Final UPDATE. PSA Guarantee on a doctored card - Actual good news this time

Snowman · #1 05-28-2024, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raulus

At the same time, for those with a conspiracy bent, it's not difficult to let your mind wander into more nefarious explanations. But often my experience is that the simplest explanation is far more likely than something with a lot more moving parts.

It's not a conspiracy theory though. We have plenty of data to go on at this point. The simplest explanation is that they don't want to admit they are wrong and don't want to pay out on their guarantee.

raulus · #2 05-28-2024, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's not a conspiracy theory though. We have plenty of data to go on at this point. The simplest explanation is that they don't want to admit they are wrong and don't want to pay out on their guarantee.

Cool cool. I guess I can count myself lucky then.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 05-28-2024, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's not a conspiracy theory though. We have plenty of data to go on at this point. The simplest explanation is that they don't want to admit they are wrong and don't want to pay out on their guarantee.

Agreed.

Gorditadogg · #4 05-29-2024, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Agreed.

Yes, of course. To put it in perspective, there were 80 cards submitted to PSA in the batch that included the 54T Mays. PSA rejected 20 of those as altered, trimmed or undersized, but they graded the other 60. So there are 59 other cards left from that batch that were probably worked on, and could also be subject to PSA's guarantee.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Peter_Spaeth · #5 05-29-2024, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Yes, of course. To put it in perspective, there were 80 cards submitted to PSA in the batch that included the 54T Mays. PSA rejected 20 of those as altered, trimmed or undersized, but they graded the other 60. So there are 59 other cards left from that batch that were probably worked on, and could also be subject to PSA's guarantee.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

You would think with that high a percentage clearly altered, and probably from a suspect submitter, they would just reject the whole sub on principle.

Gorditadogg · #6 05-29-2024, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You would think with that high a percentage clearly altered, and probably from a suspect submitter, they would just reject the whole sub on principle.

Yes, wouldn't you? And not only on principle but from a business sense, too. They will probably pay Nicolo more for his altered Mays card than the total fees they received from the 60 cards they graded.

And they have 59 more potential settlements down the road. They are going to need to dig in even deeper going forward.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Peter_Spaeth · #7 05-29-2024, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Yes, wouldn't you? And not only on principle but from a business sense, too. They will probably pay Nicolo more for his altered Mays card than the total fees they received from the 60 cards they graded.

And they have 59 more potential settlements down the road. They are going to need to dig in even deeper going forward.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Very few people, I think, have the resources and staying power to actually litigate these claims. I think PSA just selectively pays out but the economics of letting card doctors submit outweigh the guarantee expense probably by a ton.

Gorditadogg · #8 05-29-2024, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Very few people, I think, have the resources and staying power to actually litigate these claims. I think PSA just selectively pays out but the economics of letting card doctors submit outweigh the guarantee expense probably by a ton.

That's bone-chilling to think about. If the volume of submissions from card doctors was so significant that PSA catered to their business, there would be a ridiculous amount of exposure out there they need to cover up. And I said "if".

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Snowman · #9 05-31-2024, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Very few people, I think, have the resources and staying power to actually litigate these claims. I think PSA just selectively pays out but the economics of letting card doctors submit outweigh the guarantee expense probably by a ton.

Most people don't realize the implications of what they're calling for. They also don't understand the scope of the problem. If PSA ends up having to pay out on even 1% of the claims that people are calling for, then PSA would just get rid of their guarantee program altogether, otherwise they'd be forced to close the doors. Then what? Where do we go from there? The other grading companies can't detect this stuff either. And they don't have guarantees anyhow.

Snowman · #10 05-30-2024, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Yes, of course. To put it in perspective, there were 80 cards submitted to PSA in the batch that included the 54T Mays. PSA rejected 20 of those as altered, trimmed or undersized, but they graded the other 60. So there are 59 other cards left from that batch that were probably worked on, and could also be subject to PSA's guarantee.

There may have been 80 cards in that order. There also may have been 3, or 20, or 55, or 170, or just the 1. You don't know. The best we could do is guess based on the types of cards submitted, but that's still a guess.

As far as 20 cards being rejected for alterations, you forgot to include that they also very likely could have been rejected for minimum grades. That used to be a thing. I think it's much more likely that those cards simply didn't meet the submitters minimum grade than it is that they were rejected for alterations. But that's just my guess.

Gorditadogg · #11 05-30-2024, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

There may have been 80 cards in that order. There also may have been 3, or 20, or 55, or 170, or just the 1. You don't know. The best we could do is guess based on the types of cards submitted, but that's still a guess.

As far as 20 cards being rejected for alterations, you forgot to include that they also very likely could have been rejected for minimum grades. That used to be a thing. I think it's much more likely that those cards simply didn't meet the submitters minimum grade than it is that they were rejected for alterations. But that's just my guess.

Read the blowout link at the top of this thread, post #8112 by Capt. Spaulding, and then let's talk some more.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Peter_Spaeth · #12 05-30-2024, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Read the blowout link at the top of this thread, post #8112 by Capt. Spaulding, and then let's talk some more.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Looks like all the rejections on the presumed sub were for altered, min size or miscut. Not minimum grade.

Snowman · #13 05-31-2024, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Looks like all the rejections on the presumed sub were for altered, min size or miscut. Not minimum grade.

How could you know this without access to the backend database inside PSA? They don't post the reason a cert is invalid on the website. It just says, "We're sorry. The certification number provided was not found in the database."

Are you saying that because Lorewalker posted it, thus it must be true? lol

Is there something I'm missing? All I see are invalid certs on PSA's website and a list composed by Lorewalker claiming, without evidence, that they were deemed "Altered, Min Size or Miscut"

Snowman · #14 05-31-2024, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Read the blowout link at the top of this thread, post #8112 by Capt. Spaulding, and then let's talk some more.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I read it and I stand by what I said. Just because Lorewalker lists the cert numbers for 80 cards and claims the submission was for 80 cards doesn't mean that the submission was in fact 80 cards. We simply don't know. We can make assumptions like two of the same card having back to back certs are likely from the same submission or a run of cards within the same set are likely from one submission, but we don't ultimately know. And with this run of cert numbers, there are definitely some cards that could be from different submissions. In fact, I'd argue that the likelihood those 4 Jackie Robinson RCs and 3 Mickey Mantle RCs being in the same submission as the 1952 Topps commons is actually extremely low (near-zero). Those are almost certainly from at least two different submissions. Also, the submission could have ended with the baseball cards and the football, hockey, and basketball cards may have been from a different submission. Again, we don't know. They ran in different auctions. And just because many of the cards were sold on PWCC doesn't mean they were from the same submission either. PWCC was the largest consignment company in the hobby at the time.

And just because Lorewalker claimed that the other 20 certs were "Altered, Min Size or Miscut" does not mean that those certs were in fact deemed to have been altered, min size, or miscut. This is a prime example of what I'm constantly preaching about in this hobby. The telephone game of misinformation and malinformation is ridiculous around here. Lorewalker looks up the cert numbers on PSA website and can't find the cards listed, so he assumes they were rejected by PSA and then posts that as if it were a known fact. Then the lemmings read his post, and assume it must be true and they perpetuate it. But we know that PSA allowed submitters to put minimum grades on their submissions, which resulted in the same "We're sorry. The certification number provided was not found in the database." error listed on their website. Furthermore, we all know this to be the case. This shouldn't be news to anyone who reads these threads. Yet you guys just want to pretend like that's not an option, let alone the most likely explanation.

I think the most likely explanation of that run of certs is that they were from at least two submissions and that the invalid certs didn't meet the minimum grades listed on the submission forms.

Gorditadogg · #15 05-31-2024, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

I read it and I stand by what I said. Just because Lorewalker lists the cert numbers for 80 cards and claims the submission was for 80 cards doesn't mean that the submission was in fact 80 cards. We simply don't know. We can make assumptions like two of the same card having back to back certs are likely from the same submission or a run of cards within the same set are likely from one submission, but we don't ultimately know. And with this run of cert numbers, there are definitely some cards that could be from different submissions. In fact, I'd argue that the likelihood those 4 Jackie Robinson RCs and 3 Mickey Mantle RCs being in the same submission as the 1952 Topps commons is actually extremely low (near-zero). Those are almost certainly from at least two different submissions. Also, the submission could have ended with the baseball cards and the football, hockey, and basketball cards may have been from a different submission. Again, we don't know. They ran in different auctions. And just because many of the cards were sold on PWCC doesn't mean they were from the same submission either. PWCC was the largest consignment company in the hobby at the time.

And just because Lorewalker claimed that the other 20 certs were "Altered, Min Size or Miscut" does not mean that those certs were in fact deemed to have been altered, min size, or miscut. This is a prime example of what I'm constantly preaching about in this hobby. The telephone game of misinformation and malinformation is ridiculous around here. Lorewalker looks up the cert numbers on PSA website and can't find the cards listed, so he assumes they were rejected by PSA and then posts that as if it were a known fact. Then the lemmings read his post, and assume it must be true and they perpetuate it. But we know that PSA allowed submitters to put minimum grades on their submissions, which resulted in the same "We're sorry. The certification number provided was not found in the database." error listed on their website. Furthermore, we all know this to be the case. This shouldn't be news to anyone who reads these threads. Yet you guys just want to pretend like that's not an option, let alone the most likely explanation.

I think the most likely explanation of that run of certs is that they were from at least two submissions and that the invalid certs didn't meet the minimum grades listed on the submission forms.

So Lorewalker = Captspaulding = Rob Zombie = Chase Antley

This is a very educational thread. I will stay on the sidelines awhile to see if one of them responds.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ebay Auth guarantee- buying 'raw' card	pawpawdiv9	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	03-16-2024 08:16 PM
PSA Card Guarantee	benjulmag	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	83	10-02-2023 12:50 PM
PWCC and Doctored Cards	tod41	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	26	07-29-2019 08:04 PM
T206 Doctored Card Detection Kit Ideas....anyone think this would be a good idea	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	22	04-29-2005 02:39 PM
Does this Gehrig look like a doctored reprint	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	04-12-2003 06:18 PM