Crossover grading

[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.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Peter, if within the hobby it is generally believed that B's cards sell for more than comparably graded A cards, and the reason has nothing to do with grading quality but instead B's set registry, A could rationally take the view that there is no improvement it could make to its product that could increase its market share. And therefore the most prudent business strategy would be to expose the great percentage of high-grade B vintage cards that in fact are altered, along with the blatant misrepresentations B is making by telling submitters how accurate its grading is and the ethical standards under which it operates. Maybe in the end such a suit would bring no benefit to A. But the upside of bringing it to me seems to outweigh the downside.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Peter, if within the hobby it is generally believed that B's cards sell for more than comparably graded A cards, and the reason has nothing to do with grading quality but instead B's set registry, A could rationally take the view that there is no improvement it could make to its product that could increase its market share. And therefore the most prudent business strategy would be to expose the great percentage of high-grade B vintage cards that in fact are altered, along with the blatant misrepresentations B is making by telling submitters how accurate its grading is and the ethical standards under which it operates. Maybe in the end such a suit would bring no benefit to A. But the upside of bringing it to me seems to outweigh the downside.

How would altered cards be relevant to the suit you are proposing? Your suit concerns already-graded A cards and B's treatment of them, not B's grading practices in general. By the way even if somehow relevant, what admissible evidence is A going to provide to show that B slabs a high percentage of altered cards?