Scenario #1
You have a card that you paid $1000 for, but you think it would be worth more graded. You submit it with a valuation of $1000.
It is returned in an "A" slab or worse (ungraded, not "A") with a new market value of $83.
Scenario #2
You submit a 50 card lot that you paid $1000 for and you submit them with a valuation of $1000.
Three of the cards grade very well and the overall graded value of your submission is now $8300.
It has always been my impression that the valuation you submit serves as ungraded replacement value should something happen at the grading company or in transit (insured value).
These scenarios may be extreme in the real world, but raise the following questions.
If the cards declared valuation impact grading company service level and fees,
are their fees justified in these two scenarios?
In Scenario #1 should the submitter receive a partial refund from the TPG, based on the devaluation of their submission as a result of the grading process?
In Scenarion #2, similarly, should the submitter be charged an additional fee by the TPG, based on the submitter's undervaluation of their submission?
To link valuation to TPG fees assumes that the TPG spends more time grading high value cards. Do they?
If the submitter profits from a beneficial grade above the valuation, is the TPG warranted in claiming a percentage of that gain, either before or after grading?
As previously mentioned, Beckett's service level (i.e.: turn around time) is independent of declared valuation. Whether you are submitting a Mendoza or a Cobb, and want either back in 14 days, makes no difference in their fee.
Obviously the value appreciation potential of grading a Cobb is greater than grading a Mendoza and I suppose this is justification for increased fees for grading Cobbs by SGC and PSA.
Unfortunately no matter what he did, Mendoza could never have a batting average above the Mendoza line.
