Quote:
Originally Posted by Hankphenom
I've always thought there could be merit in the common complaint that they don't do a great job at what they do, i.e., inexperienced, overworked graders and the like. I don't think KFC makes very good fried chicken, either, but they're still the biggest, right? But I do have a hard time seeing what would be the advantage, especially of PSA, the proverbial 800-lb gorilla in the hobby, in overgrading even for the biggest clients. Seems to me they would just have too much to lose if that was ever proven to be the case, which I don't think has happened yet, has it? And with the volume they handle, I don't know how they could make that kind of bias work without gumming up the process and creating even more delays in an organization that is already constantly "in the weeds," as we say in the bar business when you just can't keep up. I'd like to have more than hearsay to go by for such a serious accusation.
|
I was simply speaking to the concern you had about anonymity not what PSA does with the transparency of that anonymity. PSA is giving an opinion and I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove their opinion is or that process is fraudulent absent people on the inside testifying. Whenever this topic is brought up you have people on this forum who post their observations that certain companies seemed to get more favorable results. Maybe it is nothing more than if a card is between a 7 and an 8 they give the favored submitter the 8 while the rest of us would get the 7?
I don't think it is uncommon in the world today that a large client would get better service than a smaller client.