PSA-A Cautionary Tale!

[slidekellyslide]

Sorry to hear this happened...I would think this type of thing happens a lot when cracking out cards. I'm actually surprised that PSA would even offer this service. If it were my company I would never crack a slab.

[smtjoy]

Sorry this happened to you Matt, good luck on finding another Aaron.

PSA dropped the ball on this, sounds like it could have been handled much better. Banning you from the CU boards for a mistake they made just seems so petty.

[Cobra Kai]

Crappy situation man. That really surprises me about Joe's comments though. Doesn't sound like him at all.

[jhs5120]

I have a quick question:

I was always under the impression that PSA reviewed the card with the card still in it's original holder (I have received reviewed cards back from PSA still in their original holders). If PSA cracked the holder isn't it safe to assume they reviewed the card and thought it deserved a bump? If so, should PSA fork over the going rate for a 9?

Also, I'm sorry this happened to you.

Jason

[packs]

I know when I submitted my cards to PSA for review both cards were sent back to me in their original holders and did not receive bumps.

[mark evans]

I realize this comment falls into the category of "20-20 hindsight." But, even though PSA rarely damages cards (I assume), it's simply not worth the risk of seeking an upgrade on a card as rare and pretty as that '60 Aaron.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I have a quick question:

I was always under the impression that PSA reviewed the card with the card still in it's original holder (I have received reviewed cards back from PSA still in their original holders). If PSA cracked the holder isn't it safe to assume they reviewed the card and thought it deserved a bump? If so, should PSA fork over the going rate for a 9?

Also, I'm sorry this happened to you.

Jason

I was always under that impression as well regarding a review.

I don't mean to be harsh but a few things don't quite add up to me though. Granted we're not privy to the conversation verbatim, only the dialog that you posted Matt but the conversation seemed to degrade and end quite abruptly, almost too abruptly? And with Joe saying "Don't ever call me threatening me again"....maybe its semantics, but wasn't he the one that called you?

I can't believe this is the first time Joe/PSA have ever been "threatened" with someone mentioning they wish to speak to their counsel before agreeing to a settlement with Joe/PSA. I'm sure they've been faced with that situation many times, I find it hard to believe Joe would fly off the handle at such a comment by hanging up on you, banning you from the boards and refusing to do any business with you in the future based solely on that comment alone.

Just seems that an awful lot went down in what seems like a very short phone conversation. I can't believe its normal for Joe to reach out to a submitter regarding an issue unless its an extremely rare situation or potentially high monetary consequence. And in those situation I would like to think Joe would act as a professional, but that certainly doesn't seem like the case here.