|
PSA reholder issues - warning to submitters
In the last 3 months, three different vintage collectors (including one I know personally) have had issues reholdering their cards with PSA. Each story is a bit unique but here is the gist:
Collector has a higher dollar vintage PSA card they want reholdered. They do not want it reviewed, only reholdered. The original slabs are not damaged nor tampered with. Collector sends the card to PSA. Collector gets the card back in a new holder but it is now a lower PSA grade. Collector is not offered monetary value for the lower grade. Of course, all three collectors are not happy. Has any net54 members had similar experiences? With these recent issues, I would be leery of sending a card back for reholder. |
Hasn't happened to me, but I've heard from members about similar issues. This conflicts directly with what is stated on their website:
"What is a Reholder service? The “Reholder” service applies to trading cards that are currently graded and encapsulated by PSA that the customer would like placed into the most current PSA holder. For this submission type, the cards will not be graded. The cards will be received and then inspected by a member of the grading team to determine if the card and PSA holder are authentic. Once it is determined that the holder and card are genuine, the card will be removed and placed into a new PSA holder. This service is generally used for cards that are housed in PSA holders that have been damaged, or to create label consistency within a collection." Source: https://www.psacard.com/services/tra...ading/reholder |
I have a friend that's been waiting for 8 months for a reholder of a card that PSA made a mistake on the label. Seems like a long time to correct a mistake that they made.
|
What a racket
|
Quote:
An individual going back and by themselves questioning a large organization for something like this is likely to just be ignored, and/or summarily dismissed, by the party that wronged them. Approaching that same party with legal representation and a large group of class-action participants is likely going to get a much different reaction and response from the alleged wrongdoer. |
I wouldn't believe these stories at face value without evidence or more information.
|
Quote:
|
2 Attachment(s)
Quote:
I’ve had this experience and I have the PSA customer service emails to prove it. I sent an Old Mill T206 Cy Young PSA 1.5 with a ding in the case to PSA for reholdering. This was the response I received (I ended up having them send it back unprocessed because they are incompetent): The damage is the top right front, slight star ding. “It has come to our attention your PSA encased card, cert #26118754 - 1909-11 T206 Old Mill Cy Young Clev., Glove Shows was received with a crack on the holder. Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5 and it has not been damaged.” Good riddance PSA, SGC is leagues better anyway. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I wonder if they ever increased the grade? Seriously doubt that…
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Does PSA disclaim liability if card is damaged during a reholder? Are they actually regrading the card or just validating there was no damage and then lowering the grade if there was?
|
Quote:
For those asking for proof I posted about it on here along with pictures already.:) |
I’m surprised to hear that some would actually doubt this could happen.
You realize it’s PSA we’re discussing here, don’t you? |
Psa
You are spot on, Tony. The original poster is under zero obligation to
provide "evidence- pretty sure we aren't in court. Some people need proof that water is wet, I suppose- Trent King |
Quote:
I am not attorney as you know, but since the OP mentioned knowing 3 people with somewhat similar situations, I think we both know there are likely a whole heck of a lot more people than just those 3 that may be a tad unhappy with how they were treated and dismissed by such an entity. And I think we both have seen, or at least heard of, situations where an individual going up against a large company/entity usually gets dismissed when they complain. That company/entity knows full well that an individual probably doesn't have the time or resources to really follow through and go after them, as their actual loss (downgrading their card from a 3.0 to say a 2.0 grade, without the card owner's knowledge and approval, and the subsequent loss in card value that incurs) isn't likely to be worth the time and effort for that individual to fight the larger company/entity at fault. That same person partnering up with others in a consolidation of claims, or a class action type suit, can change that dynamic though. Our society today will often also quickly side against such an individual that, by themself, can be shown to maybe have missed understanding or doing something that a company/entity can maybe then try to legally hide behind because they got the harmed party to sign or agree to something they didn't fully realize or understand. But start bringing forward a whole group of people (via either a class-action or simple consolidation of claims type of action) that got taken by that same company/entity in similar ways and manners, and suddenly the public starts to say to themselves, "Wait a minute, WTF is going on!". Also, with more people banding together, you're way more likely to be able to find legal representation that is more than willing to take on such a legal action, for not just publicity, but for a more likely than not payday to come. But you're the attorney, please tell me if I'm completely wrong in that thinking. I simply mentioned a class-action suit as I figured most non-attorneys on the forum would understand my meaning and intent that way. Thanks for informing everyone and adding the option to simply consolidate plaintiff claims as another possible action. But back to the point of why it might be good to consolidate potential plaintiffs in such actions, think of it another way. Say one woman comes forward and accuses someone, maybe a TV star, a movie producer, or even an NFL quarterback, of sexual abuse and other crimes and issues. Often it becomes a "he said - she said" situation, with a lot of people often going against the alleged victim as just being out for money or some other self-serving reason. But now replace that one alleged female victim with literally dozens or more woman coming forward with similar stories of harm, all at the same time, and against the same alleged offender. Suddenly the public, and the courts, start to pay a little more attention and realize that there might be a lot more to this than just a simple one-time, "he said - she said" kind of thing, where there really was no harm being caused by the accused party's continuing, and maybe not so unintentional, actions. |
Quote:
Anyway, something is not adding up...to me. Maybe it is the lack of detail and vagueness of your post but also could be the way you worded something in the post: "They do not want it reviewed, only reholdered." Anyone who does reholders knows that service does not include reviews of the grade or card unless PSA claims the holder was compromised so the the better way to have written that statement would have been, "The cards were sent in for reholder service but while there they reviewed the cards too." Might be semantics but what I wrote conveys a different sentiment than what you wrote. |
If an individual has a claim that is likely to meet the technical requirements for class action treatment, and the potential class damages are large enough, the individual won't need any resources at all to fight the big company, that's what the class action bar does. Of course most claims won't fit that category despite the public perception of class actions as some panacea for every wrong done by TPGs and everyone else in corporate America. That said, under the right circumstances, they are a powerful tool.
|
I’ve posted before - Case I - bought an Ernie Banks game used bat from a major auction house - when the bat arrived it had a full PSA Authentication Letter for the autograph - problem is that Bat was never autographed…..NEVER…..
Case II - Sent pics of a Munson signed baseball signed in front of me and a buddy as children for a quick opinion (buddy wanted to sell) and PSA rejected the autograph….stellar work gang…. PSA is a joke - plain and simple….go to any site selling PSA cards - 7s look like 8s - look like 6s…… No consistency……a total joke….. Do I have PSA authenticated and graded items in my collection? Yes - will I ever send anything into them for authentication or grading - NO…..I’ve had a friend submit a few tickets for me just to get them slabbed for protection purposes - would never send them a baseball card to get graded….and certainly wouldn’t trust them to reslab one of their own….. |
I’ve reholdered many 4-5 figure cards and never once had this happen.
They are only “supposed” to regrade if there is damage above/below the card to the slab or something like water damage. I’d be interested in seeing the cards that this happened to. |
If the high dollar card is a 52 Topps Mantle I know the guy. He talked to PSA and they gave him some money.
|
Appreciate all the comments.
My main point was that this happened to three collectors and I was wondering if any other net54 members had this happen to their recent reholder submissions. For those disagreeing, I present information, you make decisions :cool: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
No information at all has been presented, just a claim without any supporting evidence or verifiable facts. Applying an evidentiary standard is not the same as saying X could never happen. |
I doubt this could happen at PSA
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Quote:
I too would like more information to validate you're original post. But of course you are under no obligation. Just perplexing. |
Quote:
Not saying I don't believe it but also need a little more to go on. I've had maybe 15-20 cards reholdered w/no issue. In the instances where I've seen grades changed, there was damage to the slab. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sounds like Pete Sycks confirms at least one instance of this occurring above -- with compensation. So that specific info is helpful. Beyond the stated policy of PSA re: Reholders -- that the company stands by their assigned grades, will Reholder without Review at the assigned grade unless case damage extends into the card pocket -- I can only speak from my personal experience. I have probably reslabbed around 60-70 cards with them over the last 12 years, with zero downgrades, and with a few 5-figure cards Reholdered at the National this past year. One was an old, weak-for-grade 52T Mays that had significant case issues (chemical opacification of case) that concerned me as to their willingness to Reholder, but they did it. I also had 2 cards with severe case damage that I was very nervous they'd decline to Reholder, but they did that in December 2022. Portions of the cases were crushed in shipping, and the card pocket was invaded on one of them. I wouldn't have blamed them if they'd declined, honestly. As to the OP's vague information provided, it would be really helpful to know some details of these cases. PSA unilaterally downgrading cards submitted for Reholder only (Not Review) would fly in the face of their stated policies, and their custom over the years. It doesn't seem good business either, frankly. It strikes me that the best way to resolve this is to reach out to a CS Liaison with PSA. Even better, their VP of Customer Experience David Steinberger is very responsive to these kind of questions, and is active on several Facebook groups. If someone has an ounce more of motivation that I do, he'd probably be the place to get an absolutely definitive answer on the OP's original question :) Jason Bisping | |
Quote:
The opinion sellers jokes write themselves... hahaha |
Fascinating topic but pointless thread since it is absent any details. Next...
|
Lol
.
|
I was under the impression if PSA ever lowers the grade of an already graded PSA card,
that you get compensated for the difference. |
Quote:
|
So basically, just like it's their opinion on a grade, they can also say the slab was compromised/damaged in some way and regrade the card if they choose and there is not a thing anyone can do about that.
Like we've always seen, I'm sure some submitters are exempt from such things but like we are reading here, some aren't. What a racket. |
Johnny thanks for the clarification
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'm confused: If I am reading this correctly, upon receiving a card for re-holder, not review, PSA will still review the grade if there is a flaw in the slab and often will lower the current grade if they feel it is warranted. So, for example, if a consignor submitted a 1933 Goudey #53 Ruth for a re-holder because the case was slightly cracked, not affecting the card in any way, and the grader decides it is really a 4.5. Low and behold yes, the submitter has a nice new case with a revised current flip but with a lower grade, resulting in a market value drop of $thousands. Such a scenario would be a nightmare.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
I have a very similar situation with Beckett. A couple of years ago I purchased a BGS graded 6.5, 1948 Carl Braun rookie (picture attached). Back in Oct/Nov 2022 time frame I was looking at the card and decided to check the population. When I entered the serial number it didn't come up in the pop report. I did some extensive research and came to the conclusion my card was graded in 2002 and that both the bar code and serial number were in error. The case had never been tampered with and is in excellent condition. After several attempts I got a CS person (Jay Donayre) on the phone. He explained to me that at some point Beckett had a problem with the system crashing or something similar and they had to re-input the compromised data, and my label issue probably stemmed from that.
He sent me a form and told me to complete the form he sent me and return to Beckett for re-slabbing and label correction. He also told me the card would be graded to verify the assigned grade. This happens to be the highest graded 48 Braun in Beckett. Needless to say, I still have the card and have decided not to send it back. I intend to sell it at some point in the future, but have concerns since the assigned serial number doesn't appear in the pop report. So, I guess I'm in a quandary - damned if you do - damned if you don't! |
In my case with the 1952 Topps Campos, PSA considered it incorrectly labelled since it did not note the red star/black star variation. They did not change the grade and they did not charge me.
|
Quote:
For those that didn't get it, this was an attempt at very poor sarcasm. However, think about it. People could now provide a picture of a slabbed card and also give the condition of the slab. A 10 would be a pristine slab with no scratches or frosting of the edges. If there are the typical scratches and a few other "plastic" inclusions (you know, like diamond grading), then the slab could fall into a 6 rating. A heavily scratched slab could be a 3 or 4 and if the edge has frosting, the it could drop it all the way to "PA" or potentially altered... :eek: |
Quote:
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk |
1 Attachment(s)
My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.
Attachment 551803 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Upon presentation to PSA by the current owner of a PSA authenticated and graded card (“Card”), if PSA concludes that the Card was erroneously awarded the PSA grade assigned or fails PSA’s authenticity standards, and provided that the Card had an active certification number on the cert lookup feature of the PSA website at the time it was purchased by the person submitting the Guarantee request, then PSA in its sole discretion will either:" https://www.psacard.com/about/financialguarantee |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And then there's this... :D 401. Flipper-Swiffer A person getting a long-ago graded card reholdered in a clean new slab, for the express purpose of tricking potential buyers into thinking it was newly graded under ‘stricter’ guidelines. |
Quote:
It is corporate business tactics, coupled with and using legal language, to protect TPG interests, and pocketbooks, as much as possible, and give them as much of an advantage and control over their customers in case they make a mistake and screw up, or otherwise provide or do a disservice to their customers. For example, with regard to the issue with damaged cases somehow possibly absolving a TPG of standing by their earlier opinion and potentially harming the value of the customer's card, remember it was the TPG that created the case used to encapsulate the card and decided what materials would be used to make it and how it is designed in the first place. Now granted, someone could drop it and accidently damage the case and/or card. And in that situation, it seems that under the current types of TPG agreements and such that we're reading and learning about in this thread, that accident can possibly remove further financial liability and risk to the TPG in case of changes to the card's condition, even if the difference was a screw-up in how the TPG originally graded the card. But what is really the difference between accidently dropping a graded card, which ends up damaging the card and/or the holder, or driving an old American made car that was later found to have been made with an inferior or defective gas tank that could explode if you got into an accident? Based on what some of these TPG agreements seem to all be saying, one would think that if you applied the same logic and position to the exploding cars, the car manufacturer would not be at fault or risk at all because THEY didn't cause the accident, someone else did, so the explosion isn't their fault or financial responsibility for personal injury and property damage somehow. And before one of the trolls or naysayers jumps on to tell me I'm crazy or how that is ridiculous, really think about it first. The TPGs decide and pick the design and materials used for these slabs, which they market and advertise as protecting the card and its grading integrity. But if you accidently drop it, which everyone knows is going to happen many times to many cards over the years, the TPGs are somehow given a free pass to decide what and how they can react, and have it basically absolve them of potential liability for any issues arising from the damaged card or holder? Maybe had the TPGs picked better materials, and/or had a better design for their graded card slabs, the potential damage to a card and its condition from being accidently dropped maybe would not have been happening, and the TPG could be held to stand behind their original grade. Gee, how did that work out in the car manufacturers situation though? They weren't responsible for the accidents that caused their cars and not-so-great gas tanks to blow up, were they? So, like a TPG, shouldn't they also not really be financially responsible for any damage or costs from gas tanks exploding from an accident that they didn't initiate or cause, right? LOL :rolleyes: Hopefully some people will see and realize the connection between the two situations, and how at a basic level, they really are the same thing/issue. As I said back in post #5 of this thread, if you start getting enough harmed people together, either combining cases or maybe initiating a class-action suit, you may be able to start to go back against these types of organizations in the hobby industry, and their one-sided and somewhat biased contracts and agreements, and see about getting some more fair treatment and be compensated where appropriate. At worst, it would expose more people in the hobby to the potential issues and problems they can encounter by choosing to work with/employ some of these entities and companies in the collecting industry, and bring some of these intentional disadvantages in their contracts/agreements, and the way they treat their customers, to light. As most always seems the case though, the TPGs and their seeming control of the collectors in the hobby will likely override any real change or improvements in how hobby customers/collectors are treated in such contracts/agreements. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I know it may sound like a stretch, but what about the SGC Mantle 9.5 that sold for 12.5 or so. What if a few years down the road the case becomes damaged and SGC decides to re-grade to put in a new holder and the rocket scientist that's doing the grading decides it is now a 9? Could the .5 of a point cost the owner a Million or so?
When a grading company charges a fee to grade a card - they should stand behind that grade and not arbitrarily decide to regrade it at a later date - period. Maybe start putting the date of grading on the label? What if, like Beckett, the data is compromised, lost, or manipulated in some way? Where's the liability? |
Quote:
Not sure if they stand behind their product harming a card. I just took it as a learning experience and moved on. |
They seem to have no culpability or liability whatsoever (all of the TPGs, that is).
I wish they'd be hit with a class action suit, that would ultimately force some accountability and make for even footing between the 3rd party and the customer. I won't use any of them until something like that happens. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5" They are saying that due to the slab damage they will review the card to look for damage to the card AS WELL AS review it to confirm it meets the current grading standards for a PSA 1.5. |
Quote:
I guess my question is what criteria do they use to determine a card's value?I think most would agree that their SMR is sorely out-of-date, so do they refer to VCP? And wouldn't there be a conflict of interest that the grader might push a valuable card's grade a smidge higher over the threshold mark in order to generate more fees? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Still would like to see some accountability directed towards these shielded/protected "opinion peddlers". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here is what their website says about their reholdering service. "All items will be automatically reholdered UNLESS (1) the sonic weld on the PSA case shows signs of tampering or (2) the PSA case is fractured over the item itself. If the case is fractured over/near the item, it will be examined raw to ensure it has not sustained damage and that the original grade is still valid." Obviously damage to the card could invalidate the grade, but I guess so could changing grading standards or outright mistakes. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard
Incorrect, the exact wording from PSA was: "Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5" Quote:
The most parsimonious explanation is that the CSR was playing a little fast and loose with his/her verbiage -- and not that PSA has a new policy of examining every Reholder submission to see if it deserves the grade the flip carries. At any rate, I have a PM out to the VP of Customer Experience for PSA/CU, David Sternberger, to get something straight from the horse's mouth. Hope to hear something, and will post it verbatim here if I do. | | |
Haha, and just like that... I'd messaged him this morning. From David Steinberger:
"I'm escalating your request for an official policy statement on Reholders. Typically, a grade will only change on a Reholder if the case has been damaged/compromised, or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark." Will share whatever else comes down the road. | |
Quote:
|
If one has any flaw whatsoever on the slab and you feel it would not meet the grading standards of today I would be very very careful...I have a couple of older graded cards with chips in the back of the slab up by the label with zero impact on the card. After reading this whole thread I’m going to error on the side of caution in not taking the risk..I’ll keep it in the old holder. I’m still very happy with PSA and My Cards.
|
Quote:
From the way it seems TPGs word their agreements and contracts, if you agree to have them do work/provide services for you, you may be giving up the right to any fair and impartial determination of values and damages, and basically give them all the power to decide what and how they want a situation to be decided, if an issue ever arises. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
“or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark” I would love to see the official policy statement when it comes out. I think others on this thread do as well. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:32 PM. |