A Modest Proposal

[steve B]

Well, then keeping the money wouldn't be turning away business, at least not directly....

I also think a system like that would be prone to abuse by PSA, or by the graders. Got a batch to finish up grading before you head out to a hot date Friday night? Hmm... only at 50/200 cards and 10 min to go... reject reject reject, reject...… Job done! And the company still gets the fees so I won't be in trouble!

It would also punish the people who just send in a batch of cards they bought like one dealer I asked why he had a huge pile of late 50's cards graded 3-5 that he was selling for les than the grading fee. "Oh, I send them in by the hundreds, maybe thousands if I bought a big collection. I only pull out the obvious beaters. "
Or the people who just can't spot problems.. who probably should begetting help submitting or picking cards anyway.

[trambo]

Rather than being punitive (which you can't be really) maybe if that certain % is deemed to have been altered then all of the cards either don't get graded or all of them get the "A". Not sure any of it really has legs but bringing ideas to potentially help the hobby is a good thing!

[drcy]

I would hope that PSA is conscious of submitters who often submit altered cards.

However, at this point PSA should be trying to explain to us why they should be in the business of grading cards, and have the business ethics to do so. They, of course, are welcome to make their case. I would listen.

By business ethics I mean that an authenticator's model is supposed to be centered on authentication and accurate expression of authenticity. Clearly, and likely in part because it is a business, this is not the model for PSA. The Registry is an academic folly as far as that goes. You know what the essential linguistic root is of 'authenticity' and 'authentication?' The expression of the truth and facts-- does that sound like anything near what is PSA's business model and practice?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by trambo

Rather than being punitive (which you can't be really) maybe if that certain % is deemed to have been altered then all of the cards either don't get graded or all of them get the "A". Not sure any of it really has legs but bringing ideas to potentially help the hobby is a good thing!

OK Maybe all of them getting the "A" justifies keeping the money. I was thinking just sending them back keeps the cost down and makes it more palatable for PSA. I'm a realist and realize you can't count on PSA to volunteer to give upp all that good card doctor money.

[ullmandds]

there needs to be a risk on the part of the doctors sending in doctored cards...like permanently defacing/marking cards shown to be altered...but the problem is their detection process needs to be fullproof...which they are not.

And what if the sender didn't doctor the card themselves...should they be punished?

It's not fixable i hate to say.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

The risk is financial. I am trying to be practical. I don't care about punishing them I am trying to make it economically not worth it for them. That will eliminate cheaters FASTER than the threat of legal or other repercussions or Mastro would've scared everyone straight. But if you could create a model where they don't make a profit I think they move on much more quickly.

I would also argue that the detection process has to improve LESS with my model. The submissions that inspired the idea were HALF REJECTED. By that stick it doesn't matter if the half they passed were also altered as they wouldn't have been graded.

I've submitted the very occasional doctored card. I think I had two in a bulk submission once. I haven't doctored a card since I recolored some 1971's when I was 11, not knowing in 1983 that it was a bad thing to do. You set the threshold where the accidentally submitted alterations don't result in the repercussions.

I think there are definitely issues with the idea, but I actually think it addresses your concerns quite well.