Class action suit filed against PSA, PWCC and Probstein

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

The question should be...

How can a company who bills itself as the "largest and most trusted third-party grading and authentication company in the world" and states "when you buy a PSA-graded collectible or submit an item to PSA for grading, you get the most accurately graded collectible in the hobby", plead ignorance here? If they can't identify an altered card, how can they promise what they do?

A company that did that would be guilty of something, right?

Or am I missing something?

It seems to me, they are simply saying that they provide "the most accurately graded collectible in the hobby". This does not mean the item is 100% accurately graded; it simply means that PSA feels that they come closest to the 100% accurate threshold.

PSA could have 50% accuracy over-all. If no other TPG hits the 50% mark or higher, then PSA is correct in their assertion that they are "the most accurate".

Steve

[Misunderestimated]

Was PSA the first card-grading company ?
I thought it was the SGC predecessor run by Dave Foreman "SCG" or something..... I used to have a T205 Jennings that was in their holder which was like an early SGC holder black....

--
It's not relevant to the merits of the complaint. I just wondered...

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by Steve D

It seems to me, they are simply saying that they provide "the most accurately graded collectible in the hobby". This does not mean the item is 100% accurately graded; it simply means that PSA feels that they come closest to the 100% accurate threshold.

PSA could have 50% accuracy over-all. If no other TPG hits the 50% mark or higher, then PSA is correct in their assertion that they are "the most accurate".

Steve

In order for that to be true, there must be an enormous amount of SGC and Beckett altered cards. Anybody suing them?

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

In order for that to be true, there must be an enormous amount of SGC and Beckett altered cards. Anybody suing them?

The problem is, exactly how does one quantify the accuracy level of a particular TPG? Who do you go to, to accomplish it?

For example, in autograph collecting, Charles Hamilton was considered the foremost authenticator in the business. In sub-areas of autograph collecting, there are certain authenticators who specialize in signatures; i.e., in astronaut autographs, Steve Zarelli is probably the #1 authenticator.

In fine art, there are people who are considered the foremost experts on a particular artist, say van Gogh or Rembrandt.

Who is the #1 card grader/authenticator, who could determine, to a level that is "legally sufficient" in a court of law, PSA's accuracy compared to other TPGs.

Without a legally sufficient "expert witness", I just don't see PSA's claim of being the "most accurate", being a problem for them. It is essentially just their opinion.

Also, to what level will a court of law require, for alleged proof that the card shown in "before" picture A, is actually the exact same card shown in "after" picture B. We all have our opinions and feelings about all the cards reported/"outed" in this ongoing scandal; but we all know that pictures can be manipulated. The same card can look completely different in scans taken with different scanners, depending on the individual scanner's settings. We also know that the card stock is not always "perfect"; there are usually defects in the stock. Printing methods used for a particular card can show recurring identical defects in a particular card; i.e., 1976 Topps George Brett & 1978 Topps Molitor/Trammell. The simple fact that two different pictures of cards that show the same perceived defect(s), show cards that have different grades, but otherwise cannot be differentiated, does not mean that the cards in the two pictures, are actually the same exact card.

Steve

[hcv123]

1 - At the very least this action will hopefully make the whole "slabgate" more visible to more people - we should all forward to local, regional and national media - some of them will pick it up.
2 - This will necessitate $$$ coming out of the pockets of some who have been lining their pockets for if nothing else their defense.
3 - Attorney question - what is the yardstick here - "preponderance of evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt", or something else?
4 - Presuming something short of beyond a reasonable doubt - while I believe some of the accusations although true will be difficult to prove - others - not so much - The most glaring thing to me is that a company (PSA) who's underlying foundation is its self proclaimed ability to identify cards that have been altered, their charging fees to do so, customers reliance on the same and PSA's clear incompetence (in a best case scenario) in doing so!
5 - Even if some of what has been alleged is proven, it will be a good thing.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Without a legally sufficient "expert witness", I just don't see PSA's claim of being the "most accurate", being a problem for them. It is essentially just their opinion.

Also, to what level will a court of law require, for alleged proof that the card shown in "before" picture A, is actually the exact same card shown in "after" picture B. We all have our opinions and feelings about all the cards reported/"outed" in this ongoing scandal; but we all know that pictures can be manipulated. The same card can look completely different in scans taken with different scanners, depending on the individual scanner's settings. We also know that the card stock is not always "perfect"; there are usually defects in the stock. Printing methods used for a particular card can show recurring identical defects in a particular card; i.e., 1976 Topps George Brett & 1978 Topps Molitor/Trammell. The simple fact that two different pictures of cards that show the same perceived defect(s), show cards that have different grades, but otherwise cannot be differentiated, does not mean that the cards in the two pictures, are actually the same exact card.

Steve

It differs for different sets.

The 40's-some more recent date depending on the manufacturer, those fiber defects are like a fingerprint.
I'd think that if someone had an altered card, physically entered as evidence (Hoping I got the term right there) And the before scan, that would be conclusive. The person who made the before scan would have no reason to add portions of the card that were never there AND to digitally fake the fiber aspects of the cardstock.

Many of the earlier modern cards were serially numbered from the factory, and while the look and colors can vary, it's not likely that the amount of picture visible along an edge would change based on the scanner.
That's what the before and after scans show, things like the sole of a shoe with some sliver of background between it and the edge of the card then later that shoe on the same card touching or partly cut away by the edge.
And again, there's no reason for the before scan to have been faked. Some show slight corner flaws, and the after doesn't. Why would a seller add fake wear to a card they were selling? The simple answer is that they wouldn't.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Also, to what level will a court of law require, for alleged proof that the card shown in "before" picture A, is actually the exact same card shown in "after" picture B. We all have our opinions and feelings about all the cards reported/"outed" in this ongoing scandal; but we all know that pictures can be manipulated. The same card can look completely different in scans taken with different scanners, depending on the individual scanner's settings. We also know that the card stock is not always "perfect"; there are usually defects in the stock. Printing methods used for a particular card can show recurring identical defects in a particular card; i.e., 1976 Topps George Brett & 1978 Topps Molitor/Trammell. The simple fact that two different pictures of cards that show the same perceived defect(s), show cards that have different grades, but otherwise cannot be differentiated, does not mean that the cards in the two pictures, are actually the same exact card.

Steve

You seriously need to read the Blowout posts, look at the before and after pictures, and stop wasting our time. We are way past the “it might not be the same card” stage. There is no doubt.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

You seriously need to read the Blowout posts, look at the before and after pictures, and stop wasting our time. We are way past the “it might not be the same card” stage. There is no doubt.

Absolutely right.... Anyone still taking this tired stance is either blind, unreasonably biased, protecting his "investment", or simply in denial.

It's not just recurring print flaws, as he stated. It's the matching paper fibers and unique characteristics that are 100% impossible to duplicate. Undeniable and indisputable evidence of "before & after" alteration.

TPG and PSA apologists need to find a new argument. Maybe they can dig very deep to find a card or two that they can claim isn't a match. But that does not dispel or diminish the thousands upon thousands that are.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

You seriously need to read the Blowout posts, look at the before and after pictures, and stop wasting our time. We are way past the “it might not be the same card” stage. There is no doubt.

Originally Posted by perezfan

Absolutely right.... Anyone still taking this tired stance is either blind, unreasonably biased, protecting his "investment", or simply in denial.

It's not just recurring print flaws, as he stated. It's the matching paper fibers and unique characteristics that are 100% impossible to duplicate. Undeniable and indisputable evidence of "before & after" alteration.

TPG and PSA apologists need to find a new argument. Maybe they can dig very deep to find a card or two that they can claim isn't a match. But that does not dispel or diminish the thousands upon thousands that are.

I am definitely not "blind, unreasonably biased, or simply in denial". Neither, am I an "apologist" for the TPGs, or anyone else for that matter. I am however, interested in, as I believe everyone is/should be, protecting our "investment"; to do otherwise, in my opinion, is to admit that you are willing to throw away your money. I am not willing to throw away money, as at this point in my life, as a retired, disabled veteran who can't work, I don't have enough to throw away. I am simply a baseball fan who has been collecting baseball cards for 50 years now, going back to when I was 7 years old. It is what keeps me going in this crazy existence.

What I was trying to point out in my earlier post, is that it might be/could be/probably will be, difficult to prove to a court of law, to their legal requirement, that multiple pictures of a (non-serial-numbered) card, do in-fact, show the exact same card. I'm sure the court will require a subject-matter "expert witness" (probably a paper expert), to testify to that fact. I simply wonder who that "expert witness" would be. I guess you can call me a pessimist.

I have read several of the BO Forum posts, and agree that many of them seem to be correct in their assertions. There are also some that seem to be, to me anyway, less certain. I have not read all the posts, as there are too many of them, and I have neither the time, patience, or energy to attempt to do so.

Steve

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by Steve D

It seems to me, they are simply saying that they provide "the most accurately graded collectible in the hobby". This does not mean the item is 100% accurately graded; it simply means that PSA feels that they come closest to the 100% accurate threshold.

PSA could have 50% accuracy over-all. If no other TPG hits the 50% mark or higher, then PSA is correct in their assertion that they are "the most accurate".

Steve

And I'll add, if a card grading and "authentication" expert can't validate the most basic of criteria...is the card authentic...they have no business calling themselves experts. In fact, they have no business being in that business.

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

And I'll add, if a card grading and "authentication" expert can't validate the most basic of criteria...is the card authentic...they have no business calling themselves experts. In fact, they have no business being in that business.

You are using "authentic" to mean "not altered". PSA is not even accused of failing to screen out counterfeit cards. The cases of interest involve cards with alterations that cannot be discerned using methods consistent with affordable prices. The only reason Blowout can prove cards have been altered is that they were previously graded. Blowout is not identifying alterations that may have occurred before a card was first graded. If PSA can be shown to use reasonable methods consistently and objectively, they can defend themselves; if they can be shown to intervene in those methods to inflate certain grades in order to further their own interests, they will be guilty of fraud, or something. My guess is the former will hold and combined with "improved" methods going forward, PSA will avoid the fallout and continue to be viewed as "authentication experts", albeit not perfect at flagging alterations that are not discernable using methods consistent with popular prices. Meanwhile, the market will continue to sort out pricing in light of the inability of PSA to catch all alterations.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

You are using "authentic" to mean "not altered". PSA is not even accused of failing to screen out counterfeit cards. The cases of interest involve cards with alterations that cannot be discerned using methods consistent with affordable prices. The only reason Blowout can prove cards have been altered is that they were previously graded. Blowout is not identifying alterations that may have occurred before a card was first graded. If PSA can be shown to use reasonable methods consistently and objectively, they can defend themselves; if they can be shown to intervene in those methods to inflate certain grades in order to further their own interests, they will be guilty of fraud, or something. My guess is the former will hold and combined with "improved" methods going forward, PSA will avoid the fallout and continue to be viewed as "authentication experts", albeit not perfect at flagging alterations that are not discernable using methods consistent with popular prices. Meanwhile, the market will continue to sort out pricing in light of the inability of PSA to catch all alterations.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Authentic and not altered are synonymous. Authentic means genuine. Is that a genuine PSA 8? No it is not.

The defense of and excuses for PSA here are not just shocking, but I'm guessing self serving. They've rendered everyone's collection suspect by not fulfilling the promise they made to collectors...and I think a lot of people don't want to believe that.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

Authentic and not altered are synonymous. .

I agree they have become so, but they shouldn’t be, particularly for legal argument’s sake.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

Authentic and not altered are synonymous. Authentic means genuine. Is that a genuine PSA 8? No it is not.

The defense of and excuses for PSA here are not just shocking, but I'm guessing self serving. They've rendered everyone's collection suspect by not fulfilling the promise they made to collectors...and I think a lot of people don't want to believe that.

I'm certainly not defending PSA, but I don't consider authentic and non-altered synonymous.

I think PSA's three things in grading are:

1) Authenticity (the card is not a reprint or counterfeit, the card is correctly identifed). SGC, Beckett and PSA are reliable at this.
2) The card is not altered (or is altered and is dentified as such on the label)
3) Condition grade. Obviously, 2 and 3 are related, as only unaltered cards get a number grade and altered cards get a grade of AUTH. If you want to combine and 3 into 2, that is fine.

I, and many others think, that condition grade number is by far the least important of the three for graders. If graders can identify the card as authentic and unaltered, grade then is a matter of opinion (and, as resubmissions demonstrate, variation even with the same grader) and many collectors can make their own assessment. And if a grader can't authenticate or identify alterations, the assigning of conditions number is meaningless and irrelevant, as #3 is premised on, and comes after, #1 and #2.

PSA advertises and promotes and charges big fees that their services are for #1-3, so if they have mass problems doing #1-2 (and, thus, #3), complaints or lawsuits may be warranted whether or not there were bad or deceitful intentions by the company. Incompetency-- that they didn't or even couldn't do their charged for services-- in and of itself can be reason enough.

Obviously, some sellers were doing more than incompetence (in fact, they were very competent until they were discovered), but intentionally working to get cards misidentified and misgraded. That's when criminal charges can get involved.

[Fballguy]

Originally Posted by drcy

I'm certainly not defending PSA, but I don't consider authentic and non-altered synonymous.

I think PSA's three things in grading are:

1) Authenticity (the card is not a reprint or counterfeit, the card is correctly identifed). SGC, Beckett and PSA are reliable at this.
2) The card is not altered (or is altered and is dentified as such on the label)
3) Condition grade. Obviously, 2 and 3 are related, as only unaltered cards get a number grade and altered cards get a grade of AUTH. If you want to combine and 3 into 2, that is fine.

I, and many others think, that condition grade number is by far the least important of the three for graders. If graders can identify the card as authentic and unaltered, grade then is a matter of opinion (and, as resubmissions demonstrate, variation even with the same grader) and many collectors can make their own assessment. And if a grader can't authenticate or identify alterations, the assigning of conditions number is meaningless and irrelevant, as #3 is premised on, and comes after, #1 and #2.

PSA advertises and promotes and charges big fees that their services are for #1-3, so if they have mass problems doing #1-2 (and, thus, #3), complaints or lawsuits may be warranted whether or not there were bad or deceitful intentions by the company. Incompetency-- that they didn't or even couldn't do their charged for services-- in and of itself can be reason enough.

Obviously, some sellers were doing more than incompetence (in fact, they were very competent until they were discovered), but intentionally working to get cards misidentified and misgraded. That's when criminal charges can get involved.

I think you're splitting hairs, but if you want to put authentic and unaltered in different categories, have at it.

The point is, it seems, they're promising something they're not capable of delivering. Their own grading standards state...PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity. From this it can be inferred that every collector who's ever rec'd a number grade from PSA expected the card to be unaltered...and therefore authentic.

To me this isn't open to interpretation. An authenticator who can't tell if a card is original, isn't worth anything to me. What would you pay them for? A plastic case?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Fballguy

I think you're splitting hairs, but if you want to put authentic and unaltered in different categories, have at it.

The point is, it seems, they're promising something they're not capable of delivering. Their own grading standards state...PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity. From this it can be inferred that every collector who's ever rec'd a number grade from PSA expected the card to be unaltered...and therefore authentic.

To me this isn't open to interpretation. An authenticator who can't tell if a card is original, isn't worth anything to me. What would you pay them for? A plastic case?

You're right. We are basically arguing the same thing, but you call it tomayto while I call it tomahto. We're both saying PSA is supposed to, by their own claims, be able to identify altered cards.