Originally Posted by bounce
i have read essentially every post of every major thread, and i watched the entirety of the interview video. After having reviewed all of that, my question to anyone would be this:
is there any doubt that both pwcc and the tpgs (psa specifically at a minimum) are aware of at least some of the people who are suspected/accused of trimming cards?
i for one have absolutely no doubt they know who these people are, several of which have well less than stellar hobby reputations going back a long time prior. I simply don't believe any reasonable person at this point could refute that both pwcc and psa know exactly who many of these people are.
I also believe it is virtually certain they actually knew these people well prior to the recent outbreak of threads questioning the unaltered state of many of these cards. Brent effectively said as much, without using names, in the video.
If you come to the conclusion that they did know, then it stands to reason that they certainly should have known they were taking great risk to their brands and their services by associating with these people, whether via accepting their cards for grading or for consignment services.
As the tpgs have basically chosen silence to this point, there's really nothing to say about them other than lack of response and to this point perceived lack of action.
With pwcc, their responses in my view have three primary themes.
1) we don't think you really understand what alteration means, so we're going to tell you what it means (or, more realistically, what it doesn't mean).
2) if you can't see evidence of alteration on the card, then it must not really be altered.
3) we're mad we caught up in this, and trust us, we're going to make some people pay.
The problem with 1): There is huge diversity in opinion on what alteration means in this hobby. Brent speaks in the video of not wanting to pursue things that can't be done, so why is he unable to see this as one of those things? It is highly unlikely that all the tpgs are going to get together and form a consensus standard that is adopted hobby wide, right? Maybe not impossible, but not highly likely. I'm paraphrasing the video, but at one point he uses the phrase "...this is where i need people to think critically...". Probably not the best choice of phrase if you're trying to persuade people to your side of things.
The problem with 2): This is effectively saying they're "hiding behind the slab", i.e. If psa slabbed it with a number, it must have met their standards, we're just the consignment house so don't be mad at us. This simply just doesn't work if you believe that they did indeed know who some of these people were and were accepting their submissions on consignment. They knowingly dealt with these people - period. Again paraphrasing, brent said something to the effect of "...photos don't constitute evidence...". I respectfully disagree with brent on that, and i imagine an extremely large percentage of the hobby does as well. Photos are actually some of the absolute best evidence there is, and photos are exactly the evidence that has shown the serial numbered cards have been trimmed and yet still made it in numbered slabs. According to brent, if photos aren't evidence, then those cards aren't trimmed. No reasonable person could believe that, i don't believe for one second that he believes that.
The problem with 3): Pwcc has been mixed up in so many issues, from the dimaggio "cleaning" to the retracted/shill bidding to the changing definition of altered to acting like we didn't really think these bad actors would do these bad things...
In basically every instance, pwcc had or still has a significant monetary interest in keeping things as they were, how they want it to be or to keep it quiet. They've been "reacting" to people calling these things out, not proactively looking to deal with them. They're promising to "make people pay", but they can't tell us who those people are. They can only tell that to the tpgs. That would certainly be a start, but that's not what transparency looks like. It's also not what leaders do.
Paraphrasing again, brent says in the video he "can't revise auctions after they've started". He should know that's not accurate, otherwise pwcc is literally the only seller on ebay who can't. You can always add to the description up until the very near end of an auction (i don't know the specifics, might be 24 hours or something, i'm sure someone can look that up). It appears as a new "section" within the description with a date and time stamp. I believe he knows this, and has again said something that isn't true and is trying to make us believe he doesn't know it's not true. That erodes trust.
What they have contributed to leading is the push for cards specifically, but collectibles more generally, to be viewed as an "alternate asset class" for investment. Unfortunately, i think many people view that as "cheerleading".
Thus, i think most people have little to no faith that the "trust me" portion of the video actually means anything, as there really isn't sufficient substantive action and accountability historically to justify that trust.
|