 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
11-01-2012, 09:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That's not true concerning libel. The truth is an absolute defense. That being said it can (and usually is) expensive to defend oneself even if you have done nothing wrong. And one other thing I should mention, after thinking a bit, I guess there could be a situation where someone bringing a false claim could be liable for legal fees of the other party? I ain't know lawyer (sic)  .
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com Last edited by Leon; 11-01-2012 at 09:57 PM. 
|
|
#2
11-01-2012, 09:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Welcome BigRedOne and yes there was a good thread over here about the Art Shell after it was deleted over on CU. We still never heard anything back from PSA about that card and the 6-7 other questionable cards that were all bumped by as you said a big submitter during the National.
|
|
#3
11-02-2012, 08:13 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm not a lawyer either, but since you're a Texan like me, I do know a few things about Texas laws regarding libel. First, yes truth is an absolute defense and along with a fair comment on a public controversy. Both have been codified in Texas Civil P&R Code 73 . Second, you'll be happy to know in June 2011, Texas adopted an Anti-SLAPP law which can fend off frivolous harassment suits in their early stages and if you prevail, the other party is liable for your attorneys fees. Here's a link: http://slappedintexas.com/primer/ As for the initial thread, yes I agree that PSA has some major problems as pointed out. The biggest problem in my opinion is that certain parties have been successfully aesthetically enhancing cards to increase their value and getting the cards graded into PSA holders. Sadly people are buying these cards with no knowledge of these alterations. The big question that begs to be asked is how legitimate is a grading service when its nothing more than a means of facilitating the sale of altered cards for people who fail to disclose these alterations? At what point do regulatory agencies and law enforcement step in and challenge the grading companies to show that they are making some effort to offer the service they claim to provide?
|
|
#4
11-02-2012, 08:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Perhaps it is possible for a card in an 8 holder to be regraded a 10, but in the case of the Art Shell card in question it did not merit a 10 grade. Even from a scan there were minute flaws that could be easily detected with the naked eye.
So the issue isn't is it possible for an 8 to be regraded a 10, which I imagine in rare cases could happen, but why did that particular card receive a 10? That's the issue we've been debating.
|
|
#5
11-02-2012, 08:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
a 10 is a 10!! (meaning a 1)
Quote:
Here is one of the nicer "10"s I have!!
__________________
Leon Luckey www.luckeycards.com
|
|
#7
11-02-2012, 09:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
11-02-2012, 09:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Fyi
There were altered cards in Mr. Carter's phenomenal collection. Only mentioned because many feel this provenance should carry extra weight for the card being unplayed with. While this is true of cards he acquired in years of issue he did trade for years and years and years and not all trading partners were as honest as Mr. Carter.
Last edited by glynparson; 11-02-2012 at 09:45 AM.
|
|
#9
11-02-2012, 11:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
For the Art Shell card in question, that's obviously a misgrade and does not deserve a 10.
|
|
#10
11-02-2012, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But this thread is comical to me. All I can say is: Welcome to 3rd party grading!
|
|
#11
11-02-2012, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Doug
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
