FS: 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson PSA 4.5

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ngrow9

The difference is that by offering the card at $55K, he's created a legally binding offer which, if accepted, would create a legally binding contract. It would have been a better look to just post it asking for offers in this case, IMHO.

But if he is transparent about it then no one is going to pay 4.5 market for a trimmed card. And if he isn't then that isn't a good look either. (as we have seen). I would never give any TPG the card without a negotiated price up front. Once they have it, as stated, there is no control. Hold your hand tightly imo....

.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by Leon

But if he is transparent about it then no one is going to pay 4.5 market for a trimmed card. And if he isn't then that isn't a good look either. (as we have seen). I would never give any TPG the card without a negotiated price up front. Once they have it, as stated, there is no control. Hold your hand tightly imo....

.

I just want to echo Leon's sentiment. If PSA has the card with no deal in place, you'll very likely not be happy with the results. If it was me, even if a price was agreed upon, I would insist upon a legally binding contract to ensure that the terms of the deal were met by all parties.

[Johnny630]

Cutting you a check plus returning the card to you in an Authentic Altered Slab seems like the easy thing to do.

I think they will.

Are you ready to battle it out with attorney ? Or just Take what they offer you?

[Exhibitman]

California Business & Professions Code section 17500: "It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to ... perform services ... or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate ...over the Internet, any statement, ... those services ... which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading... Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that imprisonment and fine."

Seems to me that a guarantee that the company never fulfills because it says "nu-uh" to every request to fulfill it is ripe for legal action.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

California Business & Professions Code section 17500: "It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to ... perform services ... or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate ...over the Internet, any statement, ... those services ... which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading... Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that imprisonment and fine."

Seems to me that a guarantee that the company never fulfills because it says "nu-uh" to every request to fulfill it is ripe for legal action.

They do fulfill it sometimes though, and didn't their financials when they were public show how much they paid out each year, or did it just show the reserve?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Leon

But if he is transparent about it then no one is going to pay 4.5 market for a trimmed card. And if he isn't then that isn't a good look either. (as we have seen). I would never give any TPG the card without a negotiated price up front. Once they have it, as stated, there is no control. Hold your hand tightly imo....

.

Sad as it is, PSA is completely in the driver's seat here. We all seem to have to play by their rules. Maintaining possession of the card only puts you in possession of the card but not control of the disposition.

PSA could determine without having the card that it might be altered and if AJ refuses to send it in because he cannot get them to commit to it being trimmed or a buy back price, PSA will deactivate the cert pending a review of the card.

AJ has already said he would not sell the card to anyone given the card's history but having a card with a deactivated cert would certainly add another layer of complexity to the situation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's not objectively unreasonable for PSA to want the card back in its possession before making a determination. You're going to lose that one. IMO you're already in not so great a position on account of waiting months after the card was outed and you knew it before taking action. What leverage do you think holding onto the card gives you anyhow if you aren't going to sell it under any circumstances because it's hacked, I am not seeing it.

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Sad as it is, PSA is completely in the driver's seat here. We all seem to have to play by their rules. Maintaining possession of the card only puts you in possession of the card but not control of the disposition.

PSA could determine without having the card that it might be altered and if AJ refuses to send it in because he cannot get them to commit to it being trimmed or a buy back price, PSA will deactivate the cert pending a review of the card.

AJ has already said he would not sell the card to anyone given the card's history but having a card with a deactivated cert would certainly add another layer of complexity to the situation.

I could be wrong, but I don't thing PSA will deactivate the cert without first reviewing the card in hand. I've emailed them all the info from the blowout thread including the pics and evidence and they've said they need the card in hand to do a review and that pics and scans aren't enough proof.

I'm holding out hope that my email to Steve will allow us a dialogue to put a fair market price on the card that gives me confidence to send it in. I really don't want to get lawyers involved at this point and think we can work it out before it gets to that point.

If I don't hear from Steve, I'll reach out to Nat and see if that gets me further. I'm assuming Nat (and Steve for that matter) will want to resolve fairly and amicably. All I know is the longer they wait, the potentially more expensive it gets. A PSA 7 just sold last night for $400,000+

[jad22]

Originally Posted by ajjohnsonsoxfan

I could be wrong, but I don't thing PSA will deactivate the cert without first reviewing the card in hand. I've emailed them all the info from the blowout thread including the pics and evidence and they've said they need the card in hand to do a review and that pics and scans aren't enough proof.

I'm holding out hope that my email to Steve will allow us a dialogue to put a fair market price on the card that gives me confidence to send it in. I really don't want to get lawyers involved at this point and think we can work it out before it gets to that point.

If I don't hear from Steve, I'll reach out to Nat and see if that gets me further. I'm assuming Nat (and Steve for that matter) will want to resolve fairly and amicably. All I know is the longer they wait, the potentially more expensive it gets. A PSA 7 just sold last night for $400,000+

A psa 7 With paper loss right? So scans and pics aren’t evidence?

[swarmee]

PSA has and will deactivate cert numbers for cards they don't have in hand. They will modify set info on cards they've logged incorrectly in their database without the card in hand (the flip stays wrong in those instances until an owner sends it in). PSA is also quick on the trigger to ban people who make demands of them, so if you're a submitter or have an account to track your collection, don't be surprised if either get deleted once this one is "cleared."

The fact that you're making your case in the open makes it very likely they eliminate you from their customer pool, IMO.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by jad22

A psa 7 With paper loss right? So scans and pics aren’t evidence?

Have you been following along all these three years? They and BGS have stood behind numerous cards outed for trimming. BGS doesn't even have a monetary liability/guarantee, just don't want to get egg on their face publicized for agreeing their graded cards are trimmed. Read more threads, especially on Blowout.

[jad22]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Have you been following along all these three years? They and BGS have stood behind numerous cards outed for trimming. BGS doesn't even have a monetary liability/guarantee, just don't want to get egg on their face publicized for agreeing their graded cards are trimmed. Read more threads, especially on Blowout.

I have followed some of this. If PSA can't see paper loss, and don't recognize scans and pictures, why are they even bothering to acknowledge that anything has been altered? The might as well just be like BGS and just ignore it. Just like they all did for the signed Tobacco card forgeries (when is the last time anything was provided on that).

[ullmandds]

IMO...anything that PSA has done in the past should be thrown out the window.

They're under new ownership...who seem to have aspirations of blowing up the hobby like never seen before.

They need to make this...and other obvious errors right...and move on.

IMO...this is what will happen.