, is not appropriate. The guarantee does not require exhaustion of remedies. The whole point was that PSA stands behind marketplace transactions, to inspire confidence.

[70ToppsFanatic]

But in this case they already have a prior statement from PWCC saying that they will handle it for any cards they brokered. What we don’t know is what, if anything, PSA may have said to PWCC that PSA would do unless PWCC made this offer. We also don’t know that ifbthis offer for PWCC is a result of some conversation. Between PWCC and PSA, whether as part of it PWCC is required to turn over any cards they redeem to PSA to prevent cracking and resubbing them or selling them raw to unsuspecting people.

PSA is part of a publicly traded company. They have shareholders to protect. Why shouldn’t they take advantage of what PWCC is offering to do so? They also said that the guarantee review was an option as well. I don’t see them rejecting to do reviews. I see them trying to minimize the number of reviews they need to do.

I have plenty of gripes about PSA, but I really don’t see their early attempts to minimize their liability as anything other than normal corporate behavior.

[Promethius88]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

IMO telling people to return the card to the seller, and only to go to PSA if the seller is unknown whatever that means, is not appropriate. The guarantee does not require exhaustion of remedies. The whole point was that PSA stands behind marketplace transactions, to inspire confidence.

If you have a recall on a vehicle or basically any other product, don't you typically take it back to the place where you bought it? I mean, I don't see cars lined up at the actual plant looking to get fixed. Might be a stretch, but kind of how I see it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Promethius88

If you have a recall on a vehicle or basically any other product, don't you typically take it back to the place where you bought it? I mean, I don't see cars lined up at the actual plant looking to get fixed. Might be a stretch, but kind of how I see it.

That's because the dealer is designated by the warranty to take the return. The dealer is a representative of the manufacturer. The PSA guarantee does not say anything about gong to the seller first or designate the seller as an agent.

[Promethius88]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's because the dealer is designated by the warranty to take the return. The dealer is a representative of the manufacturer. The PSA guarantee does not say anything about gong to the seller first or designate the seller as an agent.

Yeah, I get that...kind of an apples to oranges thing. While I do agree the liability falls back on PSA, I would attempt to get my money back from the person that sold it to me. This isn't with just in regards to this situation, just my general opinion. "You sold me a piece of crap, you take the time to deal with it.... return my money now". I don't care what the item was, whoever sold it to me should take their time and money to have to return the item.
As noted before, I think this will possibly their stance.
1. Return the item to the person that sold it to you for a refund.
2. That person(PWCC) can try to return in to PSA under the guarantee.
3. They get denied for violating the terms and conditions by submitting knowingly altered items.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Promethius88

Yeah, I get that...kind of an apples to oranges thing. While I do agree the liability falls back on PSA, I would attempt to get my money back from the person that sold it to me. This isn't with just in regards to this situation, just my general opinion. "You sold me a piece of crap, you take the time to deal with it.... return my money now". I don't care what the item was, whoever sold it to me should take their time and money to have to return the item.
As noted before, I think this will possibly their stance.
1. Return the item to the person that sold it to you for a refund.
2. That person(PWCC) can try to return in to PSA under the guarantee.
3. They get denied for violating the terms and conditions by submitting knowingly altered items.

What if you now discover a card on the list you bought 5 years ago? Not fair to go back to the seller IMO. Sellers who are innocent are entitled to repose at some point, I would think much sooner than that. It's PSA's eff-up if something is wrong, not the seller, IMO, unless the seller was complicit.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What if you now discover a card on the list you bought 5 years ago? Not fair to go back to the seller IMO. Sellers who are innocent are entitled to repose at some point, I would think much sooner than that. It's PSA's eff-up if something is wrong, not the seller, IMO, unless the seller was complicit.

That is pretty much the position I am in. I have a Moser card that I purchased through PWCC over two years ago.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

That is pretty much the position I am in. I have a Moser card that I purchased through PWCC over two years ago.

Start with PWCC and let us know what happens, I guess.

[CuriousGeorge]

I think rather than taking $10 to crossover cards SGC should be offering to independently look at any cards and give their professional opinion as to whether the card has been altered. If it hasn’t they can crossover and if it has then the owner can go to PSA for recourse.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

I think rather than taking $10 to crossover cards SGC should be offering to independently look at any cards and give their professional opinion as to whether the card has been altered. If it hasn’t they can crossover and if it has then the owner can go to PSA for recourse.

Isn't an authenticity review implicit here?

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Isn't an authenticity review implicit here?

You would think it is but I know I would pay a nice sum to have someone take a professional and unbiased look at my overpriced cardboard without necessarily being forced to cross them over.

[tribefan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Isn't an authenticity review implicit here?

Upcharges ONLY apply if the card "crosses" to the designated minimum grade or higher (we will always call for approval for any upcharge necessary).


sounds like $10 gets you a review, and if it meets your minimum grade or higher for crossover, you pay a little more? The regular grading fee?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

I've been on a hiatus of sorts for the past four years or so, but just happened to look at the message board for old time sake and noticed the proliferation of threads regarding altered PSA cards. Needless to say, it should have not come as a surprise to me. Why it now seems like a scandal is perplexing.

I thought the issue of a substantial amount of altered cards being systematically slabbed and graded by PSA is old news going back at least 10 years. Was it just skepticism in the past and now it's an irrefutable crisis? What am I missing?

As for PSA's response regarding altered cards, based on my past experience, one should be cynical regarding PSA's disturbing history of dealing with the problem.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

I think rather than taking $10 to crossover cards SGC should be offering to independently look at any cards and give their professional opinion as to whether the card has been altered. If it hasn’t they can crossover and if it has then the owner can go to PSA for recourse.

You cant properly examine a card in a slab.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

You cant properly examine a card in a slab.

Of course not but so what. A partial second opinion is better than none here.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Promethius88

If you have a recall on a vehicle or basically any other product, don't you typically take it back to the place where you bought it? I mean, I don't see cars lined up at the actual plant looking to get fixed. Might be a stretch, but kind of how I see it.

No. Not always. I own a Nissan Titan. I bought it used from Ford franchise dealership. When my Titan did have a recall, I didn't take it back to the Ford dealership, I took it to the Nissan dealership. The warranty it through Nissan, not Ford.