PSA Response from President Steve Sloan

[griffon512]

"As with any financial transaction, if you are unsatisfied with your purchase, contact the seller to initiate a refund request. If the seller is unknown, you may send the card to PSA for review under our Financial Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity."


Seems like they are trying to pass the buck to the seller, as if the seller in all instances should provide the financial guarantee if the seller is known. So if the seller does not initiate the process for financial reimbursement, what happens then?

This doesn't seem consistent with what they say on their website: https://www.psacard.com/about/financialguarantee

"PSA guarantees that all cards submitted to it shall be graded in accordance with PSA grading standards and under the procedures of PSA.

If PSA, in fact, concludes that the card in question no longer merits the PSA grade assigned or fails PSA’s authenticity standards, PSA will either:

Buy the card from the submitter at the current market value if the card can no longer receive a numerical grade under PSA's standards or,

Refund the difference in value between the original PSA grade and the current PSA grade if the grade is lowered. In this case, the card will also be returned to the customer along with the refund for the difference in value.

The current market value is determined by PSA, based in part on Sports Market Report and SMR Online values and/or recent prices realized from the marketplace. PSA will be the sole determiner of the current market value."

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by griffon512

"As with any financial transaction, if you are unsatisfied with your purchase, contact the seller to initiate a refund request. If the seller is unknown, you may send the card to PSA for review under our Financial Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity."

It's funny; I think I gave him that idea when I recommended in email that he have all PWCC customers send them back to PWCC for refunds.

My reasoning was that if the purchase never happened, and PWCC was in on the fraud, PSA would have minimal or zero liability.

[Peter_Spaeth]

.

[Scott L.]

Originally Posted by swarmee

It's funny; I think I gave him that idea when I recommended in email that he have all PWCC customers send them back to PWCC for refunds.

My reasoning was that if the purchase never happened, and PWCC was in on the fraud, PSA would have minimal or zero liability.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

[MULLINS5]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

The right thing would be for PSA to get those cards in their possession, but it would cost a small fortune.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

Brent is on video promising to reimburse buyers for fraudulent cards submitted through PWCC. Watch the 1 hour long video. He doesn't say which cards those are, so all of them should go back to PWCC. Maybe his lawyer will come out with a list of affected cards submitted by PWCC so that he won't get every single one back to his company.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Brent is on video promising to reimburse buyers for fraudulent cards submitted through PWCC. Watch the 1 hour long video. He doesn't say which cards those are, so all of them should go back to PWCC. Maybe his lawyer will come out with a list of affected cards submitted by PWCC so that he won't get every single one back to his company.

He admitted submitting cards for Gary?

[swarmee]

He says he submitted cards for consignors, nonspecifically.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by swarmee

He says he submitted cards for consignors, nonspecifically.

That might be his downfall.

[Fballguy]

Sounds like he's pointing the finger away from PSA...talking only about the "actors" who submit. What about the "actors" who graded them? How does that get explained?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

Sounds like he's pointing the finger away from PSA...talking only about the "actors" who submit. What about the "actors" who graded them? How does that get explained?

Under oath. They’re getting sued.

[doug.goodman]

From Sloan's note : "PSA processes more than two million cards each year"

40,000 per week (based on a 50 week year)
8,000 per day (based on a 5 day week)
666 per hour (based on a 12 hour day, and my love of Satan)
11 per minute

That means 5.4 seconds multiplied by the number of graders there are, per card.

Doug "just saying" Goodman

[rdwyer]

Back in the day, I was privileged to enter the "Vault" at GAI. I was there to educate the authenticator of cigarette packs per Steve Rochi's request. I was shown the process of grading cards. The first thing they always did was measure the card. Doesn't make any sense to do anything else after that if the card was trimmed because the card would be graded authentic. They then looked for altering. Same thing, doesn't make any sense to do anything else after that if the card was altered because the card would be graded authentic.. Then they look at the centering, corners. etc. And further evaluated the card for printer defects, creases, etc.

So how is it that PSA could skip the first part of the process for all those trimmed cards unless it was deliberate? I know that GAI was doing the same, and that their opinion on cards today are worthless. But still they had a procedure.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

Sounds like he's pointing the finger away from PSA...talking only about the "actors" who submit. What about the "actors" who graded them? How does that get explained?

This is the first thing that hit me as well...

Everyone who's been wondering whether it is

A. Incompetence

or

B. Favorable Grading to preferred customers

Got nothing answered. Zero explanation for the hundreds of glaring mistakes they've recently made (likely thousands before this is put to bed). Why would we continue to put our faith in this company, with a pathetic canned "pass the buck" response like that? Written by some faceless attorney who doesn't give a crap about what's right, or the state of the hobby. Screw them.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Brent is on video promising to reimburse buyers for fraudulent cards submitted through PWCC. Watch the 1 hour long video. He doesn't say which cards those are, so all of them should go back to PWCC. Maybe his lawyer will come out with a list of affected cards submitted by PWCC so that he won't get every single one back to his company.

I watched the hour long video & thought it was all B.S. He tried to stick up for PSA about not being able to see alterations. I think it's called CYA.

[Tennis13]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I watched the hour long video & thought it was all B.S. He tried to stick up for PSA about not being able to see alterations. I think it's called CYA.

I don’t know about CYA. From what I saw on The Wire and Breaking Bad, when you may be charged with a cime or a lawsuit, you should definitely NOT talk for 60 minutes on the record.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

Is PWCC considered the seller or the auctioneer?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Is PWCC considered the seller or the auctioneer?

That's for them to pass the buck down to the consignor. Except I bet those PayPal accounts are bone dry.

[Brian Van Horn]

Peter,

Thank you for the subtle and understated images. I was thinking about the T206 Wagner when I saw your images and it all just drove home the point.

[taul166]

Back to the upcoming National, which is what 5 or 6 weeks away where they will be many, many attendees.....some being well versed on what has been uncovered.

Do you think PSA and PWCC will have more to formally say before then? Didn't they both commit to their own investigations and to say more after those investigations are completed. If they don't say anymore, they will likely be on the defensive. But maybe that won't bother them and they will simply give a further tepid response as they interact with dealers, collectors, by saying our investigations are still on-going. For PSA, let's take the PSA Registry Luncheon, for example. Are they going to just hand out their awards, maybe cover some other Registry changes, and in a large forum like that, not address this major issue knowing many in the audience want to hear more from PSA?

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by taul166

Back to the upcoming National, which is what 5 or 6 weeks away where they will be many, many attendees.....some being well versed on what has been uncovered.

Do you think PSA and PWCC will have more to formally say before then? Didn't they both commit to their own investigations and to say more after those investigations are completed. If they don't say anymore, they will likely be on the defensive. But maybe that won't bother them and they will simply give a further tepid response as they interact with dealers, collectors, by saying our investigations are still on-going. For PSA, let's take the PSA Registry Luncheon, for example. Are they going to just hand out their awards, maybe cover some other Registry changes, and in a large forum like that, not address this major issue knowing many in the audience want to hear more from PSA?

How would you like to be the poor schlep employees from PSA that have to go to the National, to stand at their booth and answer questions? Those buggers better be getting some hazard pay.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by taul166

Back to the upcoming National, which is what 5 or 6 weeks away where they will be many, many attendees.....some being well versed on what has been uncovered.

Do you think PSA and PWCC will have more to formally say before then? Didn't they both commit to their own investigations and to say more after those investigations are completed. If they don't say anymore, they will likely be on the defensive. But maybe that won't bother them and they will simply give a further tepid response as they interact with dealers, collectors, by saying our investigations are still on-going. For PSA, let's take the PSA Registry Luncheon, for example. Are they going to just hand out their awards, maybe cover some other Registry changes, and in a large forum like that, not address this major issue knowing many in the audience want to hear more from PSA?

Lawyers advise their clients not to say anything. I assume that's why PSA never says anything. After all, it's been years, court convictions, courtroom admission by the very trimmer and hobby common knowledge later, and PSA has still never admitted publicly the Gretzky Wagner is misgraded. Authenticating and dishonesty are supposed to be mutually exclusive words-- but not always in this hobby. And one can lie by omission.

This is why I've often said authenticators and graders like PSA shouldn't also be in the 'insurance' and 'financial guarantee' business because that latter stuff only serves to get in the way of the intellectual honesty and discussion of the latter. They should just be in the business of giving honest, open, learned independent opinions-- and that's all collectors should expect and want--, and anything that gets in the way of that should be removed from the equation.