Crossover grading

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

If you are considering trying this case give your money to a good charity or something because otherwise all you are doing is lighting it on fire.

David, I have no plans to try this case. I have no horse in this race other than my concern about the hobby and my desire to initiate discussion about things I see going on that I don't think are kosher.

This issue is merely a subset of a myriad of other issues discussed on this Board. As someone who goes back to the 1960's and sees what it going on with blatantly altered cards receiving grades, ridiculous price differentials between half grades for differences that exist only because some 30-year old grader with little hobby experience says exists, and even if it does is based on some totally subjective determination of grading, I feel the need to speak out and try to stimulate provocative discussion that could be an impetus for change.

I respect the views of all people who in a civil manner disagree with what I say, and in a number of instances upon further reflection I have shifted my views. That is what I like about this Board. But I have real concerns much of what we are seeing is a house of cards (pun intended) ready to fall, and I think it is constructive to raise awareness of these issues.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess the question you have to ask is, why are people willing to pay those price differentials for an arbitrary half grade difference? In some cases I think the answer is almost circular -- because the market says they're worth more. Sort of like in the old days, cards were worth what Beckett said they were worth, despite its claim that it was merely reflecting prices not determining them. Purely from a collecting standpoint, I'm not sure.

And adding to the element of arbitrariness are all the crackouts, bumps, etc. etc. So many cards go through different grades before landing in their current holder.

Plus, and I couldn't prove it, or it would cost me a lot to do so, but I have a strong suspicion all submitters are not equal -- or some are more equal than others. (I've always been tempted to buy say 250 random 10s from a certain seller and resubmit them myself and post the results.)

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

David, I have no plans to try this case. I have no horse in this race other than my concern about the hobby and my desire to initiate discussion about things I see going on that I don't think are kosher.

This issue is merely a subset of a myriad of other issues discussed on this Board. As someone who goes back to the 1960's and sees what it going on with blatantly altered cards receiving grades, ridiculous price differentials between half grades for differences that exist only because some 30-year old grader with little hobby experience says exists, and even if it does is based on some totally subjective determination of grading, I feel the need to speak out and try to stimulate provocative discussion that could be an impetus for change.

I respect the views of all people who in a civil manner disagree with what I say, and in a number of instances upon further reflection I have shifted my views. That is what I like about this Board. But I have real concerns much of what we are seeing is a house of cards (pun intended) ready to fall, and I think it is constructive to raise awareness of these issues.

There may be some bias on PSA's part but proving it using cross over data will be impossible. I understand your concern but when the discussion moves to anti trust lawsuits is where it goes from productive to something other than that.

I think what you are missing is that many cards that are submitted to third party grading firms change grades on a second or third trip so this same argument can be used to defend against your thesis.

In 2011 I got a real eye opener when it came to grading. There was a mid 50's Topps card that was a PSA 8 in a Rick Probstein auction that went for $40 something dollars. A month or two later the same exact card showed back up in a Rick Probstein auction and was now a PSA 10 and went for $4,000+. I was honestly outraged. How could this happen? I emailed Joe Orlando with my concern thinking he would be shocked too and really want to know and he wrote back asking if I would like to talk about it. We spoke the next day and he smartened me up real quick and explained that there were lots of players in the market that buy what they think are under graded cards and send them in for review, crack and resub, and also that the graders aren't perfect and are only human and that one may see something another doesn't or value it differently when rendering a grade. It became very clear to me then that third party grading isn't a perfect science.

A lot of cards that are in PSA 10 holders were once in a PSA 9 holder. Two of the cards I have spent the most on were bumped from a 9 to a 10. Once more showing that within the same company they have graders that might not agree on the grade. If they can't agree within a company, on how earth can one determine what the exact grade of the cross over should be? Just because SGC says it is X doesn't mean it is X in the eyes of another grader.

One of these cards was submitted and received a PSA 9. It was cracked and once more received a PSA 9. The consignor auctioned it off through PWCC and won their card back via the snipe shill bid that I discuss on other forums as the preferred method of shilling. It was then sent back to PSA for review and was finally awarded the 10 and then I paid the person nearly five times as much for it. When things like this happen you can argue against third party grading as a whole but proving in court in any capacity that PSA has set out to damage it's competition by not crossing over cards all of the time at equal grades is impossible.

The market share differences are so large that they legitimately do not see either SGC or BGS as a real threat. There is no doubt that the spread in prices has caused PSA to gain more submissions but this is a kind of like a chicken or the egg argument. Which came first? The reality is the market share divergence started in the mid 2000's and saw BGS lose 30%+ of the market to PSA. The battle was won over ten years ago so the market we see today is just a reflection of that. There are more collectors who want a PSA graded card and so lots of cards that have been graded prior attempt to get moved to PSA.

I think a better question to ask is why are these people trying to cross over cards? The answer in most cases is money. In my case early on it was uniformity but at this point it would honestly be about the economics of it. If there were more examples of cards being cracked out and submitted raw and receiving either equal or higher grades you would see an increase in the demand for SGC graded cards but this isn't happening. If it was this would perhaps validate some of your concerns but there just isn't the evidence.

A comment just in the past hour showed a cross over submission. A few equal grades but mostly lower. Had the submitter asked for straight cross overs many would have been returned in card savers and PSA would have kept his money but instead he was realistic and they came back in holders.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guess the question you have to ask is, why are people willing to pay those price differentials for an arbitrary half grade difference? In some cases I think the answer is almost circular -- because the market says they're worth more. Sort of like in the old days, cards were worth what Beckett said they were worth, despite its claim that it was merely reflecting prices not determining them. Purely from a collecting standpoint, I'm not sure.

I agree to some extent (regarding the guide 'setting' prices as much as, or more so than, 'reflecting' prices). But if you consider it more in terms of 'cycle time', the Beckett may well have reflected changes, but over a longer cycle than today's shorter cycle 'guides' like a VCP. At some point those cards would not 'move' at Beckett 'guide' prices and in theory the Beckett prices would be adjusted. Personally, I always marveled (suspiciously so) at how many monthly price changes had an up indicator and so few had a down one.

Now consider even further the shorter cycle times. The shorter the cycle, the more the 'card' becomes a 'commodity', which may be even worse than considering it an 'asset'.

And as an aside, does PWCC attempt to see the future or create the future?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tschock

I agree to some extent (regarding the guide 'setting' prices as much as, or more so than, 'reflecting' prices). But if you consider it more in terms of 'cycle time', the Beckett may well have reflected changes, but over a longer cycle than today's shorter cycle 'guides' like a VCP. At some point those cards would not 'move' at Beckett 'guide' prices and in theory the Beckett prices would be adjusted. Personally, I always marveled (suspiciously so) at how many monthly price changes had an up indicator and so few had a down one.

Now consider even further the shorter cycle times. The shorter the cycle, the more the 'card' becomes a 'commodity', which may be even worse than considering it an 'asset'.

And as an aside, does PWCC attempt to see the future or create the future?

With the thousands of cards listed, IMO Beckett could not possibly have had sufficient data in those pre-internet days to assess what cards were selling for at hundreds of venues if not more across the nation. The reality was, most dealers just quoted the Beckett price except maybe for super hot current players, and typically if you bought enough or were a regular customer you could get a discount from that.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

With the thousands of cards listed, IMO Beckett could not possibly have had sufficient data in those pre-internet days to assess what cards were selling for at hundreds of venues if not more across the nation. The reality was, most dealers just quoted the Beckett price except maybe for super hot current players, and typically if you bought enough or were a regular customer you could get a discount from that.

Agreed. And most buyers used it to determine what to pay. A self-fulfilling cycle. Not a guide as much as a sales catalog, with the salesmen being the individual dealers.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

With the thousands of cards listed, IMO Beckett could not possibly have had sufficient data in those pre-internet days to assess what cards were selling for at hundreds of venues if not more across the nation. The reality was, most dealers just quoted the Beckett price except maybe for super hot current players, and typically if you bought enough or were a regular customer you could get a discount from that.

I'd have to look as some old Becketts, but I think they used to list the dealers they got pricing from. Pretty much all the biggest from whatever year it was, plus supposedly a few others who would report sales. (who ever had that much time? )

One show I was at the talk among some dealers when they didn't think anyone was listening was about how they had expected the initial prices in Beckett to be higher, and held off on selling the cards until the prices came out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'd have to look as some old Becketts, but I think they used to list the dealers they got pricing from. Pretty much all the biggest from whatever year it was, plus supposedly a few others who would report sales. (who ever had that much time? )

One show I was at the talk among some dealers when they didn't think anyone was listening was about how they had expected the initial prices in Beckett to be higher, and held off on selling the cards until the prices came out.

I definitely ran into that with new issues. I mean you could always get the just-released Shaq rookie or whatever it was that year if you threw a crazy number at someone, but quite often they would tell you they were waiting to see what "the Beckett" said. The same guys who were always telling you that some wax product or other was "drying up." I imagine shows everywhere in the early to mid 90s were pretty much the same, but there were some real prizes among the Boston area show guys.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I definitely ran into that with new issues. I mean you could always get the just-released Shaq rookie or whatever it was that year if you threw a crazy number at someone, but quite often they would tell you they were waiting to see what "the Beckett" said. The same guys who were always telling you that some wax product or other was "drying up." I imagine shows everywhere in the early to mid 90s were pretty much the same, but there were some real prizes among the Boston area show guys.

In the mid 80's when I lived in CT I went to a local flea market a lot. One guy always had new stuff, small time dealer, and kinda pushy. My stock answer for him on stuff I didn't want was "nah, I already have some". One day were talking in general, and I mentioned I might get up early someday soon to sell some of my extra stuff. He motioned me around to the back of the van, handed me a couple boxes of new product (Probably something interesting but junk like the mini cards) and said "those are for you, don't sell here next weekend" I tried to pass, but he got a bit insistent...

One of the few "bad" things broke college me did was occasionally mention to him that I was going to set up next week. Not often, maybe 5 times over the summer.

[steve B]

This came across the news today. I thought it was an interesting parallell to the question of one grading company not crossing other companies stuff as policy.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...lt0?li=BBnb7Kz

Short story, Romo sets up fantasy FB event, NFL supposedly tells players they'll be in trouble for attending as it's gambling.

Next year, he gets EA sports as a sponsor, supposedly NFL pressures EA to withdraw.

[barrysloate]

David- that grading isn't a perfect science is of course true. But what concerns me is the ridiculous rise in price for an extra half grade or full grade when the grade we are buying is so subjective. How can you even know you are getting what you pay for? Part of this is that cards sent in for review can only get a higher grade, but never a lower one. That make no sense because if a card is misgraded, it can be either slightly overgraded or slightly undergraded. But resubmissions carry no risk because the grade will never be lowered.

We would never be having this discussion if an 8 was worth $80, a 9 was worth $90, and a 10 worth $100. Then nobody would bother resubmitting. But in the real world that $80 card might be $900 in a 9, and $10,000 as a 10. That's something that very few collectors understand. In the latter scenario, I want grading to be an exact science to justify the inflated price, and it can never be that way.

[BobC]

I found the back and forth between the several attorneys regarding potential anti-trust issues and relevancy to be interesting in regards to supposed activities and actions by and between TPG companies A and B. While I'm a CPA/accountant and not an attorney, I like to think I have a rudimentary grasp of some aspects of the law as I have to deal with federal, state and local tax laws on an ongoing basis. Having said that, I think I'd have to lean toward the side where I can't really see the anti-trust relevancy due to the issue of crossovers. Seems like a bit of a stretch.

However, I had a slightly different thought and take on this I'd like to run up the flagpole. Since one of the supposed issues that can cause perceived value differences for grading between the various TPGs has to do with the existence of a Set Registry maintained by one of the TPG companies, do any of you think any other TPGs could make a case that their graded cards should also be included and listed as part of that Set Registry?

Right now, the one TPG that has its own Set Registry only allows and includes cards graded by themselves, and doesn't include or recognize cards graded by any other TPGs. And since this Set Registry has been established and maintained for quite some time now, it is considered by many as the sole, main registry in existence, and can and does have a demonstrated impact and effect on the comparative value of similarly graded cards between the different TPGs. And then because of the perceived negative impact on the value of graded cards from TPGs that are not included in the Set Registry, could it be argued that this puts those other TPGs at a decided disadvantage from a business standpoint and will ultimately work to put them out of business versus the TPG with the Set Registry? And then along that same reasoning, could it not also be argued that anyone trying to establish a new, competing TPG would similarly be at a great disadvantage and deterred from successfully competing with the TPG that has and operates the Set Registry because their graded cards are not included in that registry also?

I know a simple argument to counter that would be for these other TPGs to set up their own Set Registries, but then how does an already existing or new start-up TPG ever hope to compete with an already established and accepted Set Registry by another TPG? They likely can't and won't. So could this be construed as a type of restraint of trade or competition then that other cards graded by different TPGs don't get included or considered in the one TPG's Set Registry? I know this may be a stretch, but when I think back to how the courts have dealt with businesses like the electric and gas companies who had their own lines and pipes to all the houses in their markets, and weren't they eventually forced to allow other competing companies to send and sell electricity and gas over or through those lines and pipes owned by them so as to create and promote competition and not prohibitively hinder new companies from entering their markets?

And if you think about it, there would/could be some positive effects on the industry as well. One that comes to mind would be the need for the TPGs to try and get their grading criteria to be more consistent amongst themselves then if everyone was to be represented in a single Set Registry. It would also likely give new or existing non-Registry TPGs a bump in the perceived value of their graded cards to be more on a par with those of the TPG that originally established the Set Registry. This would potentially foster more business for the other or new TPGs and eliminate the need to try and seek crossovers of their graded cards to the TPG that currently maintains the Set Registry. The other and new TPGs would then be competing for business on a more level playing field with costs, customer service, turnaround times, grading accuracy and so on becoming even greater factors in determining who you give your grading business to rather than "with this TPG I can be on the Set Registry, with anyone else I can't" mentality. Wondering if anyone had a thought on this.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by BobC

I found the back and forth between the several attorneys regarding potential anti-trust issues and relevancy to be interesting in regards to supposed activities and actions by and between TPG companies A and B. While I'm a CPA/accountant and not an attorney, I like to think I have a rudimentary grasp of some aspects of the law as I have to deal with federal, state and local tax laws on an ongoing basis. Having said that, I think I'd have to lean toward the side where I can't really see the anti-trust relevancy due to the issue of crossovers. Seems like a bit of a stretch.

There seems to be a misperception about my antitrust point. I never said (or if what I said could be interpreted as such, that was not my intent) that a company merely engaging in something sneaky (in this instance refusing the crossover not based on the whether the card satisfies the company's criteria but simply because it comes from a competitor) creates antitrust exposure. The scenario I was outlining is when that company has an extremely disproportionate market share. And it is that extremely disproportionate market share coupled with alleged unfair business practices that could create the antitrust exposure.

So going back to my companies A and B. Maybe it is the case as some of the posts said that B has no need to worry about A. But if in the end B becomes the only TPG left in the industry, it is that domination of the market that could create antitrust exposure.

[benjulmag]

Bob,

I think you are raising a great point. If we ever get to the point that a TPG so dominates the market, which domination is believed to be caused by its set registry (and in one of my posts where I discussed what A could do to improve its market share and I suggested probably not much due to the dominance of B's registry), and the courts get involved, a remedy along the lines of what you are suggesting would seem to merit serious consideration.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The set registry as an "essential facility"? That would be the applicable doctrine. Like real estate multi-lists, or football stadiums? I'll have to think about that one, it's an interesting point.

For background, in one sentence, there is an exception to the "refusal to deal" line of authority that says when a monopolist controls a "facility" and sharing it is "essential" to the existence of any competition, the monopolist may have to grant access. The doctrine originated, I recall, in a case involving a firm that controlled the only railroad bridge, I forget where now. It's also been applied, again from memory, to advertising in a town's dominant newspaper, real estate multi-listing services, and a football stadium. That said, it's usually construed pretty narrowly.

[swarmee]

It's also not the only differentiation. SGC has had a set registry for a very long time, and through their own fault have let it become useless because the new flips are not integrated into the old set registry, as far as this board knows.
If it was critical for the success of SGC, they wouldn't have modified their flips to be incompatible with their existing service.

In the case with Beckett, their backlogs are much longer than PSA for bulk services. Someone on blowout got their bulk (nonguaranteed) submission back 16 MONTHS after submitting it, and the average in the last few months received them back after 12-13 months. They're more slammed than PSA is, or their throughput is just much smaller. Edit: forgot to mention that BGS charges UP FRONT, while PSA charges when completed.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

David- that grading isn't a perfect science is of course true. But what concerns me is the ridiculous rise in price for an extra half grade or full grade when the grade we are buying is so subjective. How can you even know you are getting what you pay for? Part of this is that cards sent in for review can only get a higher grade, but never a lower one. That make no sense because if a card is misgraded, it can be either slightly overgraded or slightly undergraded. But resubmissions carry no risk because the grade will never be lowered.

We would never be having this discussion if an 8 was worth $80, a 9 was worth $90, and a 10 worth $100. Then nobody would bother resubmitting. But in the real world that $80 card might be $900 in a 9, and $10,000 as a 10. That's something that very few collectors understand. In the latter scenario, I want grading to be an exact science to justify the inflated price, and it can never be that way.

Barry I don't disagree with how you feel about this. I honestly thought prior to that 2011 conversation with Joe that it was a perfect science. I was naive. That said I have had to rationalize the short falls of it in favor of the benefits.

I don't know if you or others have read my comments on CU over the past nine years but I attribute most of the spread in prices for the cards that sit at the top of the grade spectrum and especially those deemed important to be ego driven. I drafted a thread titled Conspicuous Consumption as it relates to sports cards and the entire thesis is predicted on bragging rights and the benefits associated with owning marquee items. To me card grading just mirrors how humans think and there are many that love the idea of saying that they have the best. They have the only one to grade this high or perhaps a card that literally can't be found and they have a copy. There is a hunter and gatherer element in collectors and so many of these same people have that in them but being able to say you have one of only three PSA 10's of the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle has amazing real life benefits. You could walk into a cocktail party in Manhattan with the whose who and they might have all the money in the world but unless one of these three people are willing to sell they can't have one. The ultimate.

I have only been participating online since 2010 and the entire time there has always been a segment of collectors that have a hard time with the spreads in value. I think in many ways that is rational but because of human nature I think they will always be there in some capacity. That said it is a fair argument that for this to be the case you need it to be a perfect science and while I understand that viewpoint I think because the market for collectibles is so big at this point and so many people just accept it for what it is that this won't change.

PSA defiantly has benefited immensely from the registry. That said both SGC and BGS have one. They just are much smaller. One can argue all day that PSA has a distinct advantage because of it but collectors did it not PSA. There are over 147,000 sets registered to individuals who own PSA graded collectibles. You can go on numerous message boards and read SGC is better, no BGS is king. While the data certainly warrants suggesting PSA has a near monopoly, there are still two active market participants that are busy. Because it is a free market collectors could just as easily get frustrated with PSA and try and move their cards over to SGC or BGS for that matter. They have chosen not to.

I would be infuriated if other third party graded cards altered the PSA set registry. It will never happen but if it did it would ruin it. In the examples above I had six BGS graded cards go down in grade out of the holder. Why on earth would they be treated equally and given the same credit towards a set? They shouldn't be and PSA has absolutely no incentive to even consider this. If for some reason regulators got involved and tried to force them that would be awful for the market and while I would argue there is very little if any chance that would happen it would be a risk as people would lose a lot of interest.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Having thought about it for a bit, I think it's very unlikely a court would hold that the PSA Set Registry is anything close to an essential facility to which competitors must be granted access. SGC and BGS have a long history of competing with PSA without their cards being eligible. Moreover, I think the evidence would show there are huge numbers of PSA cards that never get registered, it's just one aspect of PSA's success. Until I see anything to the contrary, I would hold that that success, even if it has resulted in a dominant market share, is the result of a superior product and business acumen (Supreme Court language), not monopolistic conduct. It's perfectly lawful to BE a monopolist. If other grading services are now less able to compete, that's not PSA's fault.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm not even sure PSA is a monopolist. What are the barriers to entry, a factor that must be considered in any analysis of whether a firm can exercise monopoly power? We aren't talking manufacturing automobiles or airplanes, we're talking a building, some employees, some cheap plastic slabs and a sealing machine. If someone wants to compete in this space, it wouldn't take a prohibitive amount of capital. Baker and Rocchi did it with GAI, they just didn't do it right.

[oldjudge]

No rational court would ever force PSA to include other grading company cards in its’ registry. If they did someone could start a new grading company, grade easier, and completely destroy PSA’s registry. Oh wait, doesn’t that company exist already?
Barry, I would bet that very few registry set participants pay a big premium for a half grade improvement thinking they are getting a noticeably better card. They are simply trying to improve their ranking on the registry. The registry is the engine that runs this all, amazingly enough the actual cards in a lot of cases are secondary.
This thread is kind of like the billable hours equivalent of “The Pill Versus the Springhill Mine Disaster” by Richard Brautigan.....so many billable hours lost.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'm not even sure PSA is a monopolist. What are the barriers to entry, a factor that must be considered in any analysis of whether a firm can exercise monopoly power? We aren't talking manufacturing automobiles or airplanes, we're talking a building, some employees, some cheap plastic slabs and a sealing machine. If someone wants to compete in this space, it wouldn't take a prohibitive amount of capital. Baker and Rocchi did it with GAI, they just didn't do it right.

They certainly aren't using predatory pricing. PSA has gradually raised their prices. Even with the recent price increase volume is up. If they were charging too much submission volumes would fall and they haven't. Quite frankly if per card pricing was what it was just a few years ago their backlog wouldn't be 700,000 it might be 1,200,000. I have a stack of cards I would love to sub but you need to get to 100 to get to $8 a card. Most of the cards I collect aren't super expensive so the break even point per card has been elevated significantly and so you have to make decisions based on those economics.

I do think there is a point where they could choke off lots of demand so there is a balancing act with prices that is healthy. The secondary market resale value is what drives a lot of submissions and if people are always losing they will pull back or quit all together.

I routinely see people selling low grade modern wrestling cards that never had a chance to be a winner to begin with and with a lower grade have very little value even after grading. If prices move up too much these type submissions dry up quickly. PSA needs these and so keeping prices low enough to entice submissions is paramount and high enough to limit demand. Not easy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

They certainly aren't using predatory pricing. PSA has gradually raised their prices. Even with the recent price increase volume is up. If they were charging too much submission volumes would fall and they haven't. Quite frankly if per card pricing was what it was just a few years ago their backlog wouldn't be 700,000 it might be 1,200,000. I have a stack of cards I would love to sub but you need to get to 100 to get to $8 a card. Most of the cards I collect aren't super expensive so the break even point per card has been elevated significantly and so you have to make decisions based on those economics.

I do think there is a point where they could choke off lots of demand so there is a balancing act with prices that is healthy. The secondary market resale value is what drives a lot of submissions and if people are always losing they will pull back or quit all together.

I routinely see people selling low grade modern wrestling cards that never had a chance to be a winner to begin with and with a lower grade have very little value even after grading. If prices move up too much these type submissions dry up quickly. PSA needs these and so keeping prices low enough to entice submissions is paramount and high enough to limit demand. Not easy.

Predatory pricing is actually charging UNDER cost in an effort to drive out competitors. If you meant that it wasn't clear to me, sorry.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Predatory pricing is actually charging UNDER cost in an effort to drive out competitors.

Very aware of what predatory pricing is.

One of the things that those trying to become a monopoly do to kill competition.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

No rational court would ever force PSA to include other grading company cards in its’ registry. If they did someone could start a new grading company, grade easier, and completely destroy PSA’s registry. Oh wait, doesn’t that company exist already?
Barry, I would bet that very few registry set participants pay a big premium for a half grade improvement thinking they are getting a noticeably better card. They are simply trying to improve their ranking on the registry. The registry is the engine that runs this all, amazingly enough the actual cards in a lot of cases are secondary.
This thread is kind of like the billable hours equivalent of “The Pill Versus the Springhill Mine Disaster” by Richard Brautigan.....so many billable hours lost.

LOL. I am not losing many really, I multitask pretty well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Very aware of what predatory pricing is.

One of the things that those trying to become a monopoly do to kill competition.

Right I misunderstood you because your next sentence was about whether they were charging too much.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right I misunderstood you because your next sentence was about whether they were charging too much.

Just was agreeing with you and showing an example that enhanced your argument.

[barrysloate]

Thanks David for a well thought out reply.

And Jay, you're certainly correct that it's all about the ranking in the registry. For someone like myself, who was always interested in baseball history, collecting numbers to move up a registry seemed absoluely meaningless. But othes of course feel differently.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

This thread is kind of like the billable hours equivalent of “The Pill Versus the Springhill Mine Disaster” by Richard Brautigan.....so many billable hours lost.

Jay, the next time I have a legal matter and need to decide whether to retain counsel and incur legal fees, I will be certain to consult with you first.

[oldjudge]

Corey, however I can help. You know I am there for you.

[Leon]

That could be said for so many of our threads nowadays.

Originally Posted by oldjudge

No rational court would ever force PSA to include other grading company cards in its’ registry. If they did someone could start a new grading company, grade easier, and completely destroy PSA’s registry. Oh wait, doesn’t that company exist already?
Barry, I would bet that very few registry set participants pay a big premium for a half grade improvement thinking they are getting a noticeably better card. They are simply trying to improve their ranking on the registry. The registry is the engine that runs this all, amazingly enough the actual cards in a lot of cases are secondary.
This thread is kind of like the billable hours equivalent of “The Pill Versus the Springhill Mine Disaster” by Richard Brautigan.....so many billable hours lost.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

That could be said for so many of our threads nowadays.

Sign of a good thread, if you ask me.

[Leon]

Says the lawyer
I need to figure out a way to get paid, wait, never mind...

And to Corey's (hi Corey) original question, unless there is a disgruntled employee exposing fraud, I think the graders are only giving their opinion as the contract you signed (in effect) when you send cards to be graded or reviewed. For that reason, I actually don't see a TPG being legally, financially liable, almost ever UNLESS there is fraud going on.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sign of a good thread, if you ask me.

[swarmee]

True, but only if they don't renege on their grade guarantee. If they bait and switch the customer on their guarantee, they may be criminally liable, and are definitely civilly liable.