PSA reholder issues - warning to submitters

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I'm confused: If I am reading this correctly, upon receiving a card for re-holder, not review, PSA will still review the grade if there is a flaw in the slab and often will lower the current grade if they feel it is warranted. So, for example, if a consignor submitted a 1933 Goudey #53 Ruth for a re-holder because the case was slightly cracked, not affecting the card in any way, and the grader decides it is really a 4.5. Low and behold yes, the submitter has a nice new case with a revised current flip but with a lower grade, resulting in a market value drop of $thousands. Such a scenario would be a nightmare.

Based on the email quoted in post #8 above, it seems clear that their current policy allows for this exact scenario.

[gonefishin]

I have a very similar situation with Beckett. A couple of years ago I purchased a BGS graded 6.5, 1948 Carl Braun rookie (picture attached). Back in Oct/Nov 2022 time frame I was looking at the card and decided to check the population. When I entered the serial number it didn't come up in the pop report. I did some extensive research and came to the conclusion my card was graded in 2002 and that both the bar code and serial number were in error. The case had never been tampered with and is in excellent condition. After several attempts I got a CS person (Jay Donayre) on the phone. He explained to me that at some point Beckett had a problem with the system crashing or something similar and they had to re-input the compromised data, and my label issue probably stemmed from that.

He sent me a form and told me to complete the form he sent me and return to Beckett for re-slabbing and label correction. He also told me the card would be graded to verify the assigned grade. This happens to be the highest graded 48 Braun in Beckett. Needless to say, I still have the card and have decided not to send it back.

I intend to sell it at some point in the future, but have concerns since the assigned serial number doesn't appear in the pop report. So, I guess I'm in a quandary - damned if you do - damned if you don't!

[Zach Wheat]

In my case with the 1952 Topps Campos, PSA considered it incorrectly labelled since it did not note the red star/black star variation. They did not change the grade and they did not charge me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

I have a very similar situation with Beckett. A couple of years ago I purchased a BGS graded 6.5, 1948 Carl Braun rookie (picture attached). Back in Oct/Nov 2022 time frame I was looking at the card and decided to check the population. When I entered the serial number it didn't come up in the pop report. I did some extensive research and came to the conclusion my card was graded in 2002 and that both the bar code and serial number were in error. The case had never been tampered with and is in excellent condition. After several attempts I got a CS person (Jay Donayre) on the phone. He explained to me that at some point Beckett had a problem with the system crashing or something similar and they had to re-input the compromised data, and my label issue probably stemmed from that.

He sent me a form and told me to complete the form he sent me and return to Beckett for re-slabbing and label correction. He also told me the card would be graded to verify the assigned grade. This happens to be the highest graded 48 Braun in Beckett. Needless to say, I still have the card and have decided not to send it back.

I intend to sell it at some point in the future, but have concerns since the assigned serial number doesn't appear in the pop report. So, I guess I'm in a quandary - damned if you do - damned if you don't!

That actually sucks. THEY have a problem and create an error/situation that you had nothing to do with, and now compromises your potential ability to sell the card. And then THEY dictate to you that in going to fix it, they can re-assess the card and harm your value, maybe significantly, and there's nothing you can say or do about it? That is so wrong!!!!

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by BobC

That actually sucks. THEY have a problem and create an error/situation that you had nothing to do with, and now compromises your potential ability to sell the card. And then THEY dictate to you that in going to fix it, they can re-assess the card and harm your value, maybe significantly, and there's nothing you can say or do about it? That is so wrong!!!!

Most of the companies now have this, because they've all now been sold over time and have different ownership groups. So they are absolving themselves of the liability of cards graded by previous administrations.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Most of the companies now have this, because they've all now been sold over time and have different ownership groups. So they are absolving themselves of the liability of cards graded by previous administrations.

I know John, and it sucks. Just like you pointed out two posts ago, the TPG calls the shots, and everything that is decided appears to be in or at "their sole discretion". The contracts and agreements many players in this industry have people/customers sign are typically slanted against the collectors/customers, it is truly sad. The TPGs are not unbiased or without conflicts-of-interest to start with, just look at the contingent fees and charges they hit you with where you pay more based on the value of the card, yet you are supposed to be getting a totally honest and independent opinion on a card's condition and authenticity, and basically the exact same service and work on every card, regardless of if it is worth $10, $10,000, or even $1,000,000 or more.

It is corporate business tactics, coupled with and using legal language, to protect TPG interests, and pocketbooks, as much as possible, and give them as much of an advantage and control over their customers in case they make a mistake and screw up, or otherwise provide or do a disservice to their customers.

For example, with regard to the issue with damaged cases somehow possibly absolving a TPG of standing by their earlier opinion and potentially harming the value of the customer's card, remember it was the TPG that created the case used to encapsulate the card and decided what materials would be used to make it and how it is designed in the first place. Now granted, someone could drop it and accidently damage the case and/or card. And in that situation, it seems that under the current types of TPG agreements and such that we're reading and learning about in this thread, that accident can possibly remove further financial liability and risk to the TPG in case of changes to the card's condition, even if the difference was a screw-up in how the TPG originally graded the card. But what is really the difference between accidently dropping a graded card, which ends up damaging the card and/or the holder, or driving an old American made car that was later found to have been made with an inferior or defective gas tank that could explode if you got into an accident? Based on what some of these TPG agreements seem to all be saying, one would think that if you applied the same logic and position to the exploding cars, the car manufacturer would not be at fault or risk at all because THEY didn't cause the accident, someone else did, so the explosion isn't their fault or financial responsibility for personal injury and property damage somehow.

And before one of the trolls or naysayers jumps on to tell me I'm crazy or how that is ridiculous, really think about it first. The TPGs decide and pick the design and materials used for these slabs, which they market and advertise as protecting the card and its grading integrity. But if you accidently drop it, which everyone knows is going to happen many times to many cards over the years, the TPGs are somehow given a free pass to decide what and how they can react, and have it basically absolve them of potential liability for any issues arising from the damaged card or holder? Maybe had the TPGs picked better materials, and/or had a better design for their graded card slabs, the potential damage to a card and its condition from being accidently dropped maybe would not have been happening, and the TPG could be held to stand behind their original grade. Gee, how did that work out in the car manufacturers situation though? They weren't responsible for the accidents that caused their cars and not-so-great gas tanks to blow up, were they? So, like a TPG, shouldn't they also not really be financially responsible for any damage or costs from gas tanks exploding from an accident that they didn't initiate or cause, right? LOL

Hopefully some people will see and realize the connection between the two situations, and how at a basic level, they really are the same thing/issue. As I said back in post #5 of this thread, if you start getting enough harmed people together, either combining cases or maybe initiating a class-action suit, you may be able to start to go back against these types of organizations in the hobby industry, and their one-sided and somewhat biased contracts and agreements, and see about getting some more fair treatment and be compensated where appropriate. At worst, it would expose more people in the hobby to the potential issues and problems they can encounter by choosing to work with/employ some of these entities and companies in the collecting industry, and bring some of these intentional disadvantages in their contracts/agreements, and the way they treat their customers, to light.

As most always seems the case though, the TPGs and their seeming control of the collectors in the hobby will likely override any real change or improvements in how hobby customers/collectors are treated in such contracts/agreements.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by BobC

I know John, and it sucks. Just like you pointed out two posts ago, the TPG calls the shots, and everything that is decided appears to be in or at "their sole discretion". The contracts and agreements many players in this industry have people/customers sign are typically slanted against the collectors/customers, it is truly sad. The TPGs are not unbiased or without conflicts-of-interest to start with, just look at the contingent fees and charges they hit you with where you pay more based on the value of the card, yet you are supposed to be getting a totally honest and independent opinion on a card's condition and authenticity, and basically the exact same service and work on every card, regardless of if it is worth $10, $10,000, or even $1,000,000 or more.

It is corporate business tactics, coupled with and using legal language, to protect TPG interests, and pocketbooks, as much as possible, and give them as much of an advantage and control over their customers in case they make a mistake and screw up, or otherwise provide or do a disservice to their customers.

For example, with regard to the issue with damaged cases somehow possibly absolving a TPG of standing by their earlier opinion and potentially harming the value of the customer's card, remember it was the TPG that created the case used to encapsulate the card and decided what materials would be used to make it and how it is designed in the first place. Now granted, someone could drop it and accidently damage the case and/or card. And in that situation, it seems that under the current types of TPG agreements and such that we're reading and learning about in this thread, that accident can possibly remove further financial liability and risk to the TPG in case of changes to the card's condition, even if the difference was a screw-up in how the TPG originally graded the card. But what is really the difference between accidently dropping a graded card, which ends up damaging the card and/or the holder, or driving an old American made car that was later found to have been made with an inferior or defective gas tank that could explode if you got into an accident? Based on what some of these TPG agreements seem to all be saying, one would think that if you applied the same logic and position to the exploding cars, the car manufacturer would not be at fault or risk at all because THEY didn't cause the accident, someone else did, so the explosion isn't their fault or financial responsibility for personal injury and property damage somehow.
Bob, you raise an interesting point about PSA's policy on upcharging
And before one of the trolls or naysayers jumps on to tell me I'm crazy or how that is ridiculous, really think about it first. The TPGs decide and pick the design and materials used for these slabs, which they market and advertise as protecting the card and its grading integrity. But if you accidently drop it, which everyone knows is going to happen many times to many cards over the years, the TPGs are somehow given a free pass to decide what and how they can react, and have it basically absolve them of potential liability for any issues arising from the damaged card or holder? Maybe had the TPGs picked better materials, and/or had a better design for their graded card slabs, the potential damage to a card and its condition from being accidently dropped maybe would not have been happening, and the TPG could be held to stand behind their original grade. Gee, how did that work out in the car manufacturers situation though? They weren't responsible for the accidents that caused their cars and not-so-great gas tanks to blow up, were they? So, like a TPG, shouldn't they also not really be financially responsible for any damage or costs from gas tanks exploding from an accident that they didn't initiate or cause, right? LOL

Hopefully some people will see and realize the connection between the two situations, and how at a basic level, they really are the same thing/issue. As I said back in post #5 of this thread, if you start getting enough harmed people together, either combining cases or maybe initiating a class-action suit, you may be able to start to go back against these types of organizations in the hobby industry, and their one-sided and somewhat biased contracts and agreements, and see about getting some more fair treatment and be compensated where appropriate. At worst, it would expose more people in the hobby to the potential issues and problems they can encounter by choosing to work with/employ some of these entities and companies in the collecting industry, and bring some of these intentional disadvantages in their contracts/agreements, and the way they treat their customers, to light.

As most always seems the case though, the TPGs and their seeming control of the collectors in the hobby will likely override any real change or improvements in how hobby customers/collectors are treated in such contracts/agreements.

Bob, you raise an interesting point on PSA's practice of uploading additional fees when a cards value exceeds whatever price threshold they determine.

I guess my question is what criteria do they use to determine a card's value?I think most would agree that their SMR is sorely out-of-date, so do they refer to VCP? And wouldn't there be a conflict of interest that the grader might push a valuable card's grade a smidge higher over the threshold mark in order to generate more fees?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Bob, you raise an interesting point on PSA's practice of uploading additional fees when a cards value exceeds whatever price threshold they determine.

I guess my question is what criteria do they use to determine a card's value?I think most would agree that their SMR is sorely out-of-date, so do they refer to VCP? And wouldn't there be a conflict of interest that the grader might push a valuable card's grade a smidge higher over the threshold mark in order to generate more fees?

John, if memory serves, when you look at the policies they post on their site (which I think you posted the link to), when it comes to determining value in cases where there is a refund or payment to be made by them, doesn't it state something along the lines of that determination being "at their sole discretion"?

From the way it seems TPGs word their agreements and contracts, if you agree to have them do work/provide services for you, you may be giving up the right to any fair and impartial determination of values and damages, and basically give them all the power to decide what and how they want a situation to be decided, if an issue ever arises.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Based on the email quoted in post #8 above, it seems clear that their current policy allows for this exact scenario.

I don't think so. The TPG will look to see if the damage to the slab also damaged the card, and only then will they regrade. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[JollyElm]

My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.

1973schmidtrc615PSA8PD:STbeforeafter.jpg

[Fred]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.

Attachment 551803

Does the age of the slab/time of encapsulation have any bearing on how people view the card? I've heard/read that cards in obviously older slabs may not be viewed with as much regard as the same card in a newer slab.

Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Fred

Does the age of the slab/time of encapsulation have any bearing on how people view the card? I've heard/read that cards in obviously older slabs may not be viewed with as much regard as the same card in a newer slab.

Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors?

I've heard stories about people valuing the newer slabs vs the older slabs more. I care little about the slab that it's in, and more about the eye appeal of the card. "Buy the card, not the grade." is something I've heard many times, and believe in as well.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Fred

Does the age of the slab/time of encapsulation have any bearing on how people view the card? I've heard/read that cards in obviously older slabs may not be viewed with as much regard as the same card in a newer slab.

Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors?

It definitely could when herd mentality takes over, but collectors need to look at each card individually and make a determination for themselves. With the Schmidt rookie (stains aside), it definitely belongs in an 8 holder, IMO.

And then there's this...

401. Flipper-Swiffer
A person getting a long-ago graded card reholdered in a clean new slab, for the express purpose of tricking potential buyers into thinking it was newly graded under ‘stricter’ guidelines.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It definitely could when herd mentality takes over, but collectors need to look at each card individually and make a determination for themselves. With the Schmidt rookie (stains aside), it definitely belongs in an 8 holder, IMO.

And then there's this...

401. Flipper-Swiffer
A person getting a long-ago graded card reholdered in a clean new slab, for the express purpose of tricking potential buyers into thinking it was newly graded under ‘stricter’ guidelines.

No one with eyes should ever be “tricked” by this.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It definitely could when herd mentality takes over, but collectors need to look at each card individually and make a determination for themselves. With the Schmidt rookie (stains aside), it definitely belongs in an 8 holder, IMO.

And then there's this...

401. Flipper-Swiffer
A person getting a long-ago graded card reholdered in a clean new slab, for the express purpose of tricking potential buyers into thinking it was newly graded under ‘stricter’ guidelines.

Originally Posted by notfast

No one with eyes should ever be “tricked” by this.

That is true no one should ever be tricked with the old flip # on the new flip. Then again there are many in the hobby who still can't figure out the grading scale on BCCG graded cards even though it is clearly on the flip.

[55koufax]

AGREED!

I recently sent in one card for a label correction. Came back to me within about two weeks. Corrected and of course n/c.

I have done dozens of re-holders over the years mostly for damaged cases. Never one single issue. Obviously, they can not change the grade on a re-holder order, only a review, and it can only stay the same or go up. Doesn't everyone know this?

[gonefishin]

Originally Posted by 55koufax

AGREED!

I recently sent in one card for a label correction. Came back to me within about two weeks. Corrected and of course n/c.

I have done dozens of re-holders over the years mostly for damaged cases. Never one single issue. Obviously, they can not change the grade on a re-holder order, only a review, and it can only stay the same or go up. Doesn't everyone know this?

I'm glad you haven't had a problem.

I've never submitted a re-holder to PSA or anyone else. However, when the CS representative at Beckett told me that my card was subject to regrading it gave me pause. My Braun was initially graded in 2002 - that's a long time ago. Why would it be subject to regrade if the case hasn't been tampered with, no sign of manipulation in any way, and it was there error in the data base compromise? Should they not have done due diligence at the initial time of grading? Isn't that why people have cards graded?

Maybe I'm missing something here. If a legitimate graded card owner simply wants to re-holder their card - which they pay for - why does it become questionable at all. Why not just simply re-holder the F'n card!

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

I'm glad you haven't had a problem.

I've never submitted a re-holder to PSA or anyone else. However, when the CS representative at Beckett told me that my card was subject to regrading it gave me pause. My Braun was initially graded in 2002 - that's a long time ago. Why would it be subject to regrade if the case hasn't been tampered with, no sign of manipulation in any way, and it was there error in the data base compromise? Should they not have done due diligence at the initial time of grading? Isn't that why people have cards graded?

Maybe I'm missing something here. If a legitimate graded card owner simply wants to re-holder their card - which they pay for - why does it become questionable at all. Why not just simply re-holder the F'n card!

Bingo!!! Someone who gets it!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Bingo!!! Someone who gets it!

+1

If enough people got together to bring action against things like this, it would be very interesting to see how a TPG would answer in court when asked to explain how someone that they charged to perform a service could later be told that the work they had previously done was now no good anymore. In other words, the original service those people paid for is basically being deemed worthless by the very party that originally performed the service/work.

Would be interesting to then see these same customers now asking for their money back from the TPG, through the courts, since the TPG itself is apparently admitting their work and original assigned grades cannot be relied upon. Would love to see an impartial jury made up of mostly non-collectors weigh the basic issue of charging people for something that is basically not worth anything then. The snake-oil salesman aspect of TPGs, and what they actually do, would hopefully become even more apparent to the public at large, especially those in the hobby itself.

But unfortunately, this will likely never happen, at least not anytime soon. Too many people/players in the collecting industry, supported by their lawyers, have too much money and value tied up in TPG graded cards and the concept of grading to let this happen. But on the other end of the spectrum, not enough money and value is involved for any government to see a potential risk to our overall economy, and therefore be willing to step in to actually regulate and correct the issues we're seeing and experiencing in the collecting hobby today. Just look at what is happening in the crypto-currency realm today, and the number of people now being negatively affected (ie: the amounts they're losing), and how it is actually starting to impact some of our overall economy. And even so, the governments are still somewhat slow to start acting to do something about it, that they should have jumped on to do something about a while ago.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I actually have to applaud China and their central bank for refusing to accept or allow any transactions in digital currencies, and banning all digital tokens, such as Bitcoin, effectively making crypto-currencies illegal in China. Had the same previously been done in the U.S., there would probably be a lot more happy people around today, including the likes of Robert Kraft, Giselle Bundchen, and Tom Brady, along with countless others.

Having said all that, it seems the only real possibility for any true correction of abuses in our hobby can only now be achieved by those that are in the hobby (true hobby collectors) banding together to form an overriding group/organization to force the other players in the hobby industry to now abide by the rules that the collectors propose and set down, not the other way around like it has been for decades now. But again, as I said earlier in this post, that will never happen any time soon either as too many people have too much money/value tied up in their graded card collections to want to chance that being negatively affected by something like that. The parties that have stepped into the hobby industry to manipulate the people involved so as to make money, have at least done one very, very smart thing, whether it was intentional or just pure dumb luck on their part. They allowed enough of the profit being made from the manipulations and such in the hobby to also be passed on or pour over to many people that are actual true collectors in the hobby, and thus make them liable for personal losses if the hobby industry "players" were to suddenly become subject to rules and regulations they did not set for themselves. By sharing a little bit of the wealth, so to speak, they effectively protect and preserve their own way of doing things, and the control they have over it.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Bingo!!! Someone who gets it!

Because the holder could have been damaged and this could damage the card thereby changing its condition. That is the only time I have had an issue with a reholder. Otherwise it’s a simple procedure like you’d expect. But to answer your question of hy it might not go simply, maybe they made an error the first time that is discovered in reholder They are human as shocking as that is they make mistakes. Expecting perfection is asinine. Of course that should be the goal but it’s not a reality. I know what would half this board do if they couldn’t complain about PSA and spout nonsense.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.

Attachment 551803

is it just me or does the PD version of this look better?

[bobbyw8469]

That is like grading 101 type stuff. A print defect is caused by something in the printing of the card. A stain is something spilled on the card. This is elementary type stuff and should not happen.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by toledo_mudhen

is it just me or does the PD version of this look better?

It's just the scan, man, just the scan.

[parkplace33]

Interesting video from yesterday about a lawsuit brought against psa for reholdering a fake slab:

https://youtu.be/4iLQK1zcB3o

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Interesting video from yesterday about a lawsuit brought against psa for reholdering a fake slab:

https://youtu.be/4iLQK1zcB3o

Yeah, it was linked up above

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I don't think so. The TPG will look to see if the damage to the slab also damaged the card, and only then will they regrade. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Al, now that is a rational reason for a downgrade in a card. If the slab was damaged or shows signs of abuse, then it's possible the card could have sustained a little damage. I think the cards are protected fairly well, but I can see that as a reason for a downgrade if there's obvious damage caused by a slab being abuse.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

I don't think so. The TPG will look to see if the damage to the slab also damaged the card, and only then will they regrade. At least, that's how it is supposed to work.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Incorrect, the exact wording from PSA was:

"Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5"

They are saying that due to the slab damage they will review the card to look for damage to the card AS WELL AS review it to confirm it meets the current grading standards for a PSA 1.5.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Incorrect, the exact wording from PSA was:

"Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5"

They are saying that due to the slab damage they will review the card to look for damage to the card AS WELL AS review it to confirm it meets the current grading standards for a PSA 1.5.

That wording isn't very clear or insightful, although it does seem to imply that PSA's grading standards have changed over time. Otherwise, why include the word "current"?

Here is what their website says about their reholdering service.

"All items will be automatically reholdered UNLESS (1) the sonic weld on the PSA case shows signs of tampering or (2) the PSA case is fractured over the item itself. If the case is fractured over/near the item, it will be examined raw to ensure it has not sustained damage and that the original grade is still valid."

Obviously damage to the card could invalidate the grade, but I guess so could changing grading standards or outright mistakes.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

That wording isn't very clear or insightful, although it does seem to imply that PSA's grading standards have changed over time. Otherwise, why include the word "current"?

Here is what their website says about their reholdering service.

"All items will be automatically reholdered UNLESS (1) the sonic weld on the PSA case shows signs of tampering or (2) the PSA case is fractured over the item itself. If the case is fractured over/near the item, it will be examined raw to ensure it has not sustained damage and that the original grade is still valid."

Obviously damage to the card could invalidate the grade, but I guess so could changing grading standards or outright mistakes.

The language seems clear enough to me: they will reholder the card as per the policy you quoted, and then, after that, regrade it.

[ZiggerZagger]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Incorrect, the exact wording from PSA was:
"Upon re-holdering the card, we will review the card to confirm it meets the current grade 1.5"

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

Here is what their website says about their reholdering service.

"All items will be automatically reholdered UNLESS (1) the sonic weld on the PSA case shows signs of tampering or (2) the PSA case is fractured over the item itself. If the case is fractured over/near the item, it will be examined raw to ensure it has not sustained damage and that the original grade is still valid."

Think it's worth making the point that the statement made to Rad_Hazard was from a conversational e-mail with a single PSA Customer Service Rep, and does subtly differ from PSA's official, carefully crafted and vetted statement that Al referenced re: company policy on Reholders from the website.

The most parsimonious explanation is that the CSR was playing a little fast and loose with his/her verbiage -- and not that PSA has a new policy of examining every Reholder submission to see if it deserves the grade the flip carries.

At any rate, I have a PM out to the VP of Customer Experience for PSA/CU, David Sternberger, to get something straight from the horse's mouth. Hope to hear something, and will post it verbatim here if I do.
|
|

[ZiggerZagger]

Haha, and just like that... I'd messaged him this morning. From David Steinberger:

"I'm escalating your request for an official policy statement on Reholders. Typically, a grade will only change on a Reholder if the case has been damaged/compromised, or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark."

Will share whatever else comes down the road.
|

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by ZiggerZagger

Haha, and just like that... I'd messaged him this morning. From David Steinberger:

"I'm escalating your request for an official policy statement on Reholders. Typically, a grade will only change on a Reholder if the case has been damaged/compromised, or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark."

Will share whatever else comes down the road.
|

Thanks for checking into it, Jason. This still leaves a question on Rad_Hazard's case, which was apparently minimal damage to the slab in the upper right corner above the flip. I still don't get why that would be cause to reassess the grade, as the damage clearly did not impact the card itself.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by ZiggerZagger

Haha, and just like that... I'd messaged him this morning. From David Steinberger:

"I'm escalating your request for an official policy statement on Reholders. Typically, a grade will only change on a Reholder if the case has been damaged/compromised, or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark."

Will share whatever else comes down the road.
|

This part of the statement is interesting…

“or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark”

I would love to see the official policy statement when it comes out. I think others on this thread do as well.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by ZiggerZagger

"I'm escalating your request for an official policy statement on Reholders. Typically, a grade will only change on a Reholder if the case has been damaged/compromised, or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark."

So don't send in this card, huh?

1967 Topps - [Base] #150 - Mickey Mantle [PSA 4 VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com