PSA reholder issues - warning to submitters

[Fred]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

My only experience with a reholdering went pretty swimmingly (as there was no slab damage to contend with). Bought a 1973 Topps #615 Mike Schmidt RC that was graded a PSA 8 PD, but there was obviously a stain on it and NOT a print defect. I wanted it rectified so Schmitty wouldn't be living a lie inside of his plastic prison. After a bunch of back and forths, they switched out the PD slab to properly make it an ST (at no charge and shipped both ways on their dime). I got the feeling they wanted it quickly corrected to forever remove this blatant error from their resume.

Attachment 551803

Does the age of the slab/time of encapsulation have any bearing on how people view the card? I've heard/read that cards in obviously older slabs may not be viewed with as much regard as the same card in a newer slab.

Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Fred

Does the age of the slab/time of encapsulation have any bearing on how people view the card? I've heard/read that cards in obviously older slabs may not be viewed with as much regard as the same card in a newer slab.

Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors?

I've heard stories about people valuing the newer slabs vs the older slabs more. I care little about the slab that it's in, and more about the eye appeal of the card. "Buy the card, not the grade." is something I've heard many times, and believe in as well.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Fred

Does the age of the slab/time of encapsulation have any bearing on how people view the card? I've heard/read that cards in obviously older slabs may not be viewed with as much regard as the same card in a newer slab.

Bottom line, if the slab appears to be older, does that "ding" the value of the card to collectors?

It definitely could when herd mentality takes over, but collectors need to look at each card individually and make a determination for themselves. With the Schmidt rookie (stains aside), it definitely belongs in an 8 holder, IMO.

And then there's this...

401. Flipper-Swiffer
A person getting a long-ago graded card reholdered in a clean new slab, for the express purpose of tricking potential buyers into thinking it was newly graded under ‘stricter’ guidelines.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It definitely could when herd mentality takes over, but collectors need to look at each card individually and make a determination for themselves. With the Schmidt rookie (stains aside), it definitely belongs in an 8 holder, IMO.

And then there's this...

401. Flipper-Swiffer
A person getting a long-ago graded card reholdered in a clean new slab, for the express purpose of tricking potential buyers into thinking it was newly graded under ‘stricter’ guidelines.

No one with eyes should ever be “tricked” by this.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It definitely could when herd mentality takes over, but collectors need to look at each card individually and make a determination for themselves. With the Schmidt rookie (stains aside), it definitely belongs in an 8 holder, IMO.

And then there's this...

401. Flipper-Swiffer
A person getting a long-ago graded card reholdered in a clean new slab, for the express purpose of tricking potential buyers into thinking it was newly graded under ‘stricter’ guidelines.

Originally Posted by notfast

No one with eyes should ever be “tricked” by this.

That is true no one should ever be tricked with the old flip # on the new flip. Then again there are many in the hobby who still can't figure out the grading scale on BCCG graded cards even though it is clearly on the flip.

[gonefishin]

I know it may sound like a stretch, but what about the SGC Mantle 9.5 that sold for 12.5 or so. What if a few years down the road the case becomes damaged and SGC decides to re-grade to put in a new holder and the rocket scientist that's doing the grading decides it is now a 9? Could the .5 of a point cost the owner a Million or so?

When a grading company charges a fee to grade a card - they should stand behind that grade and not arbitrarily decide to regrade it at a later date - period. Maybe start putting the date of grading on the label?

What if, like Beckett, the data is compromised, lost, or manipulated in some way? Where's the liability?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

I know it may sound like a stretch, but what about the SGC Mantle 9.5 that sold for 12.5 or so. What if a few years down the road the case becomes damaged and SGC decides to re-grade to put in a new holder and the rocket scientist that's doing the grading decides it is now a 9? Could the .5 of a point cost the owner a Million or so?

When a grading company charges a fee to grade a card - they should stand behind that grade and not arbitrarily decide to regrade it at a later date - period. Maybe start putting the date of grading on the label?

What if, like Beckett, the data is compromised, lost, or manipulated in some way? Where's the liability?

To be fair after being in a SGC holder for a few years it could become a 6. Just hope that the black insert doesn't harm the card from being cut horribly. I have got away from grading mostly but when I was addicted SGC was my drug of choice. I have had a few cards harmed by a badly cut insert.

Not sure if they stand behind their product harming a card. I just took it as a learning experience and moved on.

[perezfan]

They seem to have no culpability or liability whatsoever (all of the TPGs, that is).

I wish they'd be hit with a class action suit, that would ultimately force some accountability and make for even footing between the 3rd party and the customer. I won't use any of them until something like that happens.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by perezfan

They seem to have no culpability or liability whatsoever (all of the TPGs, that is).

I wish they'd be hit with a class action suit, that would ultimately force some accountability and make for even footing between the 3rd party and the customer. I won't use any of them until something like that happens.

The playing field is quite uneven. They hold all the power yet the irony is that we pay their bills. I guess there are enough people out there who have not been on the receiving side of this lopsided relationship or maybe don't know they have.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

They seem to have no culpability or liability whatsoever (all of the TPGs, that is).

I wish they'd be hit with a class action suit, that would ultimately force some accountability and make for even footing between the 3rd party and the customer. I won't use any of them until something like that happens.

Class actions, even if viable and most claims are not really susceptible to class treatment, usually don't accomplish much; more typically they settle on the cheap.