Joseph M Pankiewicz, you are a disgrace to this hobby!

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

I am the one who could be naive. A man buys a card (graded) cracks it out then cleans, trims, colors, doctors, whatever to it then resubmits it (remaining silent) and it gets a higher grade....then he sells it for a big profit. Has he done anything illegal? Unethical perhaps, but I don't know what law he is breaking. Help me understand.

David,

It is called fraud.

"Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result." - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

In the PSA agreement: "Customer represents and warrants that it has no knowledge and no reasonable basis to believe that any card submitted for grading has been altered in any way or is not genuine."

So if someone knowingly alters a card and submits it, they meet items 1 and 2. Let's say PSA doesn't catch it and slabs it as graded. If the submitter then sells the card, they have then met item 3, and assuming that the buyer is relying on the PSA grade (item 4 and the signed PSA agreement) and would not knowingly pay the same price for an altered card (item 5), the seller has now met all 5 criteria for fraud.

The extent of PSA's liability does not matter regarding the actions of the original submitter. The original submitter, without full disclosure to the buyer, could still be committing an act of fraud.

Maybe the lawyers could explain it a little better than I?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by tschock

In the PSA agreement: "Customer represents and warrants that it has no knowledge and no reasonable basis to believe that any card submitted for grading has been altered in any way or is not genuine."

That's an excellent point. I read that not too long ago and I was wondering how long has PSA had that agreement on their submission forms. Does anyone still have some really old submission forms to verify that this disclosure existed a long time ago or was it rather a relatively recent addition?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ya think that clause has been violated a couple of times here and there? LOL.

[botn]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

That's an excellent point. I read that not too long ago and I was wondering how long has PSA had that agreement on their submission forms. Does anyone still have some really old submission forms to verify that this disclosure existed a long time ago or was it rather a relatively recent addition?

No idea when the PSA Collector's Club Agreement reflected that language but I do know that this language was not present on the submission forms until sometime in late 2012. I have all my submission forms going back to the mid 1990s. Still does not excuse them from doing their job and pretty pointless as they rarely buy back cards that are altered. At least now if they buy back a card (hilarious concept) they can try to go back to the submitter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

They had this provision on the coin side for some time -- was the basis for a lawsuit that quick research shows was filed but never actually served.

http://www.coinlink.com/News/pdf/CU_vs_Coin_doctors.pdf

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

They had this provision on the coin side for some time -- was the basis for a lawsuit that quick research shows was filed but never actually served.

http://www.coinlink.com/News/pdf/CU_vs_Coin_doctors.pdf

As I recall the judge threw out the case for a number of reasons. One reason was several of the defendants were from California, so the Federal court had no jurisdiction. As for the rest, as I recall, the judge threw it out because it basically amounted to CU suing it's dealers for damages incurred for CU's own incompetence. It should be on PACER.GOV.

[ajg]

Far above Cayuga's waters class of 1984

[Cardboard Junkie]

Originally Posted by ajg

Far above Cayuga's waters class of 1984

"Blackbird" The Beatles, class of 68

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

As I recall the judge threw out the case for a number of reasons. One reason was several of the defendants were from California, so the Federal court had no jurisdiction. As for the rest, as I recall, the judge threw it out because it basically amounted to CU suing it's dealers for damages incurred for CU's own incompetence. It should be on PACER.GOV.

Dan it was a Lanham Act suit diversity or not would have no relevance to a federal question case.

This article suggests the suit was never served.

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/de...erse-attorneys

[barrysloate]

Scariest thing about the coin doctoring is the surfaces are smoothed using a laser. Wouldn't that be virtually impossible to detect?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by botn

No idea when the PSA Collector's Club Agreement reflected that language but I do know that this language was not present on the submission forms until sometime in late 2012. I have all my submission forms going back to the mid 1990s. Still does not excuse them from doing their job and pretty pointless as they rarely buy back cards that are altered. At least now if they buy back a card (hilarious concept) they can try to go back to the submitter.

This was still a good move by PSA in my opinion. If anything, from a civil law standpoint, it gives the consumer clear recourse against the card doctor.