Quote:
Originally Posted by Empty77
I know what you mean and concerned for the same reason.
But trying to work through it logically, the big dealer/AH is going to spend the $10k anyway, since in practice PSA is the "only" game in town, and both sides know it...so since they know it, it doesn't seem like from a business perspective that PSA should be vulnerable to that sort of pressure, since they have nothing to gain (going to get and keep getting the $10k's no matter what) and can only lose longerm in the event that buyers were to catch on if their stuff seemed to tend to be overgraded.
Of course all this is just theorizing what motivates people and how they think, but the above seems right to me. If the hypothetical 5 doesn't bump and stays a 5, then what's the pusher going to do? Take the stack of $10k fees to a competitor and give them the wink-wink? Let's say that one gives the 6. We already know an SGC or BGS 6 will sell less than the PSA 5 anyway, so it doesn't increase their margin, which is why they don't go elsewhere and PSA has months long turn-around-times, and that's why it *seems* like PSA shouldn't be at that sort of friendly-overgrading risk.
|
These are good points - You're saying that PSA has no need or desire to please any submitter, high-roller or not, with favorable grades. What you say makes sense.
I'm thinking, generally speaking, that it's usually a good idea for any company to keep its major accounts happy, and it costs PSA basically nothing when they bump the grade of an asset.
But my point is that the only difference I see between submitting and re-submitting hoping for grade increases, vs. an in-person meeting with a grader, would be to influence that grader (and, psychologically, there are many tactics that can be employed to get someone to see things "your way" that don't overtly use the scenario I suggested above.)