PSA 7 --> SGC Auth

[bijoem]

It is an unfortunate situation / result.

but - this sounds like something that SGC should make good on, no?

to be clear - I think this situation exemplifies the integrity that SGC has, and I applaud them for it.

but - if you clarified not to cross unless receiving a minimum grade - they shouldn't have cracked - as per your direction.

Noticing something after seems like it would be part of a normal business risk for crossing cards.

I wonder if there is insurance for this type of situation?

[Leon]

First of all I am sure if SGC made a mistake they will make it right. They always have and I would expect them to now.

One question that will have to be known. Was a "minimum grade" requirement marked on the submission slip?

Other than those things I hate when this stuff happens to anyone....best regards

[botn]

I see nothing on their site about their liability or responsibility with regards to crossovers. Recoloring is something that could be detected while the card was in the PSA holder with a black light. They should have to compensate you for the difference in value between the PSA 7 and the SGC Auth if you placed a minimum grade request on the submission form. It is a cost of their doing business and risk they should have to assume in breaking out a card.

[Robextend]

If a minimum grade was assigned and SGC cracked it out, then I agree with Leon that they will make it right.

If no minimum grade was assigned I don't think they can be held accountable.

[spacktrack]

This situation is unfortunate for sure. However it was my understanding that the issue was resolved with Brian Dwyer earlier this week. While SGC does assume responsibility for crossovers, there are a few instances where it is near impossible to see some minor defects through a holder.

The card was submitted with a minimum grade that was lower than the assigned PSA grade. Our graders felt that the card would meet or exceed the stated minimum and proceeded to crack the card out of the PSA holder. Only after being removed the holder and in raw form was the pen in the hair detected. If any alteration was detected in the holder, it would have never been removed from the PSA holder.

Once we realized that color was present on the card, and that it would no longer meet the requested SGC minimum grade, we contacted the submitter to discuss the situation and plan a remedy. During the conversation it was agreed that this was a PSA error. However, SGC felt an obligation to the submitter because, ultimately, the card could not be crossed over in accordance with his requested minimum grade.

Although Dan is an infrequent submitter, he agreed to accept a grading credit to be used on a future submission. While the grading credit would not be equal to the purchase price of the card, since the card still retains some value, it was understood that Dan would be made as close to whole as possible. During the conversation, Dan requested that we put the card in an Authentic holder rather than return it raw, and we appreciated his understanding and cooperation in this situation.

At the end of the day this is simply an unforeseen and unfortunate situation, but we feel we did all we could to make the best of it. If anyone has any additional questions concerning our crossover process, please give us a call.

Regards,

Sean Skeffington
Vice President

[smtjoy]

Sorry this happened to you, that sucks.

I agree with both Rob and Leon, if you had a min grade listed then SGC should owe you the difference if no min then you are out of luck.

Good luck!

[Robextend]

Although not knowing all the details, it seems SGC has rectified the situation in a professional manner IMO.

[Rich Klein]

He was as he said; just "venting" about the loss in value of the card and how he was the victim of something beyond his control.

It does appear from the conversation that is ALL Dan is moaning about; nothing about SGC and their customer service

Rich

[marvjung]

I find it admirable that SGC assumed the responsibility of a problem when, really looking at the OP and reading behind it, I feel this is truly a PSA problem.

I also find it admirable that SGC felt obligated to "correcting" a problem that wasn't really theirs to begin with; in all honesty, PSA should have corrected this.

Regardless of the fact that the card was out of their holder, they were the originating graders on this. I understand that the added color was not noticed till AFTER the card was cracked out of the original PSA holder - which I could completely understand, but PSA should be the ones taking up with the slack, in addition to the auction house. How can one tout a PSA pre-war card rated at an outstanding grade of 7, only to have it comeback an A and not take some form of responsibility is..."detrimental."

Kudos to SGC for dealing to resolving a problem.