PSA Response from President Steve Sloan

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by 70ToppsFanatic

Failing miserably? On what evidence is that opinion based?

Some message board detectives seem to have shown evidence that possibly as many as 1000 cards have made it into PSA holders illegitimately. They’ve authenticated more than 30M items. THREE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT is better than 99.99% right based on the evidence available so far.

While i too believe there is more to be uncovered I think it is premature, and potentially libelous, to make such a general sweeping statement before there is evidence to support it.

Let’s not get in front of our headlights.

To claim that only 1,000 bad cards have made it into PSA Holders is a ridiculous understatement. It takes a ton of work and research to positively expose just one single card. For every one that is exposed, you can figure there are about 10 that get by unscathed. The fact is nobody will ever know how many bogus cards are circulating in various collections, now that the cat is out of the bag.

So the "THREE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT" claim is completely baseless.

You can really tell from these posts who cares about the integrity of the hobby, and who is motivated by money. I urge anyone here who truly cares about the hobby to boycott PSA and stop sending them submissions. They'll likely not make good on their supposed "guarantee", so this is one of very few meaningful actions we can take to instigate change.

[70ToppsFanatic]

Originally Posted by perezfan

To claim that only 1,000 bad cards have made it into PSA Holders is a ridiculous understatement. It takes a ton of work and research to positively expose just one single card. For every one that is exposed, you can figure there are about 10 that get by unscathed. The fact is nobody will ever know how many bogus cards are circulating in various collections, now that the cat is out of the bag.

So the "THREE THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT" claim is completely baseless.

You can really tell from these posts who cares about the integrity of the hobby, and who is motivated by money. I urge anyone here who truly cares about the hobby to boycott PSA and stop sending them submissions. They'll likely not make good on their supposed "guarantee", so this is one of very few meaningful actions we can take to instigate change.

Selectively quoting me does not make your mob mentality valid.

“3/1000ths of a percent SO FAR!”

“I too believe there is more to be uncovered...”

This is still America people. Remember innocent until proven guilty?


From what has been discovered it appears that PWCC was somehow involved in some unethical and possibly illegal things with some know scams artists. It also appears that they managed to slip some things through PSA and other TPGs.

And here you are, part of a mob that is spouting off all sorts of wild ideas about PSA being complicit in this, PSA is going to weasel out of its guarantee, and other generally unflattering conspiracy theories without any real evidence to substantiate it.

PSA is doing what just about any other publicly traded corporation does when an apparent primary product/service failure has occurred; trying to weed out what of that which has come out is indeed true and what is not, trying to identify what risks exist for the company as a result of it, trying to identify other parties that could potentially be held accountable, trying to minimize the damages to the company, trying to reassure customers, etc.

It may ultimately be proven that there are 100,000 tainted items, but right now there isn’t any evidence to back that up. There is evidence that has been developed that suggests about 1,000 so far. Are 1000 too many? Yes, but it’s far from the epidemic level that the mob is currently panicking about.

For someone who claims to be so concerned about integrity you certainly don’t seem to be very worried about the integrity and fairness of passing judgment on people like myself, and PSA for that matter, without proper basis in fact.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 70ToppsFanatic

Selectively quoting me does not make your mob mentality valid.

“3/1000ths of a percent SO FAR!”

“I too believe there is more to be uncovered...”

This is still America people. Remember innocent until proven guilty?


From what has been discovered it appears that PWCC was somehow involved in some unethical and possibly illegal things with some know scams artists. It also appears that they managed to slip some things through PSA and other TPGs.

And here you are, part of a mob that is spouting off all sorts of wild ideas about PSA being complicit in this, PSA is going to weasel out of its guarantee, and other generally unflattering conspiracy theories without any real evidence to substantiate it.

PSA is doing what just about any other publicly traded corporation does when an apparent primary product/service failure has occurred; trying to weed out what of that which has come out is indeed true and what is not, trying to identify what risks exist for the company as a result of it, trying to identify other parties that could potentially be held accountable, trying to minimize the damages to the company, trying to reassure customers, etc.

It may ultimately be proven that there are 100,000 tainted items, but right now there isn’t any evidence to back that up. There is evidence that has been developed that suggests about 1,000 so far. Are 1000 too many? Yes, but it’s far from the epidemic level that the mob is currently panicking about.

For someone who claims to be so concerned about integrity you certainly don’t seem to be very worried about the integrity and fairness of passing judgment on people like myself, and PSA for that matter, without proper basis in fact.

IMO telling people to return the card to the seller, and only to go to PSA if the seller is unknown whatever that means, is not appropriate. The guarantee does not require exhaustion of remedies. The whole point was that PSA stands behind marketplace transactions, to inspire confidence.

[70ToppsFanatic]

But in this case they already have a prior statement from PWCC saying that they will handle it for any cards they brokered. What we don’t know is what, if anything, PSA may have said to PWCC that PSA would do unless PWCC made this offer. We also don’t know that ifbthis offer for PWCC is a result of some conversation. Between PWCC and PSA, whether as part of it PWCC is required to turn over any cards they redeem to PSA to prevent cracking and resubbing them or selling them raw to unsuspecting people.

PSA is part of a publicly traded company. They have shareholders to protect. Why shouldn’t they take advantage of what PWCC is offering to do so? They also said that the guarantee review was an option as well. I don’t see them rejecting to do reviews. I see them trying to minimize the number of reviews they need to do.

I have plenty of gripes about PSA, but I really don’t see their early attempts to minimize their liability as anything other than normal corporate behavior.

[Promethius88]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

IMO telling people to return the card to the seller, and only to go to PSA if the seller is unknown whatever that means, is not appropriate. The guarantee does not require exhaustion of remedies. The whole point was that PSA stands behind marketplace transactions, to inspire confidence.

If you have a recall on a vehicle or basically any other product, don't you typically take it back to the place where you bought it? I mean, I don't see cars lined up at the actual plant looking to get fixed. Might be a stretch, but kind of how I see it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Promethius88

If you have a recall on a vehicle or basically any other product, don't you typically take it back to the place where you bought it? I mean, I don't see cars lined up at the actual plant looking to get fixed. Might be a stretch, but kind of how I see it.

That's because the dealer is designated by the warranty to take the return. The dealer is a representative of the manufacturer. The PSA guarantee does not say anything about gong to the seller first or designate the seller as an agent.

[Promethius88]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's because the dealer is designated by the warranty to take the return. The dealer is a representative of the manufacturer. The PSA guarantee does not say anything about gong to the seller first or designate the seller as an agent.

Yeah, I get that...kind of an apples to oranges thing. While I do agree the liability falls back on PSA, I would attempt to get my money back from the person that sold it to me. This isn't with just in regards to this situation, just my general opinion. "You sold me a piece of crap, you take the time to deal with it.... return my money now". I don't care what the item was, whoever sold it to me should take their time and money to have to return the item.
As noted before, I think this will possibly their stance.
1. Return the item to the person that sold it to you for a refund.
2. That person(PWCC) can try to return in to PSA under the guarantee.
3. They get denied for violating the terms and conditions by submitting knowingly altered items.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Promethius88

Yeah, I get that...kind of an apples to oranges thing. While I do agree the liability falls back on PSA, I would attempt to get my money back from the person that sold it to me. This isn't with just in regards to this situation, just my general opinion. "You sold me a piece of crap, you take the time to deal with it.... return my money now". I don't care what the item was, whoever sold it to me should take their time and money to have to return the item.
As noted before, I think this will possibly their stance.
1. Return the item to the person that sold it to you for a refund.
2. That person(PWCC) can try to return in to PSA under the guarantee.
3. They get denied for violating the terms and conditions by submitting knowingly altered items.

What if you now discover a card on the list you bought 5 years ago? Not fair to go back to the seller IMO. Sellers who are innocent are entitled to repose at some point, I would think much sooner than that. It's PSA's eff-up if something is wrong, not the seller, IMO, unless the seller was complicit.

[CuriousGeorge]

I think rather than taking $10 to crossover cards SGC should be offering to independently look at any cards and give their professional opinion as to whether the card has been altered. If it hasn’t they can crossover and if it has then the owner can go to PSA for recourse.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Promethius88

If you have a recall on a vehicle or basically any other product, don't you typically take it back to the place where you bought it? I mean, I don't see cars lined up at the actual plant looking to get fixed. Might be a stretch, but kind of how I see it.

No. Not always. I own a Nissan Titan. I bought it used from Ford franchise dealership. When my Titan did have a recall, I didn't take it back to the Ford dealership, I took it to the Nissan dealership. The warranty it through Nissan, not Ford.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by 70ToppsFanatic

Selectively quoting me does not make your mob mentality valid.

“3/1000ths of a percent SO FAR!”

“I too believe there is more to be uncovered...”

This is still America people. Remember innocent until proven guilty?


From what has been discovered it appears that PWCC was somehow involved in some unethical and possibly illegal things with some know scams artists. It also appears that they managed to slip some things through PSA and other TPGs.

And here you are, part of a mob that is spouting off all sorts of wild ideas about PSA being complicit in this, PSA is going to weasel out of its guarantee, and other generally unflattering conspiracy theories without any real evidence to substantiate it.

PSA is doing what just about any other publicly traded corporation does when an apparent primary product/service failure has occurred; trying to weed out what of that which has come out is indeed true and what is not, trying to identify what risks exist for the company as a result of it, trying to identify other parties that could potentially be held accountable, trying to minimize the damages to the company, trying to reassure customers, etc.

It may ultimately be proven that there are 100,000 tainted items, but right now there isn’t any evidence to back that up. There is evidence that has been developed that suggests about 1,000 so far. Are 1000 too many? Yes, but it’s far from the epidemic level that the mob is currently panicking about.

For someone who claims to be so concerned about integrity you certainly don’t seem to be very worried about the integrity and fairness of passing judgment on people like myself, and PSA for that matter, without proper basis in fact.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and although I don't agree, I do respect it. People collect for different reasons... some for profit, and others for the love of the hobby. I suppose I'm one of the voices for the latter.

Not part of a mob... just someone who does not want to see the collectors get burned. PSA/Sloan's Letter directly states that the affected collectors should go to the SELLER (not PSA) for refunds. PWCC has already demonstrated that they intend to make this process very cumbersome and difficult. And thus, it is the collector who is screwed.

So while we are apparently miles apart on this, we can still have a good conversation. I don't want to see Collectors take the hit for this, and do want PSA to live up to its long-stated guarantee. Otherwise, it's all just meaningless lip service.

[70ToppsFanatic]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and although I don't agree, I do respect it. People collect for different reasons... some for profit, and others for the love of the hobby. I suppose I'm one of the voices for the latter.

Not part of a mob... just someone who does not want to see the collectors get burned. PSA/Sloan's Letter directly states that the affected collectors should go to the SELLER (not PSA) for refunds. PWCC has already demonstrated that they intend to make this process very cumbersome and difficult. And thus, it is the collector who is screwed.

So while we are apparently miles apart on this, we can still have a good conversation. I don't want to see Collectors take the hit for this, and do want PSA to live up to its long-stated guarantee. Otherwise, it's all just meaningless lip service.

I don’t think we are miles apart at all. We both want integrity. Neither of us want to see innocent collectors take a hit on this. But innocent collectors could take a hit in a number of ways. Beyond the affected cards themselves, the whole hobby could take a major hit if psa’s credibility were undeservedly and excessively undermined. Driving PSA into financial instability or insolvency could also cause a hit to innocent collectors.

I read Steve Sloan’s statement and I see a corporate executive trying to leverage what resources he has to protect the company during the early stage of a potential problem. This thing has a long way to go and could play out in many unexpected ways. Unless they have fools as attorneys I can’t believe that PSA would do anything with respect to their guarantee that contradicts what is written in their guarantee.

PWCC has admitted some responsibility for the current situation and has made a public statement saying they will do all that they can to make things right. It is not unreasonable for PSA to try and use that to their advantage, especially if PWCC is actually mixed up directly in it.

I see nothing in the PSA statement that says they won’t do a guarantee review if one is requested. And I think there are plenty of times in all of our lives that we’ve purchased something that had an issue and our first call was tonthe party we purchased it from, not immediately to the party that provides the warrantee.

Within the above contexts Sloan’s statement does not strike me as so far out of the norm.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How many years later is it legitimate to go back to an innocent seller?

What is an "unknown" seller and why did Sloan limit the guarantee to that?

I think you are being too kind here. Way too kind. Sloan should be manning up not looking to say we're your court of last resort.

THEY graded the cards not the sellers.

[sportscardtheory]

I find both PSA's and PWCC's responses to this situation pathetic and ill-advised. If they want to regain trust in their brands, they should ONLY be responsive, helpful and proactive. They are being deflective and standoffish. Bad business.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

I find both PSA's and PWCC's responses to this situation pathetic and ill-advised. If they want to regain trust in their brands, they should ONLY be responsive, helpful and proactive. They are being deflective and standoffish. Bad business.

No argument here. I don't see anyone defending PWCC at this point, and I truly do not understand the defense of PSA's statement pushing burden back on to the collector, minimizing the issue, and disowning the full scope of the guarantee. I get it of course from a corporate standpoint. Not an ethical one.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How many years later is it legitimate to go back to an innocent seller?

What is an "unknown" seller and why did Sloan limit the guarantee to that?

I think you are being too kind here. Way too kind. Sloan should be manning up not looking to say we're your court of last resort.

THEY graded the cards not the sellers.

I've seen a dealer take a return on an altered coin that was sold something more than 10 years earlier.
The "negotiation" of the return was very brief.
Hi, do you recall selling me this half dollar?
Yes, that was a while ago.
I sent it in before selling it, and it came back as altered
Oh, can I take a look?
Sure, I think the mintmark was added.
Well, you're right. It has been. I don't know how I missed it. What did you pay
I think it was $X
That sounds about right, is a check ok?

I still visit his shop, and that was in I think 87.
Of course, he wasn't the one doing the altering.

I also got a good look at the altered coin, especially the added mintmark. It was a neat learning experience for me, not such a good day for him. I think the coin went on the next trip to the smelter along with the rest of the junk silver.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I can just imagine calling a big AH and saying I won a card from you 5 years ago that I would now like to return for a refund because I suspect it's altered. Or even better, a small ebay seller. The statement is obnoxious, in my view.