Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Well, your first remedy might be to ask PSA to review it under their marketplace guarantee. Good luck with that. See Leaf Jackie Robinson.
There's probably a misrepresentation/mistake theory in most or all states under which you could seek rescission against your immediate seller, even if they're innocent, although there may be limitations issues depending on how long ago your purchased. But if the seller isn't willing to accept the return, are you really going to litigate it with all that entails?
|
And exactly why I was asking. LOL
I've also heard in some instances where TPGs that supposedly have guarantees in place just almost automatically tell the affected party(ies) to go back to the seller as well. So much for guarantees right.
And trying to go back against a seller that was also just an innocent buyer at one point themselves, and prevailing, now turns that seller into a victim as well. So what recourse does that new victim possibly have then, but to try going against the person/dealer they bought it from as well. And potentially on and on back till it may actually get to the card doctor that originally altered and sold it, or the trail of prior sellers goes dark if it was one time say bought at a show years ago and the last victim has no record/receipt of who they bought it from. And with the possibility some of these altered cards have been out there for decades now, who knows how many innocent prior owners may be involved in one single card. What a potential cluster-you-know-what!
This seems to turn the potential outcome for victims in instances like this into nothing more than being players in a game of "Hot Potato". You just hope and pray you're not holding and owning a card when it gets outed and it is made public that it was altered. And the idea that TPGs may not be held accountable in such situations is appalling, and just another sign and reason why their control and sway over the hobby should be removed, and they should be subject to independent, outside review, and all TPGs forced to go by and adhere to one formally standardized and universally recognized set of consistent and unchanging standards. And no more contingent grading fees based on a cards value should ever be allowed either. That is totally wrong and clearly indicates a potential bias and conflict of interest for the TPG. And what about all the threads we have here on the forum asking about how the same card graded by TPG-A, will it be worth and sell for more (or less) if graded by TPG-B instead? That is like asking if say Amazon or Tesla's stock would suddenly trade for more, or less, if they decided to switch from one big auditing firm, like KPMG, to another big firm, like Ernst & Young. In the case of the stock prices, the correct answer is that it doesn't matter which accounting firm audits and opines on Amazon or Tesla's financials, they do their work following and adhering to the exact same rules and standards as all the other auditing firms out there. And the same should be the case for TPGs. It shouldn't be the TPG company that audits and opines on the condition of a card somehow impacting that card's perceived price/value, independent of the card's actual condition and grade. And it shouldn't matter which TPG grades a card as they should all come up with the same grade when looking at the exact same card..........period!