[PolarBear]

I'm not sure why many of you are saying this is PSA's problem.

There are two problems here. The original encapsulation of an altered card by PSA is PSA's problem. That became a moot point when SGC cracked it out.

The second problem is that SGC wouldn't assign the minimum grade requested after the crackout. This is SGC's problem. They assume liability for the card once they make the decision to crack it out.

They're professionals who get paid to make those decisions and should take responsibility instead of "agreeing" with the customer that it's PSA's fault.

It sounds like SGC worked with the customer and made an effort to provide some level of compensation. However, the solution should have been much simpler.

Whatever the value between the minimum grade the customer requested and the Auth designation is what is owed the customer. If the customer agrees to accept grading vouchers in that amount, that's up to him. Anything short of SGC providing this amount of compensation is a third problem in my opinion.

Edit to add: I was still typing the original post when Dan posted his reply above. Looks like the new details from Dan are that SGC did step up and offer full compensation for their mistake. Good job SGC. I've always thought SGC has much better customer service than PSA and I'm glad to see them make it right.