PSA Card Guarantee

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

What's the difference? The card still BEARS NO EVIDENCE of trimming. By your logic, the issue isn't whether it's trimmed or not, it's whether it bears evidence of trimming.

[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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

Sounds very interesting. What card was it?

[steve B]

SGC isn't much better at picking up some kinds of fakes and alterations.
And also sticks with their mistakes if they're big enough.

There are tells for any manufacturing process. The ones for card factory cuts are known and clear. The biggest one actually survives a lot of wear, being present on cards that would only grade a 1, and even some that might be worse than that. I could teach my kids to spot this in a few minutes.
Some maybe most trimming can be spotted even if the card is in a slab.

And that's without even getting into things like how much gunk a card has absorbed from the air, on the edges or otherwise. Or if the internal angle of the cut from the cutter is the same (that last one is not always easy to spot, especially if the blade was sharp. )

Either grading companies aren't making the effort, which seems likely.
Or they don't know what effort to make
Or they know whose cards to not make the effort on.

[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.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

IMO the overwhelming majority of trimmed cards can be conclusively shown to be trimmed if forensically examined. Conversely, IMO, the overwhelming majority of trimmed cards cannot be shown to be trimmed by visual examination alone when altered by an experienced card doctor.

Inasmuch as (to my knowledge) PSA undertakes only visual examinations, the opinion it gives to any card where an uptick in grade equates to a significant bump to its market value, unless that card has documented provenance to a period before card doctors existed or there was no economic incentive to trim (or otherwise alter), is WORTHLESS.

So, the sin PSA is guilty of is not a failure to detect something that they could have detected, but their representation that a numerical grade gives a collector a reasonable assurance the card has not been trimmed.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

So, the sin PSA is guilty of is not a failure to detect something that they could have detected, but their representation that a numerical grade gives a collector a reasonable assurance the card has not been trimmed.

Absolutely. Well said. And just one more reason why I hold SGC in much higher regard than PSA. At least SGC openly admits that some alterations simply cannot be detected. PSA refuses to even address the issue and continues to pretend as though they are fully capable.

[perezfan]

“So, the sin PSA is guilty of is not a failure to detect something that they could have detected, but their representation that a numerical grade gives a collector a reasonable assurance the card has not been trimmed.”

And wasn’t this pretty much the entire premise for their existence?