Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
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.
|
Was not going to invest the time into the video. I was referring to the screen cap of the text which indicated the card had been given a trophy by MBA. You and I will never agree on the value of an MBA trophy but my post was to illustrate that there is a lot that cannot be assessed once a card is encapsulated. I feel paying for the opinion of an MBA or worse, paying more for a card that has an MBA type of cert, is simply not wise. It is not even duplicitous. It is a far from complete evaluation.
And to your other point, we might agree for the first time which is a statistical impossibility. If you or I were to send in the same card 5 times to PSA there is a very good chance we would end up with at least 3 different results in grading. That someone resubmits a card that was rejected that they in good faith disagree with, I totally support. Nat does not agree with that decision based on his interviews but they get it wrong far too often.