PSA Response from President Steve Sloan

[swarmee]

https://forums.collectors.com/discus...message-boards

PSA is aware of recent hobby message board activity and is conducting its own investigation into the matter.

We take consumer protection seriously, as evidenced by the thousands of altered and counterfeit cards that we reject each year, our on-going investments in grading and holder technology, and long track record of working with law enforcement to eliminate fraud from the hobby.

PSA processes more than two million cards each year and will not let isolated acts from a few dishonest actors deter consumer confidence in our brand. We will act against anyone who violates PSA’s Terms & Conditions by knowingly submitting altered cards for authentication and grading. While our actions will be conducted privately, please know that the impact will be felt by those attempting to mislead collectors for personal profit.

As with any financial transaction, if you are unsatisfied with your purchase, contact the seller to initiate a refund request. If the seller is unknown, you may send the card to PSA for review under our Financial Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity.

PSA is well-versed in combating fraud and we have addressed these issues in a professional and direct way for nearly thirty years. After all these years, our hobby is stronger than ever. Rest assured that PSA will not let the actions of a few have any lingering impact on the hobby or the PSA brand.

Steve Sloan
PSA President

[ullmandds]

sounds like psa/brent have the same lawyer?

[JeremyW]

That's the best they can do?

[Peter_Spaeth]

That's reassuring. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by swarmee

https://forums.collectors.com/discus...message-boards

Well Mr Sloan, you know who your first test case is...It's Brent Mastro, Your boy Blue!!!!!...Be very careful or you'll get a nickname too.

"Well versed at combating fraud"... Har har Hardeeee har har my side is splittin. Your well versed in saying nothing. Ban Brent Mastro and sue him you chicken S***. That will be a start. But you're in bed together you'll give him a character reference probably to assist Brent Mastro the Grifter with his next scam. I'm sure PSA had nothing to do with it my a**.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well-versed in combating fraud. Clearly.

[JeremyW]

We will act against anyone who violates PSA’s Terms & Conditions by knowingly submitting altered cards for authentication and grading.

Is he referring to PWWC?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So much for the good things I had heard about Mr. Sloan. Robo speak like his predecessor.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

We will act against anyone who violates PSA’s Terms & Conditions by knowingly submitting altered cards for authentication and grading.

Is he referring to PWWC?

Gary I assume, who they apparently have allowed to submit for decades lol.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

Hypothetical. So, if I pick up a Goudey Ruth which has been trimmed or recolored, and I submit it to receive an Authentic, am I violating TOS by knowingly submitting al altered card for authentication? And what are the repercussions? I’m not trying to cheat anyone. I know the card is altered. I want them to slab it and say that it’s real and altered so people will know what they are getting. Problem?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

sounds like psa/brent have the same lawyer?

More likely the same PR firm specializing in feel good BS robo speak that ignores the elephants in the room.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gary I assume, who they apparently have allowed to submit for decades lol.

Aren't they one in the same?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

Aren't they one in the same?

Not clear to me if Brent was submitting for him. It's irrelevant, but I can't make that assumption at this point.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Does anyone in this hobby have any integrity? I mean among the major players. Or are they all corrupted by money?

[griffon512]

"As with any financial transaction, if you are unsatisfied with your purchase, contact the seller to initiate a refund request. If the seller is unknown, you may send the card to PSA for review under our Financial Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity."


Seems like they are trying to pass the buck to the seller, as if the seller in all instances should provide the financial guarantee if the seller is known. So if the seller does not initiate the process for financial reimbursement, what happens then?

This doesn't seem consistent with what they say on their website: https://www.psacard.com/about/financialguarantee

"PSA guarantees that all cards submitted to it shall be graded in accordance with PSA grading standards and under the procedures of PSA.

If PSA, in fact, concludes that the card in question no longer merits the PSA grade assigned or fails PSA’s authenticity standards, PSA will either:

Buy the card from the submitter at the current market value if the card can no longer receive a numerical grade under PSA's standards or,

Refund the difference in value between the original PSA grade and the current PSA grade if the grade is lowered. In this case, the card will also be returned to the customer along with the refund for the difference in value.

The current market value is determined by PSA, based in part on Sports Market Report and SMR Online values and/or recent prices realized from the marketplace. PSA will be the sole determiner of the current market value."

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not clear to me if Brent was submitting for him. It's irrelevant, but I can't make that assumption at this point.

I thought there was proof that Moser & PWWC submissions to PSA were on the same numbers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As if I am going to go to someone I bought a card from 10 years ago and ask to return it. WTF.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I thought there was proof that Moser & PWWC submissions to PSA were on the same numbers.

I don't believe so, I don't think anyone can tell who submitted the cards.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by griffon512

"As with any financial transaction, if you are unsatisfied with your purchase, contact the seller to initiate a refund request. If the seller is unknown, you may send the card to PSA for review under our Financial Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity."

It's funny; I think I gave him that idea when I recommended in email that he have all PWCC customers send them back to PWCC for refunds.

My reasoning was that if the purchase never happened, and PWCC was in on the fraud, PSA would have minimal or zero liability.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't believe so, I don't think anyone can tell who submitted the cards.

Can’t PSA tell who submitted the cards. I would think they should be able to, but don’t hold your breath. What’s good for the Registry is good for the hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Can’t PSA tell who submitted the cards. I would think they should be able to, but don’t hold your breath. What’s good for the Registry is good for the hobby.

Of course they know. They are as usual putting the burden back on the collector. WIWAG redux.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

That's the best they can do?

Didn't read all the comments posted, but I was wondering the same thing. .

[Davidlisa]

I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt and we all deserve second chances in life but I'm sorry that response is a little weak. How about taking responsibility for your part and telling us what you're going to do to fix things.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

While our actions will be conducted privately, please know that the impact will be felt by those attempting to mislead collectors for personal profit.

This is where they lose trust. Things have been kept in private for way too long.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

This is where they lose trust. Things have been kept in private for way too long.

Jesus the day I agree 100 percent with David, something must be wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

.

[jhs5120]

As with any financial transaction, if you are unsatisfied with your purchase, contact the seller to initiate a refund request.

PSA’s financial guarantee doesn’t protect the original submitter. If PWCC really is submitting most of these cards, it may put them in a pickle (and reduce the potential warranty exposure).

First smart thing I’ve seen anyone do in this whole debacle.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Jesus the day I agree 100 percent with David, something must be wrong.

Well, it is lightning here in Houston. I better stay indoors.

[MULLINS5]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

As with any financial transaction, if you are unsatisfied with your purchase, contact the seller to initiate a refund request.

PSA’s financial guarantee doesn’t protect the original submitter. If PWCC really is submitting most of these cards, it may put them in a pickle (and reduce the potential warranty exposure).

First smart thing I’ve seen anyone do in this whole debacle.

Exactly. PWCC is the seller and PSA is pissed at them. PSA also scrubbed their site of PWCC. Clearly PWCC played a big part in this. Time will tell, hopefully.

Edit to add PSA removed SMR article on PWCC, didn't scrub them entirely.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Well, it is lightning here in Houston. I better stay indoors.

It's surreal. A massive scandal showing potentially thousands of altered PSA cards is revealed, and the response is to reassure us PSA is well-versed at detecting fraud, I mean WTF is going on here? Who do they think they're talking to?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MULLINS5

Exactly. PWCC is the seller and PSA is pissed at them. PSA also scrubbed their site of PWCC. Clearly PWCC played a big part in this. Time will tell, hopefully.

Without a list of cards coming from them it's useless drivel. They never provided one in WIWAG.

[Scott L.]

Originally Posted by swarmee

It's funny; I think I gave him that idea when I recommended in email that he have all PWCC customers send them back to PWCC for refunds.

My reasoning was that if the purchase never happened, and PWCC was in on the fraud, PSA would have minimal or zero liability.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

[JeremyW]

The way I see it is that PSA in on the hook for almost one million dollars worth of liability with their guaranty.

[BengoughingForAwhile]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Without a list of cards coming from them it's useless drivel. They never provided one in WIWAG.

Didn't you hear? The list is coming in the "near future"!

[MULLINS5]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

The right thing would be for PSA to get those cards in their possession, but it would cost a small fortune.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

Brent is on video promising to reimburse buyers for fraudulent cards submitted through PWCC. Watch the 1 hour long video. He doesn't say which cards those are, so all of them should go back to PWCC. Maybe his lawyer will come out with a list of affected cards submitted by PWCC so that he won't get every single one back to his company.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Brent is on video promising to reimburse buyers for fraudulent cards submitted through PWCC. Watch the 1 hour long video. He doesn't say which cards those are, so all of them should go back to PWCC. Maybe his lawyer will come out with a list of affected cards submitted by PWCC so that he won't get every single one back to his company.

He admitted submitting cards for Gary?

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Brent is on video promising to reimburse buyers for fraudulent cards submitted through PWCC. Watch the 1 hour long video. He doesn't say which cards those are, so all of them should go back to PWCC. Maybe his lawyer will come out with a list of affected cards submitted by PWCC so that he won't get every single one back to his company.

I watched the hour long video & thought it was all B.S. He tried to stick up for PSA about not being able to see alterations. I think it's called CYA.

[swarmee]

He says he submitted cards for consignors, nonspecifically.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The smart thing to do by PSA is to put the blame on one rogue grader...even if he's not guilty. Offer him a nice severance package or something. When all this is over, PSA has to admit one of two things: (1) they had a grader on the take and they took care of the situation or (2) they're totally incompetent. Which is better from a business perspective?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The smart thing to do by PSA is to put the blame on one rogue grader...even if he's not guilty.

Might work for the public. Won't work for the Feds.

[Fballguy]

Sounds like he's pointing the finger away from PSA...talking only about the "actors" who submit. What about the "actors" who graded them? How does that get explained?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

Sounds like he's pointing the finger away from PSA...talking only about the "actors" who submit. What about the "actors" who graded them? How does that get explained?

Under oath. They’re getting sued.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Might work for the public. Won't work for the Feds.

True

[doug.goodman]

From Sloan's note : "PSA processes more than two million cards each year"

40,000 per week (based on a 50 week year)
8,000 per day (based on a 5 day week)
666 per hour (based on a 12 hour day, and my love of Satan)
11 per minute

That means 5.4 seconds multiplied by the number of graders there are, per card.

Doug "just saying" Goodman

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by swarmee

He says he submitted cards for consignors, nonspecifically.

That might be his downfall.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Under oath. They’re getting sued.

Really? Love to see it.

[rdwyer]

Back in the day, I was privileged to enter the "Vault" at GAI. I was there to educate the authenticator of cigarette packs per Steve Rochi's request. I was shown the process of grading cards. The first thing they always did was measure the card. Doesn't make any sense to do anything else after that if the card was trimmed because the card would be graded authentic. They then looked for altering. Same thing, doesn't make any sense to do anything else after that if the card was altered because the card would be graded authentic.. Then they look at the centering, corners. etc. And further evaluated the card for printer defects, creases, etc.

So how is it that PSA could skip the first part of the process for all those trimmed cards unless it was deliberate? I know that GAI was doing the same, and that their opinion on cards today are worthless. But still they had a procedure.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by Scott L.

I think you hit the nail on the head John in terms of them pointing back to the seller for refunds. They probably feel they could make a good case that PWCC was in on it somehow.

Is PWCC considered the seller or the auctioneer?