Class action suit filed against PSA, PWCC and Probstein

[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