Open Letter to Grading Companies, Authenticators and Major Auction Houses

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron&nbsp; </b><p>I don't collect graded cards and am not playing favorites here, but I have some advice that I think this big companies take to heart. I am also assured that, whether they are PSA or GAI or SGC advocates, most collectors will agree with me.<BR><BR>I wish there was more openness with these companies-- meaning communicating what's going on. I'm certainly not suggesting that GAI or PSA reps post on chatboards or get into public debates or have a laundry list of every boo boo they make-- but these companies have websites or newsletters or whatever. Personally, I think it would great that when a company makes a mistake or has a significant issue or company change that they would be the FIRST to communicate. I will bet you that even the most ardent PSA advocate would readilly agree that if there is a significant PSA issue, the last place you will hear about it from is PSA. And trust me, PSA, that's a bad thing for both you and your clients.<BR><BR>A little bit more of sincere communication would go a long way and I promise would bring greater esteem and trust in your companies. Again, this communication can be in the form of the company's liking and control.<BR>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>I'm not trying to pick an a company, but here are two diffferent ways that major companies dealt with significant issues (Everyone makes mistakes and apparently the issues were solved, so that's not an issue).<BR><BR>1) Two auctions ago Slater's auction had a major problem with shipping and there was trememdous delays and related problems. In their next catalog they had a full page apology at the front of the catalog with detailed explanation on how the situation was fixed (hired new employees, etc).<BR><BR>2) GAI began by mislabelling their encapsulated vintage Sweet Caporal packs (wrong years, incorrectly associating them with T206 cards). They learned their mistake and I beleive now label them well. The problem is that this was all done on the sly. They never gave a public notice about their labels and changes, but, without telling anyone, went back into their database and retroactively changed the years. While they learned from their mistakes (which is great), it apparently was against company policy to keep their paying customers up to date or offer them information. <BR><BR>My problem is that most of these types of companies tend to deal with major issues like GAI did. And it is my hope that, when reading this thread, these companies will in the future choose to deal with issues they way Slater's does.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Unfortunately I heard from a good friend , who consigned some stuff to them in thier last auction, that the problems didn't get fixed all of the way. I would be appreciative of any other info on how they did in thier last auction (operationally speaking)..my friend seems to be less than happy with them.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>David,<BR><BR>Excellent post. Third party grading services, auction houses and authenticators that do not fully inform the public and that "hide" the truth in order to serve their own agendas, have no place in this hobby. When errors are ignored, when security issues are wantonly discarded and when excuses are substituted for explanation and action, collectors are left with uncertainty and doubt.<BR><BR>In the coming week or two I will provide one of the major grading services an opportunity to correct a significant error it has made. Regular participants and readers of the Network54 forum will be able to see firsthand how this company handles serious grading issues.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>I mentioned my thoughts my to my dad. He said that he used to invest with a well known mutual fund company. In their annual report sent to all the investors, they would include an article on the past year's good stocks and bad stocks they had picked. The article detailed why (in their honest opinion) the best performing stocks did so well and how and why they poor performing stocks did so poorly, along with why/how they made a mistake in picking them. He had great respect for the company, because they were willing to talk about their mistakes as well as their succseses. He also thought it was informative, as a client, to read how they made their choices and how they dealt with them.<BR><BR>Of course in recent years, some companies, in their annual report to investors, fix the numbers so it makes it appear as if they loads of money.<BR><BR>From both a trust and especially an educational standpoint, I think talking about ones mistakes and how to move beyond them is a wonderful thing.<BR><BR><BR>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Lastly, I will add that my post is not a prelude to me posting a torrent or errors and boo boos and faulty practices of graders or auctions houses (I have no such list and am not compiling one). I merely hope that some would read this and there will be some introspection-- in particular as to how they can better and more clearly communicate to the most important people in the companies' lives: their paying customers.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>From a practical standpoint, especially as relates to authentication (which grading card companies advertise that they are doing)-- if it is company policy and practice to communicate the mistakes that one makes, the company will make fewer mistakes. If it is company practice to hide the mistakes, the company will make more mistakes.<BR>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Hankron</b><p>Starting in 2000, I had a small newsletter about prints and photos. Most of the readers were learned and many were quick to point out my errors (They were 80 percent of the time correct!). I felt obligated to the readers to correct my errors in the following newsletter (I would have felt bad about myself if I let the misinformation stay as record). At one point I jokingly labelled the newsletter, "David's Weekly Correction and Rebuttal." After two consecutive newsletters were I made somewhat reasonable factual blunders, I thought to myself, "You know, this is getting kind of embarassing. Maybe I should get the facts straight before I publish them or not pubish them at all."<BR><BR>This also explains why, as far as authentication goes, I don't publish others' works unless I can verify it. I can live with getting the blame for my own mistakes, but am not willing to get the blame for others'.<BR>