Posted By:
MikeUJim,
Taking the element out of my post of trying to get in your head, I think it does give a clear illustration of the potential Kevin could bring vs. simply being a set of 2nd eyes. I strongly disagree that it would simply not be workable. It is only not workable if Kevin does not truly have the skill-set to objectively show PSA, BVG, GAI and SGC their errors. Without this, you are right, no dealer would agree to have his cards blacklisted by someone with no respect/skill-set.
However, with respect and skill-set, Kevin could single handedly assist dealers in getting reimbursed for bunk cards from graders. This is where Kevin would have a true value proposition vs. just another set of 2nd eyes.
In your SGC example, lets say Kevin says an SGC card is bunk. He has objective information and the collector or dealer and Kevin go to Dave Forman for an answer. There are a couple of options:
1. Kevin objectively shows Dave the problem, he agrees and pulls the card off the market.
2. Dave shows Kevin why he is wrong.
3. There is an impass. For this, I think Kevin should have two categories of rejection i.e. some doubt of authenticy/alteration, but can not completely substantiate the doubt and no doubt with objective information that the card is not authentic or is altered. I think the no doubt categories could be argued with the grading companies. The "some doubt" statements are meaningless.