PSA Card Guarantee

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think you'd have a much more difficult time convincing a jury that even the act of trimming->regrading->reselling a card is a crime.

I've had multiple people tell me that even cleaning cards is "wrong" and/or criminal behavior. I honestly just laugh and roll my eyes whenever I hear that. They come across to me as completely delusional. And I'm certainly in the majority viewpoint in this hobby today. But as soon as you step outside this hobby, the distribution of opinions immediately sways *much* more heavily in the direction of "who cares?" than it does "that's fraud!". I strongly suspect that any jury you'd ever encounter would view card doctoring of all stripes the exact same way. Even with the most egregious of acts like trimming.

Inside this hobby, we hear things like "fraudster!", "card molester!", "scum of the hobby!", etc. But outside the hobby, all you hear is, "clever!", "haha, sounds like he found a loophole!", and "smart!". Nobody else thinks this is fraud. Just us. And a (likely small) subset of us at that.

We're talking here though about a civil case against PSA on its guarantee, not a criminal trial for card doctoring.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We're talking here though about a civil case against PSA on its guarantee, not a criminal trial for card doctoring.

Oh, got it.

I wonder how much this phrasing might matter in that case?

"PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."

The "bears evidence of" qualifier seems pretty important to me when I read this statement. You could send in one of those BODA-outed cards that were clearly trimmed if comparing before vs after photos, but unless the card itself actually "bears evidence of" trimming, then it really doesn't matter. The graders aren't magicians. If there is nothing there to detect, then there's nothing to detect, as Peter from SGC says.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Oh, got it.

I wonder how much this phrasing might matter in that case?

"PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."

The "bears evidence of" qualifier seems pretty important to me when I read this statement. You could send in one of those BODA-outed cards that were clearly trimmed if comparing before vs after photos, but unless the card itself actually "bears evidence of" trimming, then it really doesn't matter. The graders aren't magicians. If there is nothing there to detect, then there's nothing to detect, as Peter from SGC says.

+1
If it doesn't "bear" evid of trim but is trimmed? It seems PSA/SGC covered themselves, technically.

.

[benjulmag]

IF you can get into evidence a prior image of a card established to be the SAME card, and you can show that card is smaller than its current version, I would call that bearing evidence of trimming. I don't have expertise in the method Blowout uses, but if one can establish it is analogous to a card "fingerprint" and persuade a court to admit it into evidence, and again I'm not saying you can, I think that would be pretty compelling evidence of trimming. The cost to do this, though could be astronomical, in terms of the witnesses one would need to call to establish the reliability of the method.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Oh, got it.

I wonder how much this phrasing might matter in that case?

"PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity."

The "bears evidence of" qualifier seems pretty important to me when I read this statement. You could send in one of those BODA-outed cards that were clearly trimmed if comparing before vs after photos, but unless the card itself actually "bears evidence of" trimming, then it really doesn't matter. The graders aren't magicians. If there is nothing there to detect, then there's nothing to detect, as Peter from SGC says.

So hypothetically you can prove a card is trimmed, but it bears no evidence of trimming? I don't think that would work for PSA. It's too cute and hypertechnical.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So hypothetically you can prove a card is trimmed, but it bears no evidence of trimming? I don't think that would work for PSA. It's too cute and hypertechnical.

I don't really see it as a loophole or technicality though. It reads very straightforward to me. Saying that a card bears evidence of something is a statement about the card itself, not about scanned images of a card. In this case, to say that a card bears evidence of trimming means that upon close examination, the card's edges look like they've been trimmed and/or the card does not meet the required sizing specs.

PSA grades cards, not pictures of cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I don't really see it as a loophole or technicality though. It reads very straightforward to me. Saying that a card bears evidence of something is a statement about the card itself, not about scanned images of a card. In this case, to say that a card bears evidence of trimming means that upon close examination, the card's edges look like they've been trimmed and/or the card does not meet the required sizing specs.

PSA grades cards, not pictures of cards.

You argue to the jury that yes we admit the card is trimmed, but we don't have to honor our guarantee. I'll take the opposite all day long.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Travis your position reduces to the proposition that if I submit a card to PSA and I tell them I trimmed it and show them conclusive before and after photos, they should nevertheless slab it if I did such a good job they can't tell. To me that's absurd.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Travis your position reduces to the proposition that if I submit a card to PSA and I tell them I trimmed it and show them conclusive before and after photos, they should nevertheless slab it if I did such a good job they can't tell. To me that's absurd.

No, it doesn't. What I wrote cannot be reduced down to anything that includes a signed confession of anything as part of the equation. You're adding that in.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Travis your position reduces to the proposition that if I submit a card to PSA and I tell them I trimmed it and show them conclusive before and after photos, they should nevertheless slab it if I did such a good job they can't tell. To me that's absurd.

It is really not that absurd. A fellow member done almost exactly that and they graded the card a 9.

Seriously can't make this up. He sent in a counterfeit card. He is a data guy that writes a lot of papers. He included a paper describing in great detail the differences between it and a "real/normal" version of the card. It isn't even on the same card stock and they graded it a 9.

[swarmee]

Of course there are ways to detect whether cards are trimmed visually, but if it's actually a court case, I wonder if the owner would allow invasive/destructive scientific testing of the card. If three edges show 100 years of exposure to air contaminants, and one only shows 10 years of exposure, that would be scientific evidence that PSA is incompetent. So on a card like a $500 EX-MT card that became a $100,000 PSA 10, it would be worth it for the owner (who already has some kind of visual evidence that the card is trimmed from before/after photos) to allow for destructive testing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Of course there are ways to detect whether cards are trimmed visually, but if it's actually a court case, I wonder if the owner would allow invasive/destructive scientific testing of the card. If three edges show 100 years of exposure to air contaminants, and one only shows 10 years of exposure, that would be scientific evidence that PSA is incompetent. So on a card like a $500 EX-MT card that became a $100,000 PSA 10, it would be worth it for the owner (who already has some kind of visual evidence that the card is trimmed from before/after photos) to allow for destructive testing.

I was accepting the hypothetical for sake of argument. I agree that in most cases there would be ways to determine the card was trimmed even without before photos.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I was accepting the hypothetical for sake of argument. I agree that in most cases there would be ways to determine the card was trimmed even without before photos.

I don't understand why so many people adhere to this idea that all (or even most) trimmed cards are identifiable as such, and that any trimmed card that passes through grading represents a failure to detect something that should have been detected by an expert grader. It's simply not true, and anyone making such a claim is doing so based on hearsay, and not on experience.

Perhaps this belief stems from PSA posturing themselves as indeed being capable of doing precisely that and everyone just believing them, but it doesn't make it true. Unfortunately.