Quote:
Originally Posted by Fballguy
In order for that to be true, there must be an enormous amount of SGC and Beckett altered cards. Anybody suing them?
|
The problem is, exactly how does one quantify the accuracy level of a particular TPG? Who do you go to, to accomplish it?
For example, in autograph collecting, Charles Hamilton was considered the foremost authenticator in the business. In sub-areas of autograph collecting, there are certain authenticators who specialize in signatures; i.e., in astronaut autographs, Steve Zarelli is probably the #1 authenticator.
In fine art, there are people who are considered the foremost experts on a particular artist, say van Gogh or Rembrandt.
Who is the #1 card grader/authenticator, who could determine, to a level that is "legally sufficient" in a court of law, PSA's accuracy compared to other TPGs.
Without a legally sufficient "expert witness", I just don't see PSA's claim of being the "most accurate", being a problem for them. It is essentially just their opinion.
Also, to what level will a court of law require, for alleged proof that the card shown in "before" picture A, is actually the exact same card shown in "after" picture B. We all have our opinions and feelings about all the cards reported/"outed" in this ongoing scandal; but we all know that pictures can be manipulated. The same card can look completely different in scans taken with different scanners, depending on the individual scanner's settings. We also know that the card stock is not always "perfect"; there are usually defects in the stock. Printing methods used for a particular card can show recurring identical defects in a particular card; i.e., 1976 Topps George Brett & 1978 Topps Molitor/Trammell. The simple fact that two different pictures of cards that show the same perceived defect(s), show cards that have different grades, but otherwise cannot be differentiated, does not mean that the cards in the two pictures, are actually the same exact card.
Steve