Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorewalker
|
I didn't watch this video, but in general, I think it's funny that anyone in this hobby finds it even remotely dishonest for someone to resubmit a card for grading when it was previously rejected for being "trimmed", absent any actual evidence that it indeed has been. The irony is that it's always the exact same people who complain about PSA's incompetence that cast these judgements, as if PSA's incompetency could only possibly apply to one particular vector in a hyperspace of all possible ways a grading company could fuck up. I've had cards that I pulled myself straight from packs get rejected for "trimming" and vintage cards that I've had since childhood get rejected for trimming as well. Of course, none of them had actually been trimmed.
I have a Jackie Robinson card that I bought from a guy who pulled it from a pack in 1955 and who kept it in a shoebox ever since. He was an octogenarian gentleman who didn't know anything about grading cards, but he decided to sell his collection so that his kids wouldn't have to do it after he's gone. Someone told him he needed to have his cards graded if he wanted to get fair market value for them, so he sent them off to PSA. The Jackie card got rejected for "trimming". He didn't understand why. He knew the card had been in his possession for the entirety of its existence and that it had certainly never been trimmed. So he sent it in again. Again, it came back "trimmed". He was devastated and furious. He disclosed the full story to me before I bought the card. He even gave me both of the rejected flips. I examined the card closely and just laughed. There was zero evidence of trimming. I bought the card and submitted it for grading. It came back in a 5 holder like it should have the first time.