Alteration vs. Conservation Defined

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by swarmee

PSA has tremendous liability in this issue for their failure to detect these alterations, because of their Grade Guarantee. They don't really need to say anything about Brent's tenets because they run counter to PSA's longstanding grading practice. Many of the things Brent calls "conservation" is clearly defined in PSA's grading rules as Alteration; the rub is that they're not nearly as good at detecting them as they claim they are. Brent is putting this out there because he bears little to no risk; PSA is on the hook for doctored cards.

In the submission with the Mantle PSA 4.5, which was presumably submitted by Brent based on the number of cards that were immediately resold by PWCC, 29 of the cards were returned ungraded. Was it for Altered, MinSize, min grade? We don't know. Just that the certs aren't there for some reason. That's out of 79 cards submitted. So it's quite possible that PSA caught 29 of 79 with some type of alteration. That's a huge number. Should they have caught more in the same order? Maybe. Should they tell the submitter: you're dead to us! ? I don't know the answer to that. Were these directly submitted by PWCC or are some owned by PWCC? We don't know that either.

Someone on Blowout pointed out when you submit cards, you certify that the cards you're submitting are unaltered in the first place. Can they use this to invalidate claims against their Grade Guarantee against submitters that intentionally submit trimmed and altered cards? Guess we'll find out.

Well...if our cards are no longer "cards" now they are "ASSets"...there has to be some form of regulation/control/accountability from all parties involved in the supply chain.