Interesting Lawsuit involving PSA card

[Flintboy]

Just read through this, doesn’t PSA also share the blame here for grading this card a 10 in the first place? Why wouldn’t Spence also tag PSA in the lawsuit as well?

[Tyruscobb]

If I accurately read the complaint, the plaintiff originally demanded reimbursement ($19,999.99) and 10% per annum interest to settle the matter a few months ago. The defendant’s attorney fee and expenses will surely exceed the originally demanded amount.

[swarmee]

Doesn't major PSA supercollector Donald Spence have enough knowledge to inspect cards he receives for signs of tampering or being counterfeit before accepting them and putting them into his set registry? I would say he shares in the blame for this situation.

If the holder is tampered with and a fake flip was inserted, I don't think PSA could be at fault.

For what it's worth, this card in PSA 10 is currently trading around $200K.

[OldSchoolBaseball]

This is brutal and could be a precedent going forward I would think. I guess there is no time limit on counterfeit cards.
Whether seller knew it was fake or not, I assume this not going his way. PSA probably has nothing to do with it as it wasn’t their original grade, flip or case.

When money is involved, the scammers always rear their ugly head at the expense of fanatical collectors.

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by OldSchoolBaseball

This is brutal and could be a precedent going forward I would think. I guess there is no time limit on counterfeit cards.
Whether seller knew it was fake or not, I assume this not going his way. PSA probably has nothing to do with it as it wasn’t their original grade, flip or case.

When money is involved, the scammers always rear their ugly head at the expense of fanatical collectors.

I think an argument could be made that PSA should have some liability. They knew of the card and were provided scans of the card and case in 2017 when Spence had the card removed from another users registry so it could be added to his. At that point they had an opportunity see an image of the card and case and did not question its authenticity. By allowing Spence to add the card to his registry, I could see an argument being made that they confirmed the card and holder as being authentic By not only allowing the card to be added to the registry but taking an active role to make that happen.

[swarmee]

Interesting contention. On a case where they have a duplicate cert number, they ask both cards to be sent in to be verified (or high res scans of each).

If the original owner in the PSA Set Registry contends they still own the card with the same cert number, then both cards are requested to be sent back to PSA to verify which one is real. That didn't seem to happen in this case, as the Jordan rookie is highly liquid and could have been sold by the original registry owner, so when Spence put in the request to have it added, they agreed to remove it.
So PSA didn't need both cards in hand, per their usual processes.

Sometimes PSA has found two real cards both originally graded by them with the same cert (mechanical error), and reslabbed both in new holders, giving one card a new Cert #. Sometimes they find counterfeits this way as well, which would have helped Mr. Spence.

[dealme]

Interesting (and somewhat sickening) situation for sure. Would there be a burden on Mr Spence to prove that the card was a fake when he purchased it? To be clear, I'm playing devil's advocate and in no way questioning Mr Spence's integrity.

Regards,
Mark

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Interesting contention. On a case where they have a duplicate cert number, they ask both cards to be sent in to be verified (or high res scans of each).

If the original owner in the PSA Set Registry contends they still own the card with the same cert number, then both cards are requested to be sent back to PSA to verify which one is real. That didn't seem to happen in this case, as the Jordan rookie is highly liquid and could have been sold by the original registry owner, so when Spence put in the request to have it added, they agreed to remove it.
So PSA didn't need both cards in hand, per their usual processes.

Sometimes PSA has found two real cards both originally graded by them with the same cert (mechanical error), and reslabbed both in new holders, giving one card a new Cert #. Sometimes they find counterfeits this way as well, which would have helped Mr. Spence.

I was involved in a situation where there were duplicate certs of a very $$$$ card (one was obviously a Copperfield IMO), both were sent back to PSA, and they recerted BOTH.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Doesn't major PSA supercollector Donald Spence have enough knowledge to inspect cards he receives for signs of tampering or being counterfeit before accepting them and putting them into his set registry?

I'm very surprised by this as well.

[peanuts]

Originally Posted by Flintboy

Just read through this, doesn’t PSA also share the blame here for grading this card a 10 in the first place? Why wouldn’t Spence also tag PSA in the lawsuit as well?

If you read through the suit, Sec. G,¶27, it states that PSA determined that the slab had been tampered with, and that the flip was a fake.
Guessing that the seller took a S/N of a 10 that wasn't in a registry, printed it up, and placed it over a real PSA flip with the old holo backing.

[swarmee]

Edit: I thought poster before you was talking about the initial purchase timeframe of 2017, not 2020.

More likely, IMO, is that the seller is telling the truth and bought a counterfeit, that they accidentally passed on. I have never heard of them before, and I've been reading trimming and fraud threads for 3 years.

At $200K each, think of how many trimmed "PSA 10" Jordan rookies are susceptible to being outed and would cost the Grade Guarantee at current market value.

Will be interesting to see what happens differently in Santa Ana when Nat Turner and new ownership team make some recommendations.

[Flintboy]

Originally Posted by peanuts

If you read through the suit, Sec. G,¶27, it states that PSA determined that the slab had been tampered with, and that the flip was a fake.
Guessing that the seller took a S/N of a 10 that wasn't in a registry, printed it up, and placed it over a real PSA flip with the old holo backing.

My bad, I obviously missed that page.

[drcy]

I'm not a lawyer, and there are many lawyers to correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you only get what you paid not any appreciation or current value.

[Directly]

With all these fake slabbed Jordan's RC problems, has this been found with Beckett graded card holders too where someone switched cards/labels or faked Beckett holders ?

[swarmee]

Beckett holders are impossible to break without pretty much destroying the slab from future use. So scammers are now selling cards in counterfeit Beckett holders, that even Beckett sometimes can't tell apart.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1435178

SGC were easy to take apart and reseal, and older PSA holders were as well. The current PSA "lighthouse flip" holders are more like BGS and should shatter/crack upon opening rather than just get frosted on the sides. So if you're worried about your cards slabbed before 2019, now may be the time to send the higher valued ones (or the partially frosted ones) in for Reholder.

Add: But if you haven't been following the altering/trimming scandal, this #57 Michael Jordan '86 Fleer has been trimmed a considerable amount of times, and received number grades from all the major graders. The Robert Block thread in the Blowout member feedback section is worth reading.

[bxb]

Is a seller responsible for unknowingly selling a fake card/slab?

Is there liability regardless of whether he knows it's fake?

And if you say yes, what about the seller who sold it to the seller? And so on?

And for all of us, could any of our high value slabs be fake and we don't know it unless the card somehow goes back to PSA.