PSA Appraisal Values

[incugator]

PSA has challenged a few cards that I have submitted in the past year and it seems like they believe their assessment on values is the governing rule. In the past, it used to be SMR, but now they are going off of recent public sales only to determine the value of cards. They are not licensed appraisers and they are consistently referencing the submission contract even though California law supersedes their contract. Does anybody know what type of legal action can be taken to challenge PSA's authority on assessed value of cards, especially when they are upcharging people hundreds of dollars per card?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by incugator

PSA has challenged a few cards that I have submitted in the past year and it seems like they believe their assessment on values is the governing rule. In the past, it used to be SMR, but now they are going off of recent public sales only to determine the value of cards. They are not licensed appraisers and they are consistently referencing the submission contract even though California law supersedes their contract. Does anybody know what type of legal action can be taken to challenge PSA's authority on assessed value of cards, especially when they are upcharging people hundreds of dollars per card?

Not sure you'll be able to do much about it. Depends on exactly what they have in their contracts, which I am totally unfamiliar with. They are not stupid business operators though, and my guess is they somehow have the contract, which you would have agreed to in submitting a card to them, worded in such a way that you aren't able to look for some independent, qualified appraiser for help. My guess is that they have reserved that right to solely determine the value themselves, with no one else able to question them. Speculation on my part though.

Besides, the legal costs to fight them would probably be so much more than you could ever hope to win back from them that no one would likely try taking them on to begin with.

[incugator]

This is true if it does not violate California appraisal laws. I'm guessing California has laws in place that allow for values to be contested. Right now PSA is telling customers that the contract is law (which it definitely is not). I just dont know what the law is.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by incugator

This is true if it does not violate California appraisal laws. I'm guessing California has laws in place that allow for values to be contested. Right now PSA is telling customers that the contract is law (which it definitely is not). I just dont know what the law is.

That is just it, PSA is based in California, right? And remember, until just a year ago or so, they were a publicly traded company as well. Their attorneys would most likely be extremely well versed with California laws and what is and isn't allowable under them in regard to the issue you bring up. Again, am not an attorney, nor have I ever seen one of their grading agreements/contracts, but still speculate they have their I's dotted and their T's crossed. LOL

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

That is just it, PSA is based in California, right? And remember, until just a year ago or so, they were a publicly traded company as well. Their attorneys would most likely be extremely well versed with California laws and what is and isn't allowable under them in regard to the issue you bring up. Again, am not an attorney, nor have I ever seen one of their grading agreements/contracts, but still speculate they have their I's dotted and their T's crossed. LOL

I would not assume any such thing. This isn't Apple or Microsoft. I haven't seen the provisions or the applicable statute so have no opinion, but the fact that PSA is saying it or it's in their contract means little.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would not assume any such thing. This isn't Apple or Microsoft. I haven't seen the provisions or the applicable statute so have no opinion, but the fact that PSA is saying it or it's in their contract means little.

Exactly why I made sure to say I'm not an attorney, nor have I ever seen one of their contracts. LOL Purely speculating and giving them the benefit of the doubt to have put language or clauses in their agreements/contracts that gives them the ultimate authority when it comes to something like determining what something is worth in regard to upcharges for grading services. Also still think that there's not going to be enough of a difference in an upcharge for any disputed grading fee to make someone want to risk the potential legal fees it could cost to take anyone to court.

Also, I have yet to hear of a single legal case being brought where someone has taken them to court over their grading guarantees, let alone win a case for such against them. And a case like that would most likely be for way more money than a dispute about a grading fee upcharge would ever be. So again, in all the decades they've been in business now, if no one as of yet has taken them to court for the latter, I doubt anyone is going to want to really risk wanting to go against them for the former.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Double post.

Their you have to sue us in Orange County provision, which is enforceable, is a hurdle. The fact that the American legal system does not typically award a plaintiff his attorney's fees is a hurdle. And yes, the relatively modest amounts that typically would be at stake are a disincentive. Do we know for a fact they never have been sued over a grade? It's certainly possible people made demands that resulted in confidential settlements, for one thing. If I were representing someone I'd almost certainly try to resolve it that way.

[ahmanfan]

Nobody is forcing you to use PSA. If you use them it’s their rules I would suppose.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ahmanfan

Nobody is forcing you to use PSA. If you use them it’s their rules I would suppose.

Being forced to enter a contract is not the standard for being able to challenge a provision as unenforceable.

[Smarti5051]

Seems like a pretty straightforward argument for PSA. PSA grading fees are based on the value of the card, because as the value of a card increases, PSA's risk is increased (insurance, damage liability and challenges to PSA's services/grades/authenticity). PSA does not charge for services until they ascertain the grade and value of a card, then the customer is submitted an invoice for any upcharges if there are discrepancies between the customer's assessed value and the company's assessment of the current value. If the customer disagrees, he can decline the upcharge and the card will be returned without the grading service. PSA does not force a customer to pay for a higher service.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Assuming that is how it works, still a pretty lousy result for the submitter especially given the wait times these days. Closing in on a year and a half on one sub speaking of which.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being forced to enter a contract is not the standard for being able to challenge a provision as unenforceable.

What Smarti said!

I didn't think there was anyone forcing someone to enter into a PSA grading service contract. Submitters are given a choice, and make the decision for themselves then. Not sure how someone, even in a California court, could consciously accept the terms and fees under those conditions where they know the cost in advance, and then be able to turn around at a later date and come back and argue they were somehow being overcharged/cheated. Last I looked, there are other TPG services to choose from as well.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Assuming that is how it works, still a pretty lousy result for the submitter especially given the wait times these days. Closing in on a year and a half on one sub speaking of which.

Not sure what wait times have to do with the OP's question though. That is an entirely different topic that has already been addressed in multiple other threads.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Assuming that is how it works, still a pretty lousy result for the submitter especially given the wait times these days. Closing in on a year and a half on one sub speaking of which.

..PSA might have done you a financial favor if the cards are to be sold when you finally get them back. It appears anything in a new PSA label/slab is pricier today than 18 months ago. I imagine now they will expect a cut of the higher sales value . That would be only fair. We know you'll do the right thing.

..

[Directly]

I assume one can use PSA's price guide to help determine some ideal on the value being their appraisal. So in turn one needs to guess the final grade to determine the grading fee scale range?
This can be confusing for submitters to determining the final fees to pay --

[Snowman]

One approach is to submit the cards at a much lower tier than you know they are worth and wait for the inevitable upcharge email. If they crucify your EX-MT card by sticking it in a PSA 1 holder, then tell you they are going to upcharge you, you can tell them to go pound sand. If the card comes back as "altered" (when you know it in fact has not been), then you don't waste a zillion dollars in grading fees after the recent high school graduate with 17 days of grading experience deems it to have been kept in a screw-down holder (which it was not).

Honestly, I'm absolutely baffled by the level of hubris that PSA puts on full display today. There are very few companies out there with worse customer service. I recognize that it surely gets old hearing from a million+ submitters that their cards are "undergraded". I get it for all those bulk and value submissions, but when we're paying $600 for "walk-through" or $1000+ for "premium" service, we should be able to get some actual f**cking customer service. I'm really getting sick of sending in VG to VG-EX cards with no creases and really strong eye-appeal and having them come back to me in PSA 1 holders because some completely incompentent noobie grader had never seen a vintage card prior to last month's training course. Then I crack them out after paying some ridiculous fee and send them off to SGC where they get fair and accurate grades every time. It's not that difficult to grade cards accurately. It's really not.

It'd be one thing if they were off by a half point, or if the card was pretty borderline and it's off by a full grade. But there should never be a situation where a card is off by 2 full grades, let alone 3 or more. But this is precisely what's happening right now at PSA. Not with every submission obviously, there are still some good experienced graders there, and if you happen to get one that day, lucky you. But it has become clear that they are now wildly inconsistent. But we still pay as though they are not. In any other industry, the customer could get their money back when the service they paid for was not provided. We pay for fair and accurate grades. I can't help but think we're going to be seeing a huge class-action lawsuit in the not-too-distant future regarding them not providing the service we paid for. And it wouldn't be a difficult task to prove. "See this PSA 2? See this PSA 5? Same card, but I had to pay for the grading fees twice to get a fair and accurate grade on it." Again, I'm not talking about a 4 that maybe should have been a 5. I'm talking about VG+ cards in PSA 1 holders. It's getting absurd. They need to get their $#!+ together.

[glynparson]

I do not get the argument they are using market value from actual sales to determine market value. What the f do you want them to use? This seems like an even more asinine post than normal. I love when I get an upcharge I don’t whine and bitch like a fool. It’s a good thing when I get a card back worth considerably more than it was when I submitted it.

[Oscar_Stanage]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It'd be one thing if they were off by a half point, or if the card was pretty borderline and it's off by a full grade. But there should never be a situation where a card is off by 2 full grades, let alone 3 or more. But this is precisely what's happening right now at PSA.

I'm talking about VG+ cards in PSA 1 holders. It's getting absurd. They need to get their $#!+ together.

Can you share some examples? I do not think I have seen such egregious mis-grades.

[incugator]

Glyn,

There are public sales, private sales, raw card sales,, sales of the card in a different slab. If a card sells raw on a public sale for $450 but then get graded for $30, and the most recent public sale of the card in that grade is $600, PSA is says it’s worth $600. Discussion over.

-Ryan

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

What Smarti said!

I didn't think there was anyone forcing someone to enter into a PSA grading service contract. Submitters are given a choice, and make the decision for themselves then. Not sure how someone, even in a California court, could consciously accept the terms and fees under those conditions where they know the cost in advance, and then be able to turn around at a later date and come back and argue they were somehow being overcharged/cheated. Last I looked, there are other TPG services to choose from as well.




Not sure what wait times have to do with the OP's question though. That is an entirely different topic that has already been addressed in multiple other threads.

So any contract term I agree to is per se valid because I chose to agree to it? There goes a lot of contract law. NOT saying there is anything invalid about this particular contract term, just questioning your overarching principle.

[incugator]

A contract can say anything it wants to say, but it doesn't supersede the state and federal laws. PSA could say they are allowed to kill you if you submit a card with a crease, but that isn't holding up in court even if you signed it.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Oscar_Stanage

Can you share some examples? I do not think I have seen such egregious mis-grades.

I could, but I'd prefer not to because I cracked them all out of their holders and had them regraded. I don't need the BODA crew finding a speck of lint on the PSA 1 scan that is absent on the SGC 3.5 scan and publicly accusing me of "recoloring" for profit (on a card that isn't even for sale, lol). It's a small sample size, but this has happened to me on 5 different cards across 3 separate orders in recent months.