Crossover grading

[Peter_Spaeth]

How is antitrust law the source of that duty? There are all sorts of things that might rise to the level of a business tort but aren't an antitrust violation.

From an economic perspective, what's the difference if they make it an explicit policy or not? It seems to me if you concede they could refuse to cross SGC cards without violating the antitrust laws, then by the same token they could say they would cross them but then not do it. Sure. maybe one seems more underhanded or distasteful or sleazy, but so what, the economic effect is the same so the antitrust analysis which concerns itself with economic effect should be the same. Either way, the bottom line is that they don't cross SGC cards. It's not an antitrust issue IMO. Maybe the submitters get screwed because they pay on false pretenses, but that has nothing to do with SGC's potential claim.

One other thing I alluded to earlier. SGC would be insane to want to publicize that PSA wouldn't cross its cards. It makes SGC look bad on multiple levels.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From an economic perspective, what's the difference if they make it an explicit policy or not?

The signal they are giving the hobby by its refusal to cross over.

If company B explicitly states that they objectively evaluate all crossovers, then its refusal to do a crossover is an expressed opinion the card is either altered or not worthy of the same numerical grade. It this in fact occurs over and over and it creates an impression in the hobby that company A offers an inferior grading service, that can cause company A to lose customers, in the same manner a false advertising campaign can.

If though the impression the hobby gets is the reason company A's cards are never crossed over by company B is because company B as a matter of policy does not consider crossovers, the hobby would not get the same impression that company A offers an inferior grading service, and as a result company A would not lose those customers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

The signal they are giving the hobby by its refusal to cross over.

If company B explicitly states that they objectively evaluate all crossovers, then its refusal to do a crossover is an expressed opinion the card is either altered or not worthy of the same numerical grade. It this in fact occurs over and over and it creates an impression in the hobby that company A offers an inferior grading service, that can cause company A to lose customers, in the same manner a false advertising campaign can.

If though the impression the hobby gets is the reason company A's cards are never crossed over by company B is because company B as a matter of policy does not consider crossovers, the hobby would not get the same impression that company A offers an inferior grading service, and as a result company A would not lose those customers.

If company A does not have an inferior grading service, why are people seeking to cross its cards into company B's holders in droves, such that company B's refusal to do so is capable of badly hurting company A?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If company A does not have an inferior grading service, why are people seeking to cross its cards into company B's holders in droves, such that company B's refusal to do so is capable of badly hurting company A?

And so therefore company B has a free rein to say anything it wants or through its deceptive trade practices give false impressions about company A's product?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

And so therefore company B has a free rein to say anything it wants or through its deceptive trade practices give false impressions about company A's product?

Nonresponsive. I never said there could not be a business tort here though I'm skeptical without some overt defamation. But you said there was an economic/antitrust difference between just refusing to cross and saying you would but not doing it, and you articulated that difference as the latter suggested A had an inferior product, so I am responding to that. If A is claiming it's hurt because B won't rebrand its product as B's product, what does that tell you about A's assessment of its own product, or the market's?

A should be critically examining itself and asking why people are trying switch its cards to B's holders, not making it painfully obvious that it has an inferior product by suing B.

I think B would welcome such a suit actually -- what great publicity to have high profile dealers/collectors explain why they wanted to get their cards out of A's holders and into B's.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nonresponsive. I never said there could not be a business tort here though I'm skeptical without some overt defamation. But you said there was an economic/antitrust difference between just refusing to cross and saying you would but not doing it, and you articulated that difference as the latter suggested A had an inferior product, so I am responding to that. If A is claiming it's hurt because B won't rebrand its product as B's product, what does that tell you about A's assessment of its own product, or the market's?

A should be critically examining itself and asking why people are trying switch its cards to B's holders, not making it painfully obvious that it has an inferior product by suing B.

I think B would welcome such a suit actually -- what great publicity to have high profile dealers/collectors explain why they wanted to get their cards out of A's holders and into B's.

Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree. If such a suit were brought and it should come out that B has an unstated company policy that it does not crossover from A, but that the explanation it is to give to the submitter is that the card possess defects B knows it does not possess, I'm not sure I share your view that such a suit would be beneficial to B. Such a suit could give A a forum to submit voluminous forensic evidence of grading errors by B, which could be an eye opener for a number of potential dealers/collectors. In the world we are in high-grade vintage cards routinely sell for five and six figures. Some potentially seven figures. And I suspect that a number of the purchasers would find it material if they were to learn that the cardboard within the slab is in fact not what the flip represents, and that if revealed would be worth a small fraction of what it sold for.

Edited to add that the antitrust implications I am trying to draw out pertain to a situation where B essentially has 100% market share. Are you saying that such a market concentration does not have antitrust implications?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree. If such a suit were brought and it should come out that B has an unstated company policy that it does not crossover from A, but that the explanation it is to give to the submitter is that the card possess defects B knows it does not possess, I'm not sure I share your view that such a suit would be beneficial to B. Such a suit could give A a forum to submit voluminous forensic evidence of grading errors by B, which could be an eye opener for a number of potential dealers/collectors. In the world we are in high-grade vintage cards routinely sell for five and six figures. Some potentially seven figures. And I suspect that a number of the purchasers would find it material if they were to learn that the cardboard within the slab is in fact not what the flip represents, and that if revealed would be worth a small fraction of what it sold for.

But Corey, why would A want to publicize in a complaint then trial that so many people were trying to switch so many cards out of its holders? That just strikes me as incredibly counterproductive, even in the fantasy world that there is some viable legal claim here.