Crossover grading

[Promethius88]

Couldn't it also be reasonably argued that because grading is subjective that the alleged "50 cards" may have been borderline when viewed in the SGC holders? I don't care if we are talking Company A, Company B, or Company C to Z.... you submit raw cards 10 different times you may get several different grades.
I just don't see that any of these "facts" are really provable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Promethius88

Couldn't it also be reasonably argued that because grading is subjective that the alleged "50 cards" may have been borderline when viewed in the SGC holders? I don't care if we are talking Company A, Company B, or Company C to Z.... you submit raw cards 10 different times you may get several different grades.
I just don't see that any of these "facts" are really provable.

Well, in theory, you could have some former employee claim yeah we had a policy against crossovers. But my opinion, at least insofar as we are talking antitrust as Corey has suggested, is, well so what? Why do I have an obligation to the other grading company to cross over their cards to my holders? And how can that company with a straight face claim they need me to do this for their survival? That just sounds for all the world like they do, in fact, have an inferior product.

Now, whether a PSA customer has some legitimate gripe for his cards not being evaluated properly, that's a different question. But the answer to that in my opinion has nothing to do with the antitrust laws.

[JohnP0621]

I think the person who paid to cross over 50 cards is crazy. Even crazier to crack them open and pay a second time for the same 50 cards . What a joke. The TPG grading co must love these types of customers. Why not just buy the cards that are graded by the TPG that you like. They may have also put a minimum crossover grade on the submission slip that the cards did not match .

John P

[swarmee]

I think this thread was inspired by the thread on the post-war board where Buster posts late in the night.
None of the cards have ever been posted, but the three grading companies all have slightly different definitions of what a NM-MT 8 is. The biggest difference is centering: BGS is stricter than PSA who is likely stricter than SGC. One judges "natural" rough cuts while others may accept "sheet cut" cards cut after the factory production.

PSA has done some dumb things on large submissions before, rejecting approximately 100 cards in an order as ?AUTH (aka likely fake) just because the submitter sent them in toploaders that were taped at the top. That guy has a real axe to grind, because they probably charged for that service, despite not providing the guy any useful service. I know it was posted on the CU/PSA message boards, but I think that thread went poof.

[oldjudge]

My guess is that crossover submissions represent a minuscule portion of PSA total submissions. It seems that the easiest way to address the issue is to raise the fee for such service to a minimum of $100, with the fee increasing as the value of the card increases.That would effectively put an end to crossover business, ending the arb of people trying to buy lower priced SGC cards and, without cracking them out, get them into comparable PSA holders.

[benjulmag]

One of the things that has guided me well as an attorney is what I call the smell test.

If,

(I) company B is the industry leader and has a publicly stated policy of objectively evaluating all submissions explicitly including submissions of slabbed company A cards;

(II) company B as a matter of internal policy has a policy against crossing over cards in company A's slabs, which policy can be proven;

(III) company B when returning the uncrossed over cards to the submitter states the reason for the refusal to cross over is that the cards are either altered or do not merit the same grade;

(IV) these occurrences occur on a regular basis;

(V) company A's profitability goes down, which decrease can be proven to correlate to company B's internal policy of refusing to objectively evaluate slabbed company A cards in crossover submittals;

Then,

company A has an actionable claim for damages against company B.

And to go further, if company B can be proven to have similar policies with similar results against all the other TPG companies in the market, such that that the end result is company B is left as the only TPG company in the industry,

Then

there are antitrust implications.


Let me worry about whether what I state to be fact can be proven. Assuming they can, I believe the conclusions I have drawn stand a very good chance of being correct if tested.

[Promethius88]

I'm guessing that you are using "Company A" and "Company B" because you don't actually have the proof to substantiate all of these claims and therefore avoiding any claims of libel/slander against you. We know you referring to PSA and SGC so lets get it out there. If there are internal policies at PSA that can be proven and the intent is to malicious or detrimental to SGC, BGS, etc, I'm happy to listen to the discussion. But, as Peter has stated, I doubt that the amount of crossovers sent to PSA is so vast that it is going to make some huge difference in the bottom line at SGC. I think that with the recent issues of the fake T206's being authenticated by SGC and them doing away with their autograph authentication line of business, their bottom line is probably affected more by their own hand than by that of PSA.

[Republicaninmass]

From what I understand it is very difficult for even some reviews and crossovers, if centering meets guidelines, the corners and edges and sometimes even minute wrinkles cant be seen in the slab. I had a 3 card review order take 85 days in a 45 day sub and was told reviews and crossovers take the longest when I asked.

Howd you feel if the cracked it, saw damage and said "nope" under close examination. This is why a lower minimum grade is usually used on crossovers. If you want a chance in hell that is

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

One of the things that has guided me well as an attorney is what I call the smell test.

If,

(I) company B is the industry leader and has a publicly stated policy of objectively evaluating all submissions explicitly including submissions of slabbed company A cards;

(II) company B as a matter of internal policy has a policy against crossing over cards in company A's slabs, which policy can be proven;

(III) company B when returning the uncrossed over cards to the submitter states the reason for the refusal to cross over is that the cards are either altered or do not merit the same grade;

(IV) these occurrences occur on a regular basis;

(V) company B's profitability goes down, which decrease can be proven to correlate to company B's internal policy of refusing to objectively evaluate slabbed company A cards in crossover submittals;

Then,

company A has an actionable claim for damages against company B.

And to go further, if company B can be proven to have similar policies with similar results against all the other TPG companies in the market, such that that the end result is company B is left as the only TPG company in the industry,

Then

there are antitrust implications.


Let me worry about whether what I state to be fact can be proven. Assuming they can, I believe the conclusions I have drawn stand a very good chance of being correct if tested.

All I can go on is all the years of practice I have had including many antitrust cases some pretty high profile. I would personally value that more than your smell test -- antitrust law can be very technical -- but whatever. If you think you know more about antitrust law than I do, cool. PS in your (V) you have the wrong company's profitability going down (I think anyhow). You might want to fix that. If you truly meant to say B, then you haven't articulated any theory of harm to A, have you? Not that any of that matters really to the question.

Kinder, gentler version of above -- just because big company A does something to hurt small company B, even badly hurt it, it doesn't necessarily implicate the antitrust laws. It might, but there are lots of reasons it might not. It's a very complex subject that even the Supreme Court struggles with at times.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

All I can go on is all the years of practice I have had including many antitrust cases some pretty high profile. I would personally value that more than your smell test -- antitrust law can be very technical -- but whatever. If you think you know more about antitrust law than I do, cool. PS in your (V) you have the wrong company's profitability going down you might want to fix that.

Kinder, gentler version of above -- just because big company A does something to hurt small company B, even badly hurt it, it doesn't necessarily implicate the antitrust laws. It might, but there are lots of reasons it might not. It's a very complex subject that even the Supreme Court struggles with at times.

In the example I give, company B has a stated policy of crossing over a card from company A if the card meets company B's criteria. So what point are you making by saying that they did not have to have that policy? I am not talking about that fact pattern. I initiated this thread to discuss what if any legal implications there might be to company B if it can be proven that the real reason it did not do the crossover is not because its specified criteria is not met but only because the card came from company A, and this practice is repeated over and over.

As far as antitrust law is concerned, I am not stating that it is not complicated, nor that I profess to have more expertise or experience in it then you do. Nor am I stating that this is a cut and dry legal matter. My intent is to initiate discussion about a practice that I have heard takes place, and if it does, it reeks to the bone. If company B wants to have a policy of not crossing over company A's cards, great, then say so. But unless they explicitly state that is their policy, I believe they have a duty to objectively evaluate crossover submissions.

While I agree that antitrust law may be complicated, the economic principles on which I understand it to be based I believe are pretty basic. I am familiar with many of the Supreme Court cases on this subject and the struggles the Court has had. So to the extent you are insinuating that if our hobby ends up with company B having a near 100% market share, coupled it being proven the company did not objectively evaluate submissions in accordance with its stated policies, it is very unlikely that company A has any legal recourse or that there are not antitrust implications, I respectfully disagree.

PS. Thank you for pointing out I had the wrong company's profitability going down. I have corrected that.