PSA/BGS/PWCC dispute or refund thread

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought it might be helpful as we monitor the response to the revelations to start one thread where people can post their success, or lack thereof, at requesting any of the above parties to take their card back and refund their purchase price, or for that matter to review it.

[jhs5120]

I’d imagine PSA and PWCC will ask impacted collectors to sign NDA’s, but I could be wrong.

[RiceBondsMntna2Young]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I’d imagine PSA and PWCC will ask impacted collectors to sign NDA’s, but I could be wrong.

What leverage would they have for that. It wasn't in PSA's boilerplate (afaik) that they'd honor their guarantee only if you help them sweep their own mess under the rug. I'd think the costs to execute and enforce an NDA would probably be prohibitive as well...

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMntna2Young

What leverage would they have for that.

Money..

Here's the guarantee: https://www.psacard.com/about/financialguarantee

"Certain exceptions to the Guarantee apply"

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Money..

Here's the guarantee: https://www.psacard.com/about/financialguarantee

"Certain exceptions to the Guarantee apply"

Here's the wording of the "exceptions" language:

Certain exceptions to the Guarantee apply, including, but not limited to, the following: the Guarantee does not apply to any card as to which an obvious clerical error has been made with respect to the assigned grade or description; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been removed from the PSA holder or any card for which the PSA holder shows evidence of tampering; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been environmentally damaged due to improper storage or natural disasters, such as fire and flood; the Guarantee does not apply to cards exhibiting environmental deterioration subsequent to initial grading; the Guarantee applies only to the grade assigned to the card and does not apply to the authenticity of any autograph nor the grade assigned to any autograph; and the Guarantee does not apply to, and cannot be utilized by, the original submitter (or the original submitter’s agents, employees, affiliates or representatives) of the graded card.

The described exceptions are fairly comprehensive, and I wonder what PSA could hope to add that a court would enforce. In my experience when I see the phrase "including, but not limited" it refers to a somewhat specific category (e.g., nonstructural repairs) that in and itself is either reasonably self-explanatory or has a defined meaning. And even at that when I use such a term I try to list all the important examples I can think of. Here, the word "exceptions" is very broad and can mean essentially whatever PSA could want it to mean. I question whether if PSA tried to include something not already listed a court would enforce it.

[xplainer]

This part is bothersome.
Last line....
and the Guarantee does not apply to, and cannot be utilized by, the original submitter (or the original submitter’s agents, employees, affiliates or representatives) of the graded card.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by xplainer

This part is bothersome.
Last line....
and the Guarantee does not apply to, and cannot be utilized by, the original submitter (or the original submitter’s agents, employees, affiliates or representatives) of the graded card.

That was my first reaction when I saw it. However, I can see a valid purpose -- to prevent a card doctor from benefiting from his doctoring. Such a person improves, say, a 3 to an 8, and then tries to profit from his doctoring by invoking the Guarantee.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Here's the wording of the "exceptions" language:

Certain exceptions to the Guarantee apply, including, but not limited to, the following: the Guarantee does not apply to any card as to which an obvious clerical error has been made with respect to the assigned grade or description; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been removed from the PSA holder or any card for which the PSA holder shows evidence of tampering; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been environmentally damaged due to improper storage or natural disasters, such as fire and flood; the Guarantee does not apply to cards exhibiting environmental deterioration subsequent to initial grading; the Guarantee applies only to the grade assigned to the card and does not apply to the authenticity of any autograph nor the grade assigned to any autograph; and the Guarantee does not apply to, and cannot be utilized by, the original submitter (or the original submitter’s agents, employees, affiliates or representatives) of the graded card.

The described exceptions are fairly comprehensive, and I wonder what PSA could hope to add that a court would enforce. In my experience when I see the phrase "including, but not limited" it refers to a somewhat specific category (e.g., nonstructural repairs) that in and itself is either reasonably self-explanatory or has a defined meaning. And even at that when I use such a term I try to list all the important examples I can think of. Here, the word "exceptions" is very broad and can mean essentially whatever PSA could want it to mean. I question whether if PSA tried to include something not already listed a court would enforce it.

I'd imagine that PSA would potentially offer reimbursement to victims contingent on an NDA. I doubt anyone would refuse reimbursement and test the PSA guarantee in court.

Again, I could be wrong. Some forum members have already said that they have cards and will reach out to PSA/PWCC. Have any of them provided updates? I personally have not seen them. I'm just assuming PSA and PWCC are sending out NDA's.

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by RiceBondsMntna2Young

What leverage would they have for that. It wasn't in PSA's boilerplate (afaik) that they'd honor their guarantee only if you help them sweep their own mess under the rug. I'd think the costs to execute and enforce an NDA would probably be prohibitive as well...

Could always have two prices, one with and one without the NDA.

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Here's the wording of the "exceptions" language:

Certain exceptions to the Guarantee apply, including, but not limited to, the following: the Guarantee does not apply to any card as to which an obvious clerical error has been made with respect to the assigned grade or description; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been removed from the PSA holder or any card for which the PSA holder shows evidence of tampering; the Guarantee does not apply to any card that has been environmentally damaged due to improper storage or natural disasters, such as fire and flood; the Guarantee does not apply to cards exhibiting environmental deterioration subsequent to initial grading; the Guarantee applies only to the grade assigned to the card and does not apply to the authenticity of any autograph nor the grade assigned to any autograph; and the Guarantee does not apply to, and cannot be utilized by, the original submitter (or the original submitter’s agents, employees, affiliates or representatives) of the graded card.

The described exceptions are fairly comprehensive, and I wonder what PSA could hope to add that a court would enforce. In my experience when I see the phrase "including, but not limited" it refers to a somewhat specific category (e.g., nonstructural repairs) that in and itself is either reasonably self-explanatory or has a defined meaning. And even at that when I use such a term I try to list all the important examples I can think of. Here, the word "exceptions" is very broad and can mean essentially whatever PSA could want it to mean. I question whether if PSA tried to include something not already listed a court would enforce it.

PSA”s risk isn’t simply whether they have to pay out financially on the guarantee.

The bigger risk in my opinion is to their reputation. First risk is if the story gets out that a large portion of the cards they have graded are not the grade they assigned. If it could be proved the grading error was on purpose, that would be worse. It would compound the reputations damage if word got out that when they have made a mistake (assuming unintentional), that they don’t stand behind the Guarantee.

In that case word should spread that they are both incompetent and won’t stand behind the service they were paid for.

Or those who control the industry could have NYT or Forbes just issue an article that paints the collector claiming they are wronged as a crazy fringe element and the whole affair is just a matter of taste and opinion as to whether alteration and conservation are ok. Also the article might point out that some cards that are altered (like the most famous and expensive card in the world) are known to be altered but have increased in value.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you're Brent, and your reputation is at stake, and you're giving refunds, don't you WANT people to be talking about that?

[MULLINS5]

I wouldn't sign an NDA, but I can see why PSA would want it.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you're Brent, and your reputation is at stake, and you're giving refunds, don't you WANT people to be talking about that?

I'd imagine no. I wouldn't want additional cards and submissions added to the list of impacted cards. Nor would I want high rollers speaking publicly about getting swindled.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I'd imagine no. I wouldn't want additional cards and submissions added to the list of impacted cards. Nor would I want high rollers speaking publicly about getting swindled.

Oh, those are going to be added anyhow, I imagine.

Not sure his best road to restoring confidence is to ask us to take him at his word. We see where that's gone before.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh, those are going to be added anyhow, I imagine.

Not sure his best road to restoring confidence is to ask us to take him at his word. We see where that's gone before.

You might be right. Either way, I can’t see a benefit to PSA, BVG or PWCC in having settlement figures and details public knowledge

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

You might be right. Either way, I can’t see a benefit to PSA, BVG or PWCC in having settlement figures and details public knowledge

Yeah, honesty, openness and disclosure are not good things from their perspective I suppose. Sad but probably true. Considering who we're talking about, why would I expect it, so naïve of me.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah, honesty, openness and disclosure are not good things from their perspective I suppose. Sad but probably true. Considering who we're talking about, why would I expect it, so naïve of me.

Openness and disclosure has only led to additional liabilities for PWCC in the past. Eventually I’d think they’d learn from those mistakes.

[Republicaninmass]

What no SGC?

Forged t206 and their answer

"Since Forgery is a federal offense, you can contact the FBI for restitution "

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by MULLINS5

I wouldn't sign an NDA, but I can see why PSA would want it.

Agreed.

[frankrizzo29]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

That was my first reaction when I saw it. However, I can see a valid purpose -- to prevent a card doctor from benefiting from his doctoring. Such a person improves, say, a 3 to an 8, and then tries to profit from his doctoring by invoking the Guarantee.

That’s exactly what PSA is counting on to limit their liability in this mess. By directing people to return their cards to the seller their hope is that the cards will be returned to the card doctor, thus allowing them to avoid liability altogether.

I just called PSA about 4 cards that I have that I believe were altered and they really tried to get me to send them to the seller. I did not buy these cards from PWCC so I’m sending them straight to PSA. We’ll see how good their guarantee really is.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by frankrizzo29

That’s exactly what PSA is counting on to limit their liability in this mess. By directing people to return their cards to the seller their hope is that the cards will be returned to the card doctor, thus allowing them to avoid liability altogether.

I just called PSA about 4 cards that I have that I believe were altered and they really tried to get me to send them to the seller. I did not buy these cards from PWCC so I’m sending them straight to PSA. We’ll see how good their guarantee really is.

I'll guess they will say that after re-examining the four cards carefully, all appear to be unaltered.

[wondo]

Originally Posted by frankrizzo29

That’s exactly what PSA is counting on to limit their liability in this mess. By directing people to return their cards to the seller their hope is that the cards will be returned to the card doctor, thus allowing them to avoid liability altogether.

I just called PSA about 4 cards that I have that I believe were altered and they really tried to get me to send them to the seller. I did not buy these cards from PWCC so I’m sending them straight to PSA. We’ll see how good their guarantee really is.

How did you end up with the cards? Did you buy them thinking them altered. Did you re-examine them and have doubts? Were they on any of the suspicious sub lists? It’s nice that 20 responses down someone contributes to the original purpose of the thread - thank you and please let us know your progress.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by xplainer

This part is bothersome.
Last line....
and the Guarantee does not apply to, and cannot be utilized by, the original submitter (or the original submitter’s agents, employees, affiliates or representatives) of the graded card.

So that's why they want them returned to the sellers.
That's about as dodgy as it gets.

[frankrizzo29]

Originally Posted by wondo

How did you end up with the cards? Did you buy them thinking them altered. Did you re-examine them and have doubts? Were they on any of the suspicious sub lists? It’s nice that 20 responses down someone contributes to the original purpose of the thread - thank you and please let us know your progress.

I purchased these cards from Ebay and from private collectors awhile ago. All 4 cards are T206. They were already slabbed when I bought them. 3 are PSA 7s and one is a PSA 7.5, so my expectations were that they weren't altered in any way. With all of the recent exposures I thought I'd re-examine the cards. Since they were in slabs already I never looked at them with a blacklight. I decided to use a blacklight on all of my cards just because, and low and behold I found these 4 cards had their corners colored. What's interesting to me is that these cards are in holders from a long time ago, so PSA missed this way back than.

I'll definitely post the outcome. I'm sending then in this week.

[Kenny Cole]

You used a blacklight? To detect alterations? What a novel concept. It's a wonder the TPGers, particularly PSA and Beckett thus far, haven't figured that out. What do we pay them to do?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by steve B

So that's why they want them returned to the sellers.
That's about as dodgy as it gets.

As a person who recommended it to Mr. Sloan by email, I think it's more prudent than dodgy. But I only recommended they get returned to PWCC, not every seller. PWCC is complicit in the scandal beyond a reasonable doubt IMO and would have to pay it out of hide.
Why take on all that additional liability when the guarantee stiffs fraudulent submitters and card doctors? If the sale never happened, the grade guarantee doesn't need to be paid out.

[RiceBondsMntna2Young]

Originally Posted by frankrizzo29

I purchased these cards from Ebay and from private collectors awhile ago. All 4 cards are T206. They were already slabbed when I bought them. 3 are PSA 7s and one is a PSA 7.5, so my expectations were that they weren't altered in any way. With all of the recent exposures I thought I'd re-examine the cards. Since they were in slabs already I never looked at them with a blacklight. I decided to use a blacklight on all of my cards just because, and low and behold I found these 4 cards had their corners colored. What's interesting to me is that these cards are in holders from a long time ago, so PSA missed this way back than.

I'll definitely post the outcome. I'm sending then in this week.

This is somehow at once totally unbelievable and utterly believable. I mean, it sort of confirms - as if we needed it - that they PSA naked-eyeballs a significant amount of these (read: all of these), and upon passing that test, there is no further examination as to alteration.

Are you going to tip them off to the alteration, or see if they even bother to check at all?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by frankrizzo29

That’s exactly what PSA is counting on to limit their liability in this mess. By directing people to return their cards to the seller their hope is that the cards will be returned to the card doctor, thus allowing them to avoid liability altogether.

I just called PSA about 4 cards that I have that I believe were altered and they really tried to get me to send them to the seller. I did not buy these cards from PWCC so I’m sending them straight to PSA. We’ll see how good their guarantee really is.

PSA can direct all it wants that a person return his/her doctored card to the seller but there is nothing in the Guarantee that requires a person to do so provided the card when purchased was already graded. A person doctors a card to profit from the doctoring, which can happen only if the card is sold already with the bogus grade. If the card doctor is not the person who submits the card for grading, then typically it would be an AH (e.g., PWCC) doing it on the card doctor's behalf. The victim in this instance would be the person who then purchases the card from the AH, and that victim would be free to invoke the Guarantee and return the card to PSA.

So, to get back to the exception in the Guarantee that prohibits the original submitter from invoking it, that exception should not have an impact upon a person who in good faith purchases a graded doctored card.

It will be interesting to see what PSA does when it receives the 4 cards you are returning to them. I am not questioning that they are altered, but what is your proof? The part of the Guarantee that could cause you the most trouble is the exception that prevents you from taking them out of the slab to better examine them. That exception obviously has a valid purpose behind its insertion, but also serves a nefarious purpose -- to prevent detailed forensic examination of the card. So you could be in a Catch 22 -- unless you have before and after pics of the card, in order to prove it is doctored you might have to take it out of the slab, but if you do so, you are prevented from invoking the Guarantee.

If the day should come when technology comes to the rescue and a new TPG forms using as it business model advanced forensic analysis to detect doctoring, at that point I can foresee a day of reckoning for PSA. PSA will of course rely on the "taking-out-of-the-slab prohibition" exception in the Guarantee to insure a doctored card is not examined by such advanced methods. People will scream how else can they prove the card is doctored to successfully invoke the Guarantee. It would seem inevitable at that point that a person will take the card out of the slab under circumstances (e.g., video recording) that will establish the removal was done for the sole purpose of doing a forensic examination that otherwise could not be done, and that no fraud is being perpetrated on PSA. A court, if looking to interpret the Guarantee exception as narrowly as possible, will try to find a way to rule for the victimized card owner, perhaps by ignoring the literal wording of the Guarantee and looking at the intent behind the exception.

The Guarantee also provides all cases adjudicated under it must be brought in Orange County, which is John Wayne territory. I wonder if the state court in that jurisdiction would take as sympathetic a view toward such a plaintiff than would a court in a different jurisdiction. In contrast, the federal court in that circuit is regarded as a very liberal court. The Guarantee does not require that cases brought under it be brought in state court only, so whether to file in state or federal court will be an important decision the plaintiff's lawyer will need to make.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Unless the card is sufficiently valuable to meet the federal amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction (assuming a non- California plaintiff), now $75,000, what's the basis for a federal claim?

[Johnny630]

What happens when PWCC runs out of money to return buyers of affective cards who request returns/refunds ? Where is their money coming from ? Is something being worked out behind the scenes with them and psa to cya ? Is psa funding them to keep up with their buy backs of bad stuff ??
Idk food for thought ??

[AddieJoss]

On Monday I received an 8k refund from PWCC for 7 cards I returned. 3 were clearly altered (only because I found before photos) and the other 4 were on a list out there but I couldn’t find the evidence myself.

Cory Weiser

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Unless the card is sufficiently valuable to meet the federal amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction (assuming a non- California plaintiff), now $75,000, what's the basis for a federal claim?

You would have to meet that threshold, which given what a lot of high grade cards go for coupled with the number of doctored cards a lot of people will have, should pose no problem for many potential plantiffs. I agree though that a number of potential submitters will have to file in state court. Assuming PSA wants to stay out of federal court, I'm surprised they didn't require all cases be brought in state court.

[MULLINS5]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Where is their money coming from ?

"over 17,000 cards, lots, and sets up for bid in our 6th Auction of 2019."

[MULLINS5]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

You would have to meet that threshold, which given what a lot of high grade cards go for coupled with the number of doctored cards a lot of people will have, should pose no problem for many potential plantiffs. I agree though that a number of potential submitters will have to file in state court. Assuming PSA wants to stay out of federal court, I'm surprised they didn't require all cases be brought in state court.

Maybe a stupid question...but what could be the benefit of PSA moving a case from state to federal court?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MULLINS5

Maybe a stupid question...but what could be the benefit of PSA moving a case from state to federal court?

PSA can't move a case from state to federal court, if it's brought in state court.

As to Corey's initial thoughts, I don't see any basis to speculate that a plaintiff in one of these cases would be better off in federal court if he had the choice. Too many assumptions there with no facts.

[bounce]

Originally Posted by AddieJoss

On Monday I received an 8k refund from PWCC for 7 cards I returned. 3 were clearly altered (only because I found before photos) and the other 4 were on a list out there but I couldn’t find the evidence myself.

Cory Weiser

Can you still bid or did you get banned? Wondering if the previous person who said that happened to them was a one off, or ongoing issue for requesting returns.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Does anyone have any dealings to report here?

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankrizzo29

That’s exactly what PSA is counting on to limit their liability in this mess. By directing people to return their cards to the seller their hope is that the cards will be returned to the card doctor, thus allowing them to avoid liability altogether.

I just called PSA about 4 cards that I have that I believe were altered and they really tried to get me to send them to the seller. I did not buy these cards from PWCC so I’m sending them straight to PSA. We’ll see how good their guarantee really is.

apparently its a great guarantee and you will be completely satisfied or it wont be worth your time to pursue litigation.

Or maybe you will have to wait 3 months or more to get a response because 'what choice do you have'

[Johnny630]

No responsibility for any card doctor, they won’t be held responsible. GM is like F them Prove it I got it in a PSA Holder so up yours....you can’t touch me....nobody in the past who got caught doctoring cards has ever been charged or held criminally responsible...these guys will continue to get around this using surrogates to submit and auction houses will only take cards in holders from people with no bad history in other words doctors will have other people submit the cards to the AH for them....the cycle will continue

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

No responsibility for any card doctor, they won’t be held responsible. GM is like F them Prove it I got it in a PSA Holder so up yours....you can’t touch me....nobody in the past who got caught doctoring cards has ever been charged or held criminally responsible...these guys will continue to get around this using surrogates to submit and auction houses will only take cards in holders from people with no bad history in other words doctors will have other people submit the cards to the AH for them....the cycle will continue

nice to see people getting their money back. They cycle may continue but will be not as big as I would assume PSA paying out thousands will make them more observant for future grading...

[Fuddjcal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwo0XHcYHBM

The Hotfoot Insurance company is offering 1 million for a black eye?

Sounds exactly like PSA's guarantee.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Does anyone have any dealings to report here?

Sadly, most collectors who've been taken to the cleaners and victimized don't even know it (and likely never will).

It is a relatively small percentage of collectors who frequent these boards, and unless the word gets out to a mass audience, the "Bad Actor Facilitators" (meaning PSA and PWCC) are largely off the hook.

Perhaps word will spread a bit further in Chicago, the first week of August.

[swarmee]

Uffdah responded on blowout that he has been reimbursed by PWCC for his PSA 10 Musial and additional ones that were fingered.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Uffdah responded on blowout that he has been reimbursed by PWCC for his PSA 10 Musial and additional ones that were fingered.

If he would have sued he could have gotten paid back last week. What a sucker.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

You would have to meet that threshold, which given what a lot of high grade cards go for coupled with the number of doctored cards a lot of people will have, should pose no problem for many potential plantiffs. I agree though that a number of potential submitters will have to file in state court. Assuming PSA wants to stay out of federal court, I'm surprised they didn't require all cases be brought in state court.

My understanding, FWIW from a buddy I went to law school with who now practices there, is that you don't really want to be in the Central District of California as a plaintiff. He won't even take a case if it will go there. Orange County is also bad, as I understand it. That forum selection clause PSA has, if enforceable, is a huge problem for a lot of plaintiffs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

My understanding, FWIW from a buddy I went to law school with who now practices there, is that you don't really want to be in the Central District of California as a plaintiff. He won't even take a case if it will go there. Orange County is also bad, as I understand it. That forum selection clause PSA has, if enforceable, is a huge problem for a lot of plaintiffs.

Doesn't that strike you as an awfully big generalization?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Doesn't that strike you as an awfully big generalization?

No, not really. Yes, plaintiffs win cases in the Central District, I'm sure. Particularly if they are corporate plaintiffs I suspect. There is a reason why there is a forum selection clause. It isn't because that is a neutral forum. You know that as well as I do.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

No, not really. Yes, plaintiffs win cases in the Central District, I'm sure. Particularly if they are corporate plaintiffs I suspect. There is a reason why there is a forum selection clause. It isn't because that is a neutral forum. You know that as well as I do.

There are probably thousands of pending cases in those federal and state courts and countless thousands which have been decided. To make a sweeping statement such as you have made, based on what your law school buddy says, seems ridiculous to me. They are located IN Orange County which doubtless is why they selected that forum, most such clauses select the home forum as a matter of convenience so they don't have to defend litigation in far away places. If you are going to make a sweeping statement like plaintiffs have very little chance in two huge districts in California you need much more support than you have offered. You're smarter than that, Kenny, I know you are.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are probably thousands of pending cases in those federal and state courts and countless thousands which have been decided. To make a sweeping statement such as you have made, based on what your law school buddy says, seems ridiculous to me. They are located IN Orange County which doubtless is why they selected that forum, most such clauses select the home forum as a matter of convenience so they don't have to defend litigation in far away places. If you are going to make some sweeping statement like plaintiffs have very little chance in two huge districts you need more support than you have offered.

LOL, OK. I bet at your firm, you don't ever talk about where the venue is good or bad, or which judges you think will help or hurt you, right? Phuuulease.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

LOL, OK. I bet at your firm, you don't ever talk about where the venue is good or bad, or which judges you think will help or hurt you, right? Phuuulease.

Sure, but not at a global level like that. As to what judge might be a better draw for a particular case, of course, but even then there is a tea leaf quality about it sometimes. But you're way beyond that, generalizing about an entire court system, two actually. And on the basis of one guy's opinion, no less. Come on.