PSA reholder issues - warning to submitters

[ZiggerZagger]

Haha, and just like that... I'd messaged him this morning. From David Steinberger:

"I'm escalating your request for an official policy statement on Reholders. Typically, a grade will only change on a Reholder if the case has been damaged/compromised, or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark."

Will share whatever else comes down the road.
|

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by ZiggerZagger

Haha, and just like that... I'd messaged him this morning. From David Steinberger:

"I'm escalating your request for an official policy statement on Reholders. Typically, a grade will only change on a Reholder if the case has been damaged/compromised, or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark."

Will share whatever else comes down the road.
|

Thanks for checking into it, Jason. This still leaves a question on Rad_Hazard's case, which was apparently minimal damage to the slab in the upper right corner above the flip. I still don't get why that would be cause to reassess the grade, as the damage clearly did not impact the card itself.

[Johnny630]

If one has any flaw whatsoever on the slab and you feel it would not meet the grading standards of today I would be very very careful...I have a couple of older graded cards with chips in the back of the slab up by the label with zero impact on the card. After reading this whole thread I’m going to error on the side of caution in not taking the risk..I’ll keep it in the old holder. I’m still very happy with PSA and My Cards.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

If one has any flaw whatsoever on the slab and you feel it would not meet the grading standards of today I would be very very careful...I have a couple of older graded cards with chips in the back of the slab up by the label with zero impact on the card. After reading this whole thread I’m going to error on the side of caution in not taking the risk..I’ll keep it in the old holder. I’m still very happy with PSA and My Cards.

Yes. It sounds like I have been under a very wrong assumption about reholders. Submitting a card today for a reholder, that was graded prior to a year ago, could expose someone to having their card reholder and reviewed and downgraded, without compensation. Grading has never been more conservative at PSA than it has been in the last year.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Yes. It sounds like I have been under a very wrong assumption about reholders. Submitting a card today for a reholder, that was graded prior to a year ago, could expose someone to having their card reholder and reviewed and downgraded, without compensation. Grading has never been more conservative at PSA than it has been in the last year.

I don’t know if you right or wrong. All I know is I’m not taking the chance.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by ZiggerZagger

Haha, and just like that... I'd messaged him this morning. From David Steinberger:

"I'm escalating your request for an official policy statement on Reholders. Typically, a grade will only change on a Reholder if the case has been damaged/compromised, or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark."

Will share whatever else comes down the road.
|

This part of the statement is interesting…

“or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark”

I would love to see the official policy statement when it comes out. I think others on this thread do as well.

[Rad_Hazard]

Attached is a screenshot the message. I've removed any personal info and any info relating to the name of the PSA person I was dealing with.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Attached is a screenshot the message. I've removed any personal info and any info relating to the name of the PSA person I was dealing with.

I wonder if “current grade” refers to “the grade the card currently has”, rather than, “the way we currently grade”.

It’s obviously an important distinction, and it’s not clear to me that the author was all that precise in their wording.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by raulus

I wonder if “current grade” refers to “the grade the card currently has”, rather than, “the way we currently grade”.



It’s obviously an important distinction, and it’s not clear to me that the author was all that precise in their wording.

Agreed, it could be taken either way.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by raulus

I wonder if “current grade” refers to “the grade the card currently has”, rather than, “the way we currently grade”.

It’s obviously an important distinction, and it’s not clear to me that the author was all that precise in their wording.

Regardless of the interpretation it is good enough reason to never do a reholder, damaged or not. Submitter gives up way too much control over their property at the whim of PSA's behind closed doors policies.

[luciobar1980]

Wow. Just wow. It's truly Stockholm Syndrome with some people and PSA

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

Wow. Just wow. It's truly Stockholm Syndrome with some people and PSA

I always looked at it as they are just trying to protect the value of their collection.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by ZiggerZagger

"I'm escalating your request for an official policy statement on Reholders. Typically, a grade will only change on a Reholder if the case has been damaged/compromised, or in the rare instances of the new discovery of a previous error, like a pencil mark."

So don't send in this card, huh?

1967 Topps - [Base] #150 - Mickey Mantle [PSA 4 VG‑EX]
Courtesy of COMC.com

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by swarmee

So don't send in this card, huh?



1967 Topps - [Base] #150 - Mickey Mantle [PSA 4 VG‑EX]

Courtesy of COMC.com

Haha, no, best not.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Tabe]

Speaking of class action suits and PSA reholdering:

https://www.sportscardradio.com/card...ction-lawsuit/

[perezfan]

Here's a video on the class-action lawsuit. The guy's delivery may be a bit obnoxious for some, but pertinent information is contained within. At issue is the fact that PSA removed the card from its "10" slab prior to handing it over to the FBI. The re-holdering of the Bird/Erving/Magic card was conducted under Joe Orlando's tenure...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iLQK1zcB3o

[BobC]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Here's a video on the class-action lawsuit. The guy's delivery may be a bit obnoxious for some, but pertinent information is contained within. At issue is the fact that PSA removed the card from its "10" slab prior to handing it over to the FBI. The re-holdering of the Bird/Erving/Magic card was conducted under Joe Orlando's tenure...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iLQK1zcB3o

This should be interesting, and depending on how many people decide to join in, could actually do something as I was previously suggesting. Will remain to be seen, and won't be surprised if the Defendant's attorneys work like heck to identify participants in the suit, and then try to get them to settle and drop out of such a suit, while also signing an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) so they can't talk about the settlement with anyone else, and so the Defendant can hopefully make the whole thing go away as quickly as possible. Something like this could potentially have a big impact on the hobby, and the Defendant especially, if enough people were to come forward and see this through to trial. We shall see.

And actually like the Sportscard radio guy. he doesn't pull any punches, and seems pretty much right on the money for the various issues and such he talks about.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Speaking of class action suits and PSA reholdering:

https://www.sportscardradio.com/card...ction-lawsuit/

Interesting, and hadn't heard about this before. And since the new regime bought the stock/corporate entity of the old publicly traded company, doesn't matter who the current owner actually is. The lawsuit is against the corporate entity/company, and not the individual owners. And this is exactly why when someone buys the corporate stock of a company they are acquiring, instead of just acquiring the separate company assets, normally the liability for any issues or problems that originated before the transfer/sale goes through and are now normally solely the new owner's problem. This is exactly why people that look to buy other companies are supposed to do adequate and thorough "due diligence" before finally closing such a deal, so they don't become stuck with issues and liabilities like this.

Unless there was a specific clause included in the original purchase/sales agreement that gives the purchasing party a window to somehow go back and still make the true offending party that actually caused the problem to pay for it to the new corporate owners, the new owners may be SOL.