Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag
Here's the wording of the "exceptions" language:
Certain exceptions to the Guarantee apply, including, but not limited to, the following: the Guarantee does not apply to any card as to which an obvious clerical error has been made with respect to the assigned grade or description; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been removed from the PSA holder or any card for which the PSA holder shows evidence of tampering; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been environmentally damaged due to improper storage or natural disasters, such as fire and flood; the Guarantee does not apply to cards exhibiting environmental deterioration subsequent to initial grading; the Guarantee applies only to the grade assigned to the card and does not apply to the authenticity of any autograph nor the grade assigned to any autograph; and the Guarantee does not apply to, and cannot be utilized by, the original submitter (or the original submitter’s agents, employees, affiliates or representatives) of the graded card.
The described exceptions are fairly comprehensive, and I wonder what PSA could hope to add that a court would enforce. In my experience when I see the phrase "including, but not limited" it refers to a somewhat specific category (e.g., nonstructural repairs) that in and itself is either reasonably self-explanatory or has a defined meaning. And even at that when I use such a term I try to list all the important examples I can think of. Here, the word "exceptions" is very broad and can mean essentially whatever PSA could want it to mean. I question whether if PSA tried to include something not already listed a court would enforce it.
|
PSA”s risk isn’t simply whether they have to pay out financially on the guarantee.
The bigger risk in my opinion is to their reputation. First risk is if the story gets out that a large portion of the cards they have graded are not the grade they assigned. If it could be proved the grading error was on purpose, that would be worse. It would compound the reputations damage if word got out that when they have made a mistake (assuming unintentional), that they don’t stand behind the Guarantee.
In that case word should spread that they are both incompetent and won’t stand behind the service they were paid for.
Or those who control the industry could have NYT or Forbes just issue an article that paints the collector claiming they are wronged as a crazy fringe element and the whole affair is just a matter of taste and opinion as to whether alteration and conservation are ok. Also the article might point out that some cards that are altered (like the most famous and expensive card in the world) are known to be altered but have increased in value.