PSA 7 --> SGC Auth

[jbsports33]

I know it was a card in a PSA holder, but SGC should compensate you some how and like others said they should have inspected the card in the PSA holder first. I really do not think the auction company or SGC did anything seriously wrong, just misfortunate to you that it happened this way and maybe you can get something out of this. The only issue is that SGC did crack it and now you have no proof to go back to PSA, very tough topic to discuss because you also decided to change the holder.

Jimmy

[DanP]

I want to apologize to SGC. I left out some important details (partly because I rushed the post and partly because I'm getting old):

When Rob called and told me about the mistake he checked what I had paid for the card by looking at the auction (I couldn't remember). Then he asked me what I thought the card was worth and offered a credit for the difference. I just wanted to note that this was 2 days before my post (so he didn't offer it because of pressure from N54). I was so busy at work that the whole credit thing didn't really sink in.

I also wanted to mention that in this case I can understand how they didn't see the color while the card was in the case. I held it under a light under magnification (in the SGC case) and still can not see any color.

In this case I think SGC went above and beyond. I wasn't asking for any compensation and really didn't expect anything. I didn't really feel like it was their fault.

Also, in no way do I think Heroes of Sport could have known about this. There is no way I would go back to them with this problem.

So, yes, PSA should have caught it. They didn't. We all make mistakes in our job.

So, I guess I'll keep looking for a higher grade Flick Fan Craze (maybe this time in an SGC holder). Until then, I'll keep this card.

Thanks for all of your advice.

Dan

[PolarBear]

I'm not sure why many of you are saying this is PSA's problem.

There are two problems here. The original encapsulation of an altered card by PSA is PSA's problem. That became a moot point when SGC cracked it out.

The second problem is that SGC wouldn't assign the minimum grade requested after the crackout. This is SGC's problem. They assume liability for the card once they make the decision to crack it out.

They're professionals who get paid to make those decisions and should take responsibility instead of "agreeing" with the customer that it's PSA's fault.

It sounds like SGC worked with the customer and made an effort to provide some level of compensation. However, the solution should have been much simpler.

Whatever the value between the minimum grade the customer requested and the Auth designation is what is owed the customer. If the customer agrees to accept grading vouchers in that amount, that's up to him. Anything short of SGC providing this amount of compensation is a third problem in my opinion.

Edit to add: I was still typing the original post when Dan posted his reply above. Looks like the new details from Dan are that SGC did step up and offer full compensation for their mistake. Good job SGC. I've always thought SGC has much better customer service than PSA and I'm glad to see them make it right.

[jp1216]

great thread. IMHO SGC tried to make it right (and is still the best authenticator). Good luck to all those involved. I will always trust SGC with my best.

I'd chalk this up to a 1% occurrence. All parties can now move forward.