PSA 7 --> SGC Auth

[DanP]

OK, I'm not looking to start an PSA or SGC bashing session with this post. I love SGC and think PSA is OK. I bought a PSA 7 Fan Craze Flick from the recent Heroes of Sport auction.
http://heroesofsportauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=789

As I do with all of my pre-1930 cards, I sent it into SGC right away. I never break cards out of the case for 2 reasons:
1. I'm afraid I'll damage the card
2. I don't want to take a chance with a card not crossing over with at least a grade close to the original

I received a call from SGC stating that they didn't notice when examining the card through the PSA case that there was color put in his hair. He felt bad and was very sincere explaining the situation. So now I have a $50 card that I paid $260 for. I usually overpay and screw up on my own, now that I am trying to be more careful buying only PSA or SGC graded cards, I'm still get screwed!

I guess I couldn't complain to PSA since we would have no proof that the card with the color was the actual card that was pulled out of the PSA case.

I know a lot of you say "buy the card, not the holder", but I don't see any way that I could have noticed the problem through an image on their web-site.

To top it off I just sold a card today for $3.25 that I paid $88 for last year. :eek:

Oh well, just had to vent...

Dan

[ChiefBenderForever]

Man that is some *&^%*&%^ BS, I don't know what else to say except you got (*&^(&*^ed on this one.

[chaddurbin]

did sgc reimburse the difference? should other winners of these cards from the same auction be worried?

[JasonL]

perhaps things will come around for the better, soon.
I don't really have any good advice about buying off scans...that's the way most folks buy things nowadays, and I wish there was a way to better approximate the in-person examination...

Just out of curiosity...what $88 card did you have to part with for $3.25? through a low-reserve Ebay auction, or did the card's market collapse?

May your next purchases work out better!

[Matt]

Did you have a minimum grade to SGC when you submitted it for cross?

[barrysloate]

You won't even be able to get compensation from PSA because the card is now out of their holder. Can you ask the auction house for some consideration? I guess, but did they really do anything wrong? A sticky wicket.

[chaddurbin]

my interpretation of OP is he put M/G sgc84 on form...SGC deemed it good through PSA holder, they cracked it...saw the color added raw, and called OP to apologize and put it in the A holder?

[PolarBear]

I guess it depends on if you specified a minimum grade.

If so, I think this is SGC's problem.

They can't just crack a card out of a holder and then say, oops sorry, didn't notice it had problems so we're giving it an Auth grade.

If you didn't specify a minimum grade, then you'd be out of luck, but that raises the question why they would even call you to explain it.

[bijoem]

It is an unfortunate situation / result.

but - this sounds like something that SGC should make good on, no?

to be clear - I think this situation exemplifies the integrity that SGC has, and I applaud them for it.

but - if you clarified not to cross unless receiving a minimum grade - they shouldn't have cracked - as per your direction.

Noticing something after seems like it would be part of a normal business risk for crossing cards.

I wonder if there is insurance for this type of situation?

[Leon]

First of all I am sure if SGC made a mistake they will make it right. They always have and I would expect them to now.

One question that will have to be known. Was a "minimum grade" requirement marked on the submission slip?

Other than those things I hate when this stuff happens to anyone....best regards

[botn]

I see nothing on their site about their liability or responsibility with regards to crossovers. Recoloring is something that could be detected while the card was in the PSA holder with a black light. They should have to compensate you for the difference in value between the PSA 7 and the SGC Auth if you placed a minimum grade request on the submission form. It is a cost of their doing business and risk they should have to assume in breaking out a card.

[Robextend]

If a minimum grade was assigned and SGC cracked it out, then I agree with Leon that they will make it right.

If no minimum grade was assigned I don't think they can be held accountable.

[spacktrack]

This situation is unfortunate for sure. However it was my understanding that the issue was resolved with Brian Dwyer earlier this week. While SGC does assume responsibility for crossovers, there are a few instances where it is near impossible to see some minor defects through a holder.

The card was submitted with a minimum grade that was lower than the assigned PSA grade. Our graders felt that the card would meet or exceed the stated minimum and proceeded to crack the card out of the PSA holder. Only after being removed the holder and in raw form was the pen in the hair detected. If any alteration was detected in the holder, it would have never been removed from the PSA holder.

Once we realized that color was present on the card, and that it would no longer meet the requested SGC minimum grade, we contacted the submitter to discuss the situation and plan a remedy. During the conversation it was agreed that this was a PSA error. However, SGC felt an obligation to the submitter because, ultimately, the card could not be crossed over in accordance with his requested minimum grade.

Although Dan is an infrequent submitter, he agreed to accept a grading credit to be used on a future submission. While the grading credit would not be equal to the purchase price of the card, since the card still retains some value, it was understood that Dan would be made as close to whole as possible. During the conversation, Dan requested that we put the card in an Authentic holder rather than return it raw, and we appreciated his understanding and cooperation in this situation.

At the end of the day this is simply an unforeseen and unfortunate situation, but we feel we did all we could to make the best of it. If anyone has any additional questions concerning our crossover process, please give us a call.

Regards,

Sean Skeffington
Vice President

[smtjoy]

Sorry this happened to you, that sucks.

I agree with both Rob and Leon, if you had a min grade listed then SGC should owe you the difference if no min then you are out of luck.

Good luck!

[Robextend]

Although not knowing all the details, it seems SGC has rectified the situation in a professional manner IMO.

[Rich Klein]

He was as he said; just "venting" about the loss in value of the card and how he was the victim of something beyond his control.

It does appear from the conversation that is ALL Dan is moaning about; nothing about SGC and their customer service

Rich

[marvjung]

I find it admirable that SGC assumed the responsibility of a problem when, really looking at the OP and reading behind it, I feel this is truly a PSA problem.

I also find it admirable that SGC felt obligated to "correcting" a problem that wasn't really theirs to begin with; in all honesty, PSA should have corrected this.

Regardless of the fact that the card was out of their holder, they were the originating graders on this. I understand that the added color was not noticed till AFTER the card was cracked out of the original PSA holder - which I could completely understand, but PSA should be the ones taking up with the slack, in addition to the auction house. How can one tout a PSA pre-war card rated at an outstanding grade of 7, only to have it comeback an A and not take some form of responsibility is..."detrimental."

Kudos to SGC for dealing to resolving a problem.

[chaddurbin]

from their recent track record, if SGC had seen the ink still in the PSA slab...they would've made it right if OP brought it back to them. since SGC cracked it out, it became SGC's liability.

[jbsports33]

I know it was a card in a PSA holder, but SGC should compensate you some how and like others said they should have inspected the card in the PSA holder first. I really do not think the auction company or SGC did anything seriously wrong, just misfortunate to you that it happened this way and maybe you can get something out of this. The only issue is that SGC did crack it and now you have no proof to go back to PSA, very tough topic to discuss because you also decided to change the holder.

Jimmy

[DanP]

I want to apologize to SGC. I left out some important details (partly because I rushed the post and partly because I'm getting old):

When Rob called and told me about the mistake he checked what I had paid for the card by looking at the auction (I couldn't remember). Then he asked me what I thought the card was worth and offered a credit for the difference. I just wanted to note that this was 2 days before my post (so he didn't offer it because of pressure from N54). I was so busy at work that the whole credit thing didn't really sink in.

I also wanted to mention that in this case I can understand how they didn't see the color while the card was in the case. I held it under a light under magnification (in the SGC case) and still can not see any color.

In this case I think SGC went above and beyond. I wasn't asking for any compensation and really didn't expect anything. I didn't really feel like it was their fault.

Also, in no way do I think Heroes of Sport could have known about this. There is no way I would go back to them with this problem.

So, yes, PSA should have caught it. They didn't. We all make mistakes in our job.

So, I guess I'll keep looking for a higher grade Flick Fan Craze (maybe this time in an SGC holder). Until then, I'll keep this card.

Thanks for all of your advice.

Dan

[PolarBear]

I'm not sure why many of you are saying this is PSA's problem.

There are two problems here. The original encapsulation of an altered card by PSA is PSA's problem. That became a moot point when SGC cracked it out.

The second problem is that SGC wouldn't assign the minimum grade requested after the crackout. This is SGC's problem. They assume liability for the card once they make the decision to crack it out.

They're professionals who get paid to make those decisions and should take responsibility instead of "agreeing" with the customer that it's PSA's fault.

It sounds like SGC worked with the customer and made an effort to provide some level of compensation. However, the solution should have been much simpler.

Whatever the value between the minimum grade the customer requested and the Auth designation is what is owed the customer. If the customer agrees to accept grading vouchers in that amount, that's up to him. Anything short of SGC providing this amount of compensation is a third problem in my opinion.

Edit to add: I was still typing the original post when Dan posted his reply above. Looks like the new details from Dan are that SGC did step up and offer full compensation for their mistake. Good job SGC. I've always thought SGC has much better customer service than PSA and I'm glad to see them make it right.

[jp1216]

great thread. IMHO SGC tried to make it right (and is still the best authenticator). Good luck to all those involved. I will always trust SGC with my best.

I'd chalk this up to a 1% occurrence. All parties can now move forward.