People use PSA because they TRUST them. That's why GEM or GAI etc no longer are worth anything...no one trusts them. Thats why their slabbed cards have value...people believe in them. Its not right to just say "oh well, the scammers are better than psa, its not psa's fault". The reason for using PSA is the trust and belief they have sold us that THEY ARE better than the scammers and their authentication is correct and Trustworthy. Be careful assuming its just one bad actor - there are likely many others - I hope he is the worst, but he is just the one that made it easy to track down via ebay/pwcc id's.
If PSA can't reliably detect these alterations (and "conservation" IS still an alteration!), then their service becomes of little value besides the safety of encapsulation.
At this point its all about restoring confidence. It doesn't take many failures on a % basis to erode confidence....and at this point without further response and action from PSA, we are likely there....
At this point its all about restoring confidence. It doesn't take many failures on a % basis to erode confidence....and at this point without further response and action from PSA, we are likely there....
That may be the most important statement made in this thread so far.
The challenge is that in providing the details to make it easy for potentially affected cards to be easily identified by flip number that could further erode confidence depending on the scale of the potentially effected population.
It’s easy to say “do what is right” in a vacuum, but if doing so runs the risk of creating more harm than the intended good then is it truly “right”.
I think that is the way that this is being looked at, and I hope that whatever decision is made it balances the needs for the greater good against the needs for just the potentially affected individuals to be protected
@graygator said:
There seems to be a recurring theme that it is unfair or unrealistic to expect PSA to catch every alteration. But we didn't establish that standard, PSA did. PSA is the one who represents that it can do it. And it backs up that representation with a guarantee that if they miss and you buy an altered card in reliance on their opinion, they will pay you the difference in value between what you paid and what an altered card is really worthy. They make no allowance for value, or for a failure rate. They guarantee it, with their money, full stop.
Where does PSA say that it guarantees 100% accuracy? Nobody in their right mind can expect that even if they did say it somewhere. This is what their guarantee says about graded cards:
"PSA guarantees that all cards submitted to it shall be graded in accordance with PSA grading standards and under the procedures of PSA."
This doesn't say they don't make mistakes. In fact they acknowledge that mistakes can be made otherwise they wouldn't need this part:
"If PSA, in fact, concludes that the card in question no longer merits the PSA grade assigned or fails PSA’s authenticity standards, PSA will either:
Buy the card from the submitter at the current market value if the card can no longer receive a numerical grade under PSA's standards or,
Refund the difference in value between the original PSA grade and the current PSA grade if the grade is lowered. In this case, the card will also be returned to the customer along with the refund for the difference in value."
How they pay you for their mistakes may be up for debate and may have room for improvement, but they never said they are 100% accurate.
I don’t think we are really disagreeing here. “In accordance with PSA grading standards” includes not slabbing altered cards. That’s one of their standards, right? And it applies to “all cards.” If they do not grade in accordance with that standard, then they guarantee they will pay up.
At this point its all about restoring confidence. It doesn't take many failures on a % basis to erode confidence....and at this point without further response and action from PSA, we are likely there....
That may be the most important statement made in this thread so far.
The challenge is that in providing the details to make it easy for potentially affected cards to be easily identified by flip number that could further erode confidence depending on the scale of the potentially effected population.
It’s easy to say “do what is right” in a vacuum, but if doing so runs the risk of creating more harm than the intended good then is it truly “right”.
I think that is the way that this is being looked at, and I hope that whatever decision is made it balances the needs for the greater good against the needs for just the potentially affected individuals to be protected
Yeah I’m just not ever going to be comfortable with the “if it’s too bad it’s better to ignore it” approach.
@CrissCriss said:
How could you even possibly begin to know to what degree PSA has “failed”? You are acting as if what has transpired is the entire universe of cards, when in reality it seems to be a tiny fraction of the number of graded cards in existence.
Similarly, the message board frenzy only represents a small fraction of collectors and buyers of these cards, so to ascribe some widespread conclusions on the overall effects on the market is nonsensical.
PSA doesn’t have to offer a forum like this. I wouldn’t be surprised if they shut it down and wouldn’t blame them if they did.
Don’t know the degree, admitted as much up front, and hope for full disclosure to be able to judge it. As another poster said, a small percentage can drive a loss of confidence, especially when percentage includes many high profile and expensive cards.
@CrissCriss said:
Prediction: several weeks from now, the money will be flowing at the National more than it ever has, the lines at PSA will be longer than ever, & if you ask 10 people in those lines about all of this, 8 or 9 won’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Probably right. Perhaps the more interesting thing will be how many of those 8 or 9 will have a clue when the National is over.
@graygator said:
I don’t think we are really disagreeing here. “In accordance with PSA grading standards” includes not slabbing altered cards. That’s one of their standards, right? And it applies to “all cards.” If they do not grade in accordance with that standard, then they guarantee they will pay up.
That's not one of their standards, that is the intent and goal of all of their standards taken together. It's the whole process that determines if they can meet that goal and how well they meet it. They wouldn't write those actual words anywhere because everyone knows that is an impossible goal.
Just an example:
One of there procedures is to measure a card. There is a known acceptable size that a card should be plus or minus a very small amount for production issues. Maybe this varies a little by year or manufacturer. I think most of us have experienced the min size issue or know someone who has. So we know they are measuring the cards.
Now lets say someone finds a slightly oversized card due to manufacturing, a miscut, whatever. The card has some edge and corner wear. They trim the card eliminating the edge and corner wear, and also bring the card into the acceptable size range (because it started a little large). Now PSA measures the card and it is in the acceptable size range. They can't detect an alteration here and that's exactly what the trimmer wants. The grader can follow the PSA procedure of measuring the card, but a trimmed card is going to get by in this situation. PSA has met their obligation as laid out in their guarantee. Nowhere does it state an altered card won't end up in a holder. Again, that's why the second part of the guarantee is a resolution to the customer if the first part fails.
So there is no 100% guarantee that altered cards don't end up in a holder even if PSA is sticking to their procedures and their guarantee.
@graygator said:
I don’t think we are really disagreeing here. “In accordance with PSA grading standards” includes not slabbing altered cards. That’s one of their standards, right? And it applies to “all cards.” If they do not grade in accordance with that standard, then they guarantee they will pay up.
That's not one of their standards, that is the intent and goal of all of their standards taken together. It's the whole process that determines if they can meet that goal and how well they meet it. They wouldn't write those actual words anywhere because everyone knows that is an impossible goal.
Just an example:
One of there procedures is to measure a card. There is a known acceptable size that a card should be plus or minus a very small amount for production issues. Maybe this varies a little by year or manufacturer. I think most of us have experienced the min size issue or know someone who has. So we know they are measuring the cards.
Now lets say someone finds a slightly oversized card due to manufacturing, a miscut, whatever. The card has some edge and corner wear. They trim the card eliminating the edge and corner wear, and also bring the card into the acceptable size range (because it started a little large). Now PSA measures the card and it is in the acceptable size range. They can't detect an alteration here and that's exactly what the trimmer wants. The grader can follow the PSA procedure of measuring the card, but a trimmed card is going to get by in this situation. PSA has met their obligation as laid out in their guarantee. Nowhere does it state an altered card won't end up in a holder. Again, that's why the second part of the guarantee is a resolution to the customer if the first part fails.
So there is no 100% guarantee that altered cards don't end up in a holder even if PSA is sticking to their procedures and their guarantee.
Maybe I am way off base, but it is my understanding that measuring a card is only a small part of determining if a card is trimmed.
On the grading page, under the big heading “Grading Standards” and the tab “Ungradable Cards” it says “PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity.” Sure seems like a grading standard to me and one they explicitly wrote. And if they miss, they promise to pay.
@graygator said:
I don’t think we are really disagreeing here. “In accordance with PSA grading standards” includes not slabbing altered cards. That’s one of their standards, right? And it applies to “all cards.” If they do not grade in accordance with that standard, then they guarantee they will pay up.
That's not one of their standards, that is the intent and goal of all of their standards taken together. It's the whole process that determines if they can meet that goal and how well they meet it. They wouldn't write those actual words anywhere because everyone knows that is an impossible goal.
Just an example:
One of there procedures is to measure a card. There is a known acceptable size that a card should be plus or minus a very small amount for production issues. Maybe this varies a little by year or manufacturer. I think most of us have experienced the min size issue or know someone who has. So we know they are measuring the cards.
Now lets say someone finds a slightly oversized card due to manufacturing, a miscut, whatever. The card has some edge and corner wear. They trim the card eliminating the edge and corner wear, and also bring the card into the acceptable size range (because it started a little large). Now PSA measures the card and it is in the acceptable size range. They can't detect an alteration here and that's exactly what the trimmer wants. The grader can follow the PSA procedure of measuring the card, but a trimmed card is going to get by in this situation. PSA has met their obligation as laid out in their guarantee. Nowhere does it state an altered card won't end up in a holder. Again, that's why the second part of the guarantee is a resolution to the customer if the first part fails.
So there is no 100% guarantee that altered cards don't end up in a holder even if PSA is sticking to their procedures and their guarantee.
I think you are missing the point.
There are ways to determine if a card has been trimmed that don't involve measuring the card.
Further, most people are arguing that its not simply that a TPG has graded an altered card; its the sheer number that appear to have "slipped through" coupled with the fact many/most appear to have come from one or two submitters. As the OP stated, what is a TPG's service worth if they can't reliably detect altered cards? And if that many slip through from one guy, it raises all sorts of theories and questions. Now it looks like he has been doing this since the mid 2000's(based upon posts on BO), calling into question the old slab's as well.
I actively collect Kirby Puckett. I have collections of Michael Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Roberto Clemente, Dwight Gooden, Tom Seaver, Errict Rhett and Evan Longoria.
@graygator said:
On the grading page, under the tab “Ungradable Cards” it says “PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity.” Sure seems like a grading standard to me and one they explicitly wrote. And if they miss, they promise to pay. I guess you will say “bear evidence” is their wiggle room?
Exactly. If the trimming left no evidence then the card will get graded. Unless there is some method of detecting trimming when there is no evidence of trimming (if by magic or something).
@detroitfan2 is correct that there are a lot of different methods for determining if a card is trimmed besides measuring. My point is no matter how many methods you come up with to detect it the scammers will come up with more. It is a constant game of escalation.
It is unrealistic to expect 100% detection of alteration in grading by any TPG. PSA hasn't explicitly stated that in their guarantee.
@graygator said:
I don’t think we are really disagreeing here. “In accordance with PSA grading standards” includes not slabbing altered cards. That’s one of their standards, right? And it applies to “all cards.” If they do not grade in accordance with that standard, then they guarantee they will pay up.
That's not one of their standards, that is the intent and goal of all of their standards taken together. It's the whole process that determines if they can meet that goal and how well they meet it. They wouldn't write those actual words anywhere because everyone knows that is an impossible goal.
Just an example:
One of there procedures is to measure a card. There is a known acceptable size that a card should be plus or minus a very small amount for production issues. Maybe this varies a little by year or manufacturer. I think most of us have experienced the min size issue or know someone who has. So we know they are measuring the cards.
Now lets say someone finds a slightly oversized card due to manufacturing, a miscut, whatever. The card has some edge and corner wear. They trim the card eliminating the edge and corner wear, and also bring the card into the acceptable size range (because it started a little large). Now PSA measures the card and it is in the acceptable size range. They can't detect an alteration here and that's exactly what the trimmer wants. The grader can follow the PSA procedure of measuring the card, but a trimmed card is going to get by in this situation. PSA has met their obligation as laid out in their guarantee. Nowhere does it state an altered card won't end up in a holder. Again, that's why the second part of the guarantee is a resolution to the customer if the first part fails.
So there is no 100% guarantee that altered cards don't end up in a holder even if PSA is sticking to their procedures and their guarantee.
I think you are missing the point.
There are ways to determine if a card has been trimmed that don't involve measuring the card.
Further, most people are arguing that its not simply that a TPG has graded an altered card; its the sheer number that appear to have "slipped through" coupled with the fact many/most appear to have come from one or two submitters. As the OP stated, what is a TPG's service worth if they can't reliably detect altered cards? And if that many slip through from one guy, it raises all sorts of theories and questions. Now it looks like he has been doing this since the mid 2000's(based upon posts on BO), calling into question the old slab's as well.
I agree with everything you say here (except that I'm missing the point, I stated my point). Maybe they should post the number of cards rejected due to alteration. I haven't seen that number anywhere. Without those numbers we can't say if the ones that "slipped through" are a large percentage or not.
I was only responding to someone saying that catching every altered card in their grading process was somehow explicitly stated or implied in their guarantee. it isn't.
Yeah, I think it’s implicit in both that statement and in their entire business model that trimmed and altered cards will bear evidence of the work that PSA can detect, but we’ve probably traveled far enough down that particular rabbit hole.
Don't get me wrong. I wish that someone could detect every altered card 100% of the time. That would be great! I would like to see some numbers that show the actual percentage they are able to detect, the number rejected or not given a number grade, compare that to the number submitted, and then we have at least a partial picture of the effectiveness. Based on the work done by the guys on the other forums we have at least a partial picture of the number of cards that have slipped by. I expect that number to continue increasing as more evidence is uncovered.
@mexpo75 said:
I really do not think PSA has in cahoots with this whole thing. I do hope there is some way to find out which cards are in question. If this is done I know PSA will do the right thing.
This
You are really adding alot to this conversation, one word at a time.
"I was only responding to someone saying that catching every altered card in their grading process was somehow explicitly stated or implied in their guarantee. it isn't."
Actually, isn't it implied? They've guaranteed that if a card is altered, they will make it right. It doesn't have conditions like "pictures aren't evidence".
"I sure hope we get a list soon."
There is a list already, what we need at a minimum is for PSA to confirm at least some portion. Ideally, though, I agree with others they should release a list of flip numbers so people can truly start the process. More on the timing of that below.
"has anyone seen one of these altered cards in hand? My point is everyone wants to say these alterations should be caught by TPG's but does anyone really know how good they are. It's easy when you can go back and look at before and after pics. I just don't know that it's that easy otherwise."
I half agree with this. In many instances, I do think it might not be obvious. The pictures absolutely help for seeing "brightness", and often stain removal. There are some where recoloring has occurred, that's one that really does baffle me how it didn't get identified. Regardless, there are many obvious instances of trimming where I don't believe anything other than a rule was needed. The Look 'N Sees and the Berk Ross are the two that jump out the most to me on that. Is there something specific to those sets that has them frequently 1/8-1/4" different in size? I don't know those sets, but it seems pretty tough for me to believe they vary that much. If they can catch that many 1993 Jeter SPs being short, surely they could have done that with these?
"The challenge is that in providing the details to make it easy for potentially affected cards to be easily identified by flip number that could further erode confidence depending on the scale of the potentially effected population. It’s easy to say “do what is right” in a vacuum, but if doing so runs the risk of creating more harm than the intended good then is it truly “right”."
I would suggest that this may is exactly what some of the involved parties are hoping for - i.e. if it's really that bad, I'd just rather not know, or at least I don't want to know everything. As collectors that make up this hobby, if we allow this to pass without at a minimum the _comprehensive _list of the cards and flips associated with either Moser or PWCC submissions, then absolutely none of us should ever again feel entitled to any protection within the hobby.
These issues have had rumblings in the past for sure, but it really took off with the Mantle 4.5. That thread was started on April 30th - 5 WEEKS AGO.
Since then we've had statements from people trying to redefine what restored/altered is defined as, "pictures are not evidence" and "think critically" videos, and statements that effectively only acknowledge that "investigations are ongoing". And yet, week by week, the "internet sleuths" find yet ANOTHER set of cards to investigate, and they don't even have access to all the data. It's honestly quite impressive what they've been able to do.
I'll leave this with a question - how long is long enough before some sort of substantive, detailed response? Again, we're a month since it broke and 2-3 weeks since the first set of flip numbers were identified.
@bounce said: "I was only responding to someone saying that catching every altered card in their grading process was somehow explicitly stated or implied in their guarantee. it isn't."
Actually, isn't it implied? They've guaranteed that if a card is altered, they will make it right. It doesn't have conditions like "pictures aren't evidence".
"I sure hope we get a list soon."
There is a list already, what we need at a minimum is for PSA to confirm at least some portion. Ideally, though, I agree with others they should release a list of flip numbers so people can truly start the process. More on the timing of that below.
"has anyone seen one of these altered cards in hand? My point is everyone wants to say these alterations should be caught by TPG's but does anyone really know how good they are. It's easy when you can go back and look at before and after pics. I just don't know that it's that easy otherwise."
I half agree with this. In many instances, I do think it might not be obvious. The pictures absolutely help for seeing "brightness", and often stain removal. There are some where recoloring has occurred, that's one that really does baffle me how it didn't get identified. Regardless, there are many obvious instances of trimming where I don't believe anything other than a rule was needed. The Look 'N Sees and the Berk Ross are the two that jump out the most to me on that. Is there something specific to those sets that has them frequently 1/8-1/4" different in size? I don't know those sets, but it seems pretty tough for me to believe they vary that much. If they can catch that many 1993 Jeter SPs being short, surely they could have done that with these?
"The challenge is that in providing the details to make it easy for potentially affected cards to be easily identified by flip number that could further erode confidence depending on the scale of the potentially effected population. It’s easy to say “do what is right” in a vacuum, but if doing so runs the risk of creating more harm than the intended good then is it truly “right”."
I would suggest that this may is exactly what some of the involved parties are hoping for - i.e. if it's really that bad, I'd just rather not know, or at least I don't want to know everything. As collectors that make up this hobby, if we allow this to pass without at a minimum the _comprehensive _list of the cards and flips associated with either Moser or PWCC submissions, then absolutely none of us should ever again feel entitled to any protection within the hobby.
These issues have had rumblings in the past for sure, but it really took off with the Mantle 4.5. That thread was started on April 30th - 5 WEEKS AGO.
Since then we've had statements from people trying to redefine what restored/altered is defined as, "pictures are not evidence" and "think critically" videos, and statements that effectively only acknowledge that "investigations are ongoing". And yet, week by week, the "internet sleuths" find yet ANOTHER set of cards to investigate, and they don't even have access to all the data. It's honestly quite impressive what they've been able to do.
I'll leave this with a question - how long is long enough before some sort of substantive, detailed response? Again, we're a month since it broker and 2-3 weeks since the first set of flip numbers were identified.
I would say the clock realistically started here:
That’s 48 hours ago, basically.
One would think a forward thinking company wants this wrapped up so as to not have it hanging over them (among any percentage of customers) at the largest annual card show.
That timeline may not be realistic. But I, for one, wouldn’t want this to still be a hot topic rolling into that week.
That’s just me.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@graygator said:
On the grading page, under the big heading “Grading Standards” and the tab “Ungradable Cards” it says “PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity.” Sure seems like a grading standard to me and one they explicitly wrote. And if they miss, they promise to pay.
The important key words there are “bear evidence.” For trimming if somebody is cutting up sheets and cards with razor blades and scissors then the characteristics of the surface of the cut edge on those cards will bear obvious signs of not being consistent with what an original factory cut will look like for that issue. Big or small the signs of trimming will be obvious and card will be rejected. Man and machine cut all these cards from sheets, so if a skilled card doctor can replicate the characteristic look of the cut expected for that issue then the card can get though because there's no issue with the look of the cut.
I am only going to say this, which is basically exactly what I have said before...
No one wants statements to be made in the name of promptness that may have to be retracted and/or changed at a later time if new information comes to light. That would just lead to contradiction and confusion for everyone. Please understand that work continues to be done behind the scenes.
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
@CrissCriss said:
Prediction: several weeks from now, the money will be flowing at the National more than it ever has, the lines at PSA will be longer than ever, & if you ask 10 people in those lines about all of this, 8 or 9 won’t have a clue what you are talking about.
If you stick your head in the sand for too long, you might suffocate. Come up for air.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
@graygator said:
On the grading page, under the big heading “Grading Standards” and the tab “Ungradable Cards” it says “PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity.” Sure seems like a grading standard to me and one they explicitly wrote. And if they miss, they promise to pay.
The important key words there are “bear evidence.” For trimming if somebody is cutting up sheets and cards with razor blades and scissors then the characteristics of the surface of the cut edge on those cards will bear obvious signs of not being consistent with what an original factory cut will look like for that issue. Big or small the signs of trimming will be obvious and card will be rejected. Man and machine cut all these cards from sheets, so if a skilled card doctor can replicate the characteristic look of the cut expected for that issue then the card can get though because there's no issue with the look of the cut.
There’s two questions here: First, can a doctor get a trimmed card through? The answer is obviously yes. I don’t disagree with you at all there. Second, does PSA’s grade guarantee cover a card that can be shown trimmed with before and after scans or other advanced technology, even if the card itself is expertly altered such that it bears no obvious evidence of the trimming when in hand? I hope the answer to that is also yes, and that’s how I read their guarantee. If the grade guarantee covers that card, then PSA is warranting that they can catch trimming and alterations and will pay if they don’t. I don’t mean anything more than that when I say they established the standard and should be held to it.
One of there procedures is to measure a card. There is a known acceptable size that a card should be plus or minus a very small amount for production issues. Maybe this varies a little by year or manufacturer. I think most of us have experienced the min size issue or know someone who has. So we know they are measuring the cards.
I have submitted cards that havr come back min size, and re submitted them and have gotten
grades on them. So if they do measure them and have a standard then they should always come back min size or with a grade (not necessarily the same because grading is subjective).
They need a fine, someone should be fired, or a self imposed punishment-reduce fees/faster turn around times.
What has PSA lost by passing all these altered cards? What punishment has PSA had?
The desire to have "faster turn around times" may lead to them not measuring cards.
However, come on, did they know Moser has been a trimmer with their company for the past 15 years ? If they know someone is a repeat offender, then shouldn't they work harder on his orders, knowing his past history ?
Then again, there's also a part of me that says the educated consumer is not as educated as he or she should be. Look at scans more closely. Look for cards that are short in the holder.
There is a 1967 Topps Bobby Orr PSA 8 on EBAY right now that is so short it's embarrassing. Not sure how they miss these things.
Here's the Bobby Orr on ebay now.
Here's how a regular 1967 Topps issue should sit in the holder.
@Rttrffg2012 said:
I’m not submitting to PSA until I see they’ve actually lost anything in all the controversy.
They are betting on the lambs to continue to walk to the slaughter.
They need a fine, someone should be fired, or a self imposed punishment-reduce fees/faster turn around times.
What has PSA lost by passing all these altered cards? What punishment has PSA had?
Unless you know something I don't?
PSA has graded cards as per their mission statement.
Bottom line for me is that I hope this works out in the consumers favor (meaning us). If PSA fails or loses big time on this then we all lose. I have invested thousands of dollars over years of collecting with the hopes of someday passing my collection on to my kids. It would be very disheartening to find out years from now that they are worthless due to company corruption or card alterations.
@pab1969 said:
Bottom line for me is that I hope this works out in the consumers favor (meaning us). If PSA fails or loses big time on this then we all lose. I have invested thousands of dollars over years of collecting with the hopes of someday passing my collection on to my kids. It would be very disheartening to find out years from now that they are worthless due to company corruption or card alterations.
I can find for you a long line of collectors who thought, ‘Well, this is the market top’ or ‘it can’t go any higher’ or ‘I better get out now before it tanks’ and most, if given a do over, would have held on longer and cashed out later on...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I actually agree with CrissCriss..think of how many people out there buy PSA cards on Ebay, but don't have time or the need to go to various collector forums...I would bet a heavy portion of the collector population have no idea about the current controversies -- right or wrong. I wouldn't have had any idea had I not read about it in the PSA forum. Cards are still going up...Kawhi SP Authentic rookie has gone from $40 to $110 since mid-May....I guess we shall see how it all plays out, but for now, hundreds of thousands of cards continue to change hands...hopefully that continues once the results of this controversy come to fruition.
Guys, I am going to give this one last warning before shutting this thread down. Constructive discussion, point-and-counterpoint, debate... All of that is ok with me. Badmouthing individuals, jailhouse jokes, individual slamming... Absolutely not ok.
I want to allow healthy discussion because this is a topic of concern to us all. But keep it within the limits. And yes, I have deleted a few posts.
Todd Tobias - Grateful Collector - I focus on autographed American Football League sets, Fleer & Topps, 1960-1969, and lacrosse cards.
Does anyone know if PSA cards a digital record of every card (front and back) they grade? It would seem to me that if something like this existed, a lot of the trimming issues would/should have been caught by PSA. This would be extremely helpful in situations where serial-numbered modern cards as well as vintage cards with poor card stock get trimmed and regraded.
The existence of external historical platforms like Worthpoint is how this current problem was discovered. It's great that sites like that exist for collectors to do their homework but this is an issue that should have been discovered long before hundreds (and quite possibly thousands) of trimmed cards had been incorrectly regraded and are now in the marketplace.
Prior to working at PSA, Steve Sloan worked for Upper Deck Authenticated and they have a step in their authentication process of scanning every item after they authenticated it and uploading it online so he has experience in setting up something similar for PSA if it doesn't exist already.
They need a fine, someone should be fired, or a self imposed punishment-reduce fees/faster turn around times.
What has PSA lost by passing all these altered cards? What punishment has PSA had?
The desire to have "faster turn around times" may lead to them not measuring cards.
However, come on, did they know Moser has been a trimmer with their company for the past 15 years ? If they know someone is a repeat offender, then shouldn't they work harder on his orders, knowing his past history ?
Then again, there's also a part of me that says the educated consumer is not as educated as he or she should be. Look at scans more closely. Look for cards that are short in the holder.
There is a 1967 Topps Bobby Orr PSA 8 on EBAY right now that is so short it's embarrassing. Not sure how they miss these things.
Here's the Bobby Orr on ebay now.
Here's how a regular 1967 Topps issue should sit in the holder.
1000 to 1 the Orr would be 3.5 inches long if cracked out and measured. Any card that is standard size will leave significant room in the holder and that card is partially under the bottom ridge.
The Green is clearly oversized. No TPG would create a holder whose fit was that close to 3.5 X 2.5 given the size variations with vintage cards and some modern sets. That would be ridiculous. The Green barely fits.
There's no such thing as a "standard" size for vintage sets. They're all over the place.
They need a fine, someone should be fired, or a self imposed punishment-reduce fees/faster turn around times.
What has PSA lost by passing all these altered cards? What punishment has PSA had?
The desire to have "faster turn around times" may lead to them not measuring cards.
However, come on, did they know Moser has been a trimmer with their company for the past 15 years ? If they know someone is a repeat offender, then shouldn't they work harder on his orders, knowing his past history ?
Then again, there's also a part of me that says the educated consumer is not as educated as he or she should be. Look at scans more closely. Look for cards that are short in the holder.
There is a 1967 Topps Bobby Orr PSA 8 on EBAY right now that is so short it's embarrassing. Not sure how they miss these things.
Here's the Bobby Orr on ebay now.
Here's how a regular 1967 Topps issue should sit in the holder.
1000 to 1 the Orr would be 3.5 inches long if cracked out and measured. Any card that is standard size will leave significant room in the holder and that card is partially under the bottom ridge.
The Green is clearly oversized. No TPG would create a holder whose fit was that close to 3.5 X 2.5 given the size variations with vintage cards and some modern sets. That would be ridiculous. The Green barely fits.
There's no such thing as a "standard" size for vintage sets. They're all over the place.
Pictures of cards really don't prove anything.
VERY few cards slip through.
Please take a deep breath and try to relax a little.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
There seems to be a strong bias across the many message boards that is anti-PSA and looking for PSA to be “punished” in some way.
Sorry, but I just don’t see it that way. I think someone deserving of punishment needs to have purposely done something, or tried to do something, that they knew was wrong. In what way did PSA have any sort of malicious or malevolent intent with respect to the current situation?
That some altered cards made it into slabs I won’t debate. That I am upset about and concerned by it I cannot deny. But I don’t see any evidence that PSA deliberately allowed this to happen or looked the other way to allow it to happen. They also never claimed that they were perfect, as is evidenced by the fact that they offer their guarantee which basically admits that they believe they can err.
As for psa’s response to this situation, I think they are in a tough position trying to balance a number of competing issues to arrive at as optimal an outcome as they can arrive at. And I think we need to be honest with ourselves and fair in our expectations of PSA and evaluation of how they decide to respond.
At the top of that list I would think that they are concerned about the interests of the company and the stockholders above all. But how is that different from what any other person or company would be naturally inclined to consider first? It’s human nature to want to protect “yourself”.
I also believe that PSA honestly does care about trying to maximize the interests of the other stakeholders in the hobby, but slightly subordinated to protecting themselves as just about anyone else would do if facing an equivalent threat in their business or personal life.
I think the fact that psa’s self-preservation is getting prioritized slightly over altruism is what is really fanning the ire that we are seeing on the message boards. But for all of those throwing stones at PSA I would really like to see how you would be doing things so differently if you were in their position. It’s easy to say that you would sacrifice yourself for the good of the many when facing a hypothetical crisis, but when actually faced with that position my experience is that human nature kicks in and that most usually protect themselves first.
Being someone who could be substantially damaged by a market crash in the hobby I am certainly not pleased. However, the people who are responsible for this are not PSA. It’s the card doctors and the marketing entities that know who they are and yet still “front” for them that are the bad guys.
As for PSA, the only things I think I have a right to expect from them are:
1) efforts to improve from where they are now and demonstrable evidence that they are doing so or at least trying to do so
2) never ending efforts to legally go after, criminally and/or civilly, the bad actors who are believed to be responsible this situation. Only by continuing to try to cause and causing adverse consequences for bad actors is a meaningful deterrent ever going to get established.
3) efforts to reassure the hobby and prevent a wide scale panic. This is a subjective expectation, as what may be helpful and reassuring to some could result in adverse consequences to others. All I am sure of on this is that no matter what is done, some stakeholders are not going to be happy and will complain that something else should have been done instead.
4) for people who believe they have been directly impacted that cannot get satisfactory relief via the sellers PSA needs to accept requests for guarantee reviews, avoiding the temptation to simply re-certify these items en mass just to avoid the monetary consequences and/or diminished brand reliability consequences.
As long as PSA communicates and demonstrates that it is actually doing something in each of those areas I think they cannot be accused of not holding up their side of things.
Some of us may not agree with HOW they act in each of these dimensions, but I think that will very much correspond to the amount of adverse impact an individual experiences as a result of the actions taken or not taken.
We’ve lived through things like this before. Just a few years ago a similar thing happened with a number of homemade vintage cello packs that made it into slabs. Some were “outed” and removed from circulation in the hobby. Others are still circulating in the hobby and may never be detected for any number of reasons. As an unopened collector the fact that even a single one of these cellos exists in a slab angers me to no end, but I balance that against a confidence that the vast majority of slabbed cellos are exactly what they are supposed to be because I know the people doing the authentication work are truly experts and have a long history of personal and professional integrity.
Perfection is NOT an option. PSA never claimed it and anyone who perceived that this was psa’s message is not being honest with themselves. PSA does the best that it can, and so far no one has turned up anything to suggest that despite what is coming to light now, they are not very, very good at what they do.
Could psa be better/improved? Undoubtedly!
But is PSA willfully trying to mislead, or otherwise do things with malicious intent or deliberate ignorance? Never has and never will. The officers of public companies don’t want to risk criminal investigation and/or prosecution.
i hope that those who take the time to read this reflect and think about it. It would be nice to see what so far has mostly been an angry mob, when looking in aggregate across the message boards, transformed into something more controlled and fair.
Mob mentality is most likely to risk increasing the damage for all stakeholders. What is needed now is rationale thought, realistic expectations and well conceived action plans.
And lastly I think kudos are in order for Todd and PSA with regard to an obvious change in approach to allowing discussions like these to continue on the CU forums. Avoiding censorship and allowing the free exchange of constructive and respectful ideas is to be applauded and commended.
I think the reason people are upset with PSA is because PSA is a trusted company. People put their hard earned money into that trust. Then they discover that something they spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars on is altered. Where does that leave them now? If I had spent thousands on their cards, I would be angry too. They are trusted. If they did it on purpose or not is irrelevent. There are a lot of people that are hurting right now because they trusted the PSA brand. Yeah, they have a right to be angry. They trusted their brand.
@doubledragon said:
I think the reason people are upset with PSA is because PSA is a trusted company. People put their hard earned money into that trust. Then they discover that something they spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars on is altered. Where does that leave them now? If I had spent thousands on their cards, I would be angry too. They are trusted. If they did it on purpose or not is irrelevent. There are a lot of people that are hurting right now because they trusted the PSA brand. Yeah, they have a right to be angry. They trusted their brand.
But what exactly, other than apparently not being perfect, did PSA itself do that violated that trust?
And In the midst of a problem with some many aspects as this, i don’t see that taking sufficient time before publicly responding constitutes such a violation. Does anyone honestly believe that they just sat there doing nothing since they first became aware of the situation? Just because we can’t see behind the curtain does not mean that they aren’t aggressively working on this.
Would I like to have seen a quick/faster response by PSA? Absolutely. But realistically I would be lying to myself if I actually thought that it was actually achievable.
Just as in the past with similar incidents this is going to take some time to figure out. There are too many things that need to be understood.
We are all angered/concerned/etc. but prematurely condemning the stakeholder with the best knowledge, resources, ability and motivation to try to get things rectified seems unfair and counterproductive to me.
@doubledragon said:
I think the reason people are upset with PSA is because PSA is a trusted company. People put their hard earned money into that trust. Then they discover that something they spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars on is altered. Where does that leave them now? If I had spent thousands on their cards, I would be angry too. They are trusted. If they did it on purpose or not is irrelevent. There are a lot of people that are hurting right now because they trusted the PSA brand. Yeah, they have a right to be angry. They trusted their brand.
I still trust PSA.
Proof is in the middle of this, I sent them my white whale.
I’ve been following along closely (with less concern that others because I self submit my collection and measure/grade myself beforehand) and I have never seen anything that suggests PSA was complicit here. What most people seem upset about is that PSA is not perfect. If this is a revelation to some, here’s a little lesson.
Most ‘agencies’ are formed to create consumer confidence and to facilitate fair trade in response to a crisis in the market.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FDIC was formed in response to the Great Stock Market crash on 1929.
The Food and Drug Administration was formed after Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle and exposes the unsanitary conditions in meatpacking plants.
The New York Tenement Act improved housing in NYC slums and held the slumlords to account for improvements in living conditions. A national movement followed in the nations big cities.
Similarly, PSA was formed to have an agency to govern fair play in the card market.
None of these agencies can possibly combat all fraud but each plays a significant role in the market place in attempting to do so.
PSA curtails a significant amount of fraud. All agencies do. However, to expect a small handful of people to govern a marketplace and containing millions of products eliminate all nefarious actors is not realistic.
Madoff’s will still happen.
Bad meat will still make it to the market.
The NYCHA Crisis is on the near 130th anniversary of How the Other Half Lives publication.
That’s the reality of it. That’s always been the reality of it. Again, I hope it leads to reforms like other scandals have but at the end of the day, blaming PSA is a bit of a fools errand unless their is some overt act of complicity.
To this point, from what I have seen, there has been none.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I’ll start off by saying I’m no expert, and I’m in no way comparing slabbed altered cards with murder, but... I just finished a podcast about the Tylenol murders back in 1982. Johnson and Johnson’s response and behavior in that very public forum was apparently so perfect that it is taught in classes as a case study in what to do from a PR perspective. They were initially hesitant to recall $100 million worth of Tylenol, but they did it. The CEO made the circuit on the news shows to talk about what J&J were doing to make sure that the situation would never occur again. Every button they pushed was apparently the right one.
Again, there’s no comparing the 2 situations from a damage or visibility perspective (no matter how big this scandal gets, it won’t come near the level of coverage of the Tylenol situation), but I hope that PSA is willing to “take a short term hit” for the longer term greater good if it turns out that there’s something they need to do. Is “recalling all of the Tylenol” equivalent to PSA recalling all cards in submissions with cards that have been found to show evidence of alteration, reviewing them free of charge, and buying the card/paying out the difference where they detect a mistake was made? Should CEOs and bosses get in front of forums, the National, etc. and go on a media blitz of sorts like J&J did (though on the smaller scale that card collectibles require)? Who knows, but I hope they show some humility to try to win back those who have lost some faith...
Unless customers complain loudly and with their pocketbooks, a public company in an unregulated industry is extremely unlikely to do anything. I think we can realistically only expect PSA to make improvements to catch what these guys are doing if not catching it hurts the bottom line more than the expense of developing methods to detect the alterations. PSA May start to feel that pressure through public complaint from its customers but will only really feel it when the bottom line moves.
If we want a better PSA we have to demand it loudly and clearly.
@doubledragon said:
I think the reason people are upset with PSA is because PSA is a trusted company. People put their hard earned money into that trust. Then they discover that something they spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars on is altered. Where does that leave them now? If I had spent thousands on their cards, I would be angry too. They are trusted. If they did it on purpose or not is irrelevent. There are a lot of people that are hurting right now because they trusted the PSA brand. Yeah, they have a right to be angry. They trusted their brand.
How is it irrelevant whether they colluded with fraudsters or not?? You couldn’t be more wrong.
Comments
People use PSA because they TRUST them. That's why GEM or GAI etc no longer are worth anything...no one trusts them. Thats why their slabbed cards have value...people believe in them. Its not right to just say "oh well, the scammers are better than psa, its not psa's fault". The reason for using PSA is the trust and belief they have sold us that THEY ARE better than the scammers and their authentication is correct and Trustworthy. Be careful assuming its just one bad actor - there are likely many others - I hope he is the worst, but he is just the one that made it easy to track down via ebay/pwcc id's.
If PSA can't reliably detect these alterations (and "conservation" IS still an alteration!), then their service becomes of little value besides the safety of encapsulation.
At this point its all about restoring confidence. It doesn't take many failures on a % basis to erode confidence....and at this point without further response and action from PSA, we are likely there....
Topps Heritage - Trade Page
That may be the most important statement made in this thread so far.
The challenge is that in providing the details to make it easy for potentially affected cards to be easily identified by flip number that could further erode confidence depending on the scale of the potentially effected population.
It’s easy to say “do what is right” in a vacuum, but if doing so runs the risk of creating more harm than the intended good then is it truly “right”.
I think that is the way that this is being looked at, and I hope that whatever decision is made it balances the needs for the greater good against the needs for just the potentially affected individuals to be protected
Dave
Where does PSA say that it guarantees 100% accuracy? Nobody in their right mind can expect that even if they did say it somewhere. This is what their guarantee says about graded cards:
"PSA guarantees that all cards submitted to it shall be graded in accordance with PSA grading standards and under the procedures of PSA."
https://psacard.com/about/financialguarantee/
This doesn't say they don't make mistakes. In fact they acknowledge that mistakes can be made otherwise they wouldn't need this part:
"If PSA, in fact, concludes that the card in question no longer merits the PSA grade assigned or fails PSA’s authenticity standards, PSA will either:
Buy the card from the submitter at the current market value if the card can no longer receive a numerical grade under PSA's standards or,
Refund the difference in value between the original PSA grade and the current PSA grade if the grade is lowered. In this case, the card will also be returned to the customer along with the refund for the difference in value."
How they pay you for their mistakes may be up for debate and may have room for improvement, but they never said they are 100% accurate.
Kris
My 1971 Topps adventure - Davis Men in Black
I don’t think we are really disagreeing here. “In accordance with PSA grading standards” includes not slabbing altered cards. That’s one of their standards, right? And it applies to “all cards.” If they do not grade in accordance with that standard, then they guarantee they will pay up.
Yeah I’m just not ever going to be comfortable with the “if it’s too bad it’s better to ignore it” approach.
Two more ‘52 Topps Mantles...
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1298306
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Don’t know the degree, admitted as much up front, and hope for full disclosure to be able to judge it. As another poster said, a small percentage can drive a loss of confidence, especially when percentage includes many high profile and expensive cards.
Objectivist author Leonard Peikoff said it best:
Probably right. Perhaps the more interesting thing will be how many of those 8 or 9 will have a clue when the National is over.
That's not one of their standards, that is the intent and goal of all of their standards taken together. It's the whole process that determines if they can meet that goal and how well they meet it. They wouldn't write those actual words anywhere because everyone knows that is an impossible goal.
Just an example:
One of there procedures is to measure a card. There is a known acceptable size that a card should be plus or minus a very small amount for production issues. Maybe this varies a little by year or manufacturer. I think most of us have experienced the min size issue or know someone who has. So we know they are measuring the cards.
Now lets say someone finds a slightly oversized card due to manufacturing, a miscut, whatever. The card has some edge and corner wear. They trim the card eliminating the edge and corner wear, and also bring the card into the acceptable size range (because it started a little large). Now PSA measures the card and it is in the acceptable size range. They can't detect an alteration here and that's exactly what the trimmer wants. The grader can follow the PSA procedure of measuring the card, but a trimmed card is going to get by in this situation. PSA has met their obligation as laid out in their guarantee. Nowhere does it state an altered card won't end up in a holder. Again, that's why the second part of the guarantee is a resolution to the customer if the first part fails.
So there is no 100% guarantee that altered cards don't end up in a holder even if PSA is sticking to their procedures and their guarantee.
Kris
My 1971 Topps adventure - Davis Men in Black
Maybe I am way off base, but it is my understanding that measuring a card is only a small part of determining if a card is trimmed.
On the grading page, under the big heading “Grading Standards” and the tab “Ungradable Cards” it says “PSA will not grade cards that bear evidence of trimming, re-coloring, restoration, or any other forms of tampering, or are of questionable authenticity.” Sure seems like a grading standard to me and one they explicitly wrote. And if they miss, they promise to pay.
I think you are missing the point.
There are ways to determine if a card has been trimmed that don't involve measuring the card.
Further, most people are arguing that its not simply that a TPG has graded an altered card; its the sheer number that appear to have "slipped through" coupled with the fact many/most appear to have come from one or two submitters. As the OP stated, what is a TPG's service worth if they can't reliably detect altered cards? And if that many slip through from one guy, it raises all sorts of theories and questions. Now it looks like he has been doing this since the mid 2000's(based upon posts on BO), calling into question the old slab's as well.
I actively collect Kirby Puckett. I have collections of Michael Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Roberto Clemente, Dwight Gooden, Tom Seaver, Errict Rhett and Evan Longoria.
Exactly. If the trimming left no evidence then the card will get graded. Unless there is some method of detecting trimming when there is no evidence of trimming (if by magic or something).
@detroitfan2 is correct that there are a lot of different methods for determining if a card is trimmed besides measuring. My point is no matter how many methods you come up with to detect it the scammers will come up with more. It is a constant game of escalation.
It is unrealistic to expect 100% detection of alteration in grading by any TPG. PSA hasn't explicitly stated that in their guarantee.
Kris
My 1971 Topps adventure - Davis Men in Black
I agree with everything you say here (except that I'm missing the point, I stated my point). Maybe they should post the number of cards rejected due to alteration. I haven't seen that number anywhere. Without those numbers we can't say if the ones that "slipped through" are a large percentage or not.
I was only responding to someone saying that catching every altered card in their grading process was somehow explicitly stated or implied in their guarantee. it isn't.
Kris
My 1971 Topps adventure - Davis Men in Black
Yeah, I think it’s implicit in both that statement and in their entire business model that trimmed and altered cards will bear evidence of the work that PSA can detect, but we’ve probably traveled far enough down that particular rabbit hole.
Don't get me wrong. I wish that someone could detect every altered card 100% of the time. That would be great! I would like to see some numbers that show the actual percentage they are able to detect, the number rejected or not given a number grade, compare that to the number submitted, and then we have at least a partial picture of the effectiveness. Based on the work done by the guys on the other forums we have at least a partial picture of the number of cards that have slipped by. I expect that number to continue increasing as more evidence is uncovered.
Kris
My 1971 Topps adventure - Davis Men in Black
You are really adding alot to this conversation, one word at a time.
"I was only responding to someone saying that catching every altered card in their grading process was somehow explicitly stated or implied in their guarantee. it isn't."
Actually, isn't it implied? They've guaranteed that if a card is altered, they will make it right. It doesn't have conditions like "pictures aren't evidence".
"I sure hope we get a list soon."
There is a list already, what we need at a minimum is for PSA to confirm at least some portion. Ideally, though, I agree with others they should release a list of flip numbers so people can truly start the process. More on the timing of that below.
"has anyone seen one of these altered cards in hand? My point is everyone wants to say these alterations should be caught by TPG's but does anyone really know how good they are. It's easy when you can go back and look at before and after pics. I just don't know that it's that easy otherwise."
I half agree with this. In many instances, I do think it might not be obvious. The pictures absolutely help for seeing "brightness", and often stain removal. There are some where recoloring has occurred, that's one that really does baffle me how it didn't get identified. Regardless, there are many obvious instances of trimming where I don't believe anything other than a rule was needed. The Look 'N Sees and the Berk Ross are the two that jump out the most to me on that. Is there something specific to those sets that has them frequently 1/8-1/4" different in size? I don't know those sets, but it seems pretty tough for me to believe they vary that much. If they can catch that many 1993 Jeter SPs being short, surely they could have done that with these?
"The challenge is that in providing the details to make it easy for potentially affected cards to be easily identified by flip number that could further erode confidence depending on the scale of the potentially effected population. It’s easy to say “do what is right” in a vacuum, but if doing so runs the risk of creating more harm than the intended good then is it truly “right”."
I would suggest that this may is exactly what some of the involved parties are hoping for - i.e. if it's really that bad, I'd just rather not know, or at least I don't want to know everything. As collectors that make up this hobby, if we allow this to pass without at a minimum the _comprehensive _list of the cards and flips associated with either Moser or PWCC submissions, then absolutely none of us should ever again feel entitled to any protection within the hobby.
These issues have had rumblings in the past for sure, but it really took off with the Mantle 4.5. That thread was started on April 30th - 5 WEEKS AGO.
Since then we've had statements from people trying to redefine what restored/altered is defined as, "pictures are not evidence" and "think critically" videos, and statements that effectively only acknowledge that "investigations are ongoing". And yet, week by week, the "internet sleuths" find yet ANOTHER set of cards to investigate, and they don't even have access to all the data. It's honestly quite impressive what they've been able to do.
I'll leave this with a question - how long is long enough before some sort of substantive, detailed response? Again, we're a month since it broke and 2-3 weeks since the first set of flip numbers were identified.
I would say the clock realistically started here:
That’s 48 hours ago, basically.
One would think a forward thinking company wants this wrapped up so as to not have it hanging over them (among any percentage of customers) at the largest annual card show.
That timeline may not be realistic. But I, for one, wouldn’t want this to still be a hot topic rolling into that week.
That’s just me.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The important key words there are “bear evidence.” For trimming if somebody is cutting up sheets and cards with razor blades and scissors then the characteristics of the surface of the cut edge on those cards will bear obvious signs of not being consistent with what an original factory cut will look like for that issue. Big or small the signs of trimming will be obvious and card will be rejected. Man and machine cut all these cards from sheets, so if a skilled card doctor can replicate the characteristic look of the cut expected for that issue then the card can get though because there's no issue with the look of the cut.
I am only going to say this, which is basically exactly what I have said before...
No one wants statements to be made in the name of promptness that may have to be retracted and/or changed at a later time if new information comes to light. That would just lead to contradiction and confusion for everyone. Please understand that work continues to be done behind the scenes.
If you stick your head in the sand for too long, you might suffocate. Come up for air.
There’s two questions here: First, can a doctor get a trimmed card through? The answer is obviously yes. I don’t disagree with you at all there. Second, does PSA’s grade guarantee cover a card that can be shown trimmed with before and after scans or other advanced technology, even if the card itself is expertly altered such that it bears no obvious evidence of the trimming when in hand? I hope the answer to that is also yes, and that’s how I read their guarantee. If the grade guarantee covers that card, then PSA is warranting that they can catch trimming and alterations and will pay if they don’t. I don’t mean anything more than that when I say they established the standard and should be held to it.
My only contribution is about grading that we all agree - it's subjective.
Last year:
"same card" - year before:
Conclusion?
None.
It's subjective and "subject" to the grader that day.
I have submitted cards that havr come back min size, and re submitted them and have gotten
grades on them. So if they do measure them and have a standard then they should always come back min size or with a grade (not necessarily the same because grading is subjective).
In before the lock!
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
That's pretty bad. No excuse for that.
Way overdue IMO.
Unless you know something I don't?
PSA has graded cards as per their mission statement.
Nothing more, nothing less at this point.
No?
Bottom line for me is that I hope this works out in the consumers favor (meaning us). If PSA fails or loses big time on this then we all lose. I have invested thousands of dollars over years of collecting with the hopes of someday passing my collection on to my kids. It would be very disheartening to find out years from now that they are worthless due to company corruption or card alterations.
I can find for you a long line of collectors who thought, ‘Well, this is the market top’ or ‘it can’t go any higher’ or ‘I better get out now before it tanks’ and most, if given a do over, would have held on longer and cashed out later on...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I actually agree with CrissCriss..think of how many people out there buy PSA cards on Ebay, but don't have time or the need to go to various collector forums...I would bet a heavy portion of the collector population have no idea about the current controversies -- right or wrong. I wouldn't have had any idea had I not read about it in the PSA forum. Cards are still going up...Kawhi SP Authentic rookie has gone from $40 to $110 since mid-May....I guess we shall see how it all plays out, but for now, hundreds of thousands of cards continue to change hands...hopefully that continues once the results of this controversy come to fruition.
Guys, I am going to give this one last warning before shutting this thread down. Constructive discussion, point-and-counterpoint, debate... All of that is ok with me. Badmouthing individuals, jailhouse jokes, individual slamming... Absolutely not ok.
I want to allow healthy discussion because this is a topic of concern to us all. But keep it within the limits. And yes, I have deleted a few posts.
Does anyone know if PSA cards a digital record of every card (front and back) they grade? It would seem to me that if something like this existed, a lot of the trimming issues would/should have been caught by PSA. This would be extremely helpful in situations where serial-numbered modern cards as well as vintage cards with poor card stock get trimmed and regraded.
The existence of external historical platforms like Worthpoint is how this current problem was discovered. It's great that sites like that exist for collectors to do their homework but this is an issue that should have been discovered long before hundreds (and quite possibly thousands) of trimmed cards had been incorrectly regraded and are now in the marketplace.
Prior to working at PSA, Steve Sloan worked for Upper Deck Authenticated and they have a step in their authentication process of scanning every item after they authenticated it and uploading it online so he has experience in setting up something similar for PSA if it doesn't exist already.
1000 to 1 the Orr would be 3.5 inches long if cracked out and measured. Any card that is standard size will leave significant room in the holder and that card is partially under the bottom ridge.
The Green is clearly oversized. No TPG would create a holder whose fit was that close to 3.5 X 2.5 given the size variations with vintage cards and some modern sets. That would be ridiculous. The Green barely fits.
There's no such thing as a "standard" size for vintage sets. They're all over the place.
Pictures of cards really don't prove anything.
VERY few cards slip through.
Please take a deep breath and try to relax a little.
There seems to be a strong bias across the many message boards that is anti-PSA and looking for PSA to be “punished” in some way.
Sorry, but I just don’t see it that way. I think someone deserving of punishment needs to have purposely done something, or tried to do something, that they knew was wrong. In what way did PSA have any sort of malicious or malevolent intent with respect to the current situation?
That some altered cards made it into slabs I won’t debate. That I am upset about and concerned by it I cannot deny. But I don’t see any evidence that PSA deliberately allowed this to happen or looked the other way to allow it to happen. They also never claimed that they were perfect, as is evidenced by the fact that they offer their guarantee which basically admits that they believe they can err.
As for psa’s response to this situation, I think they are in a tough position trying to balance a number of competing issues to arrive at as optimal an outcome as they can arrive at. And I think we need to be honest with ourselves and fair in our expectations of PSA and evaluation of how they decide to respond.
At the top of that list I would think that they are concerned about the interests of the company and the stockholders above all. But how is that different from what any other person or company would be naturally inclined to consider first? It’s human nature to want to protect “yourself”.
I also believe that PSA honestly does care about trying to maximize the interests of the other stakeholders in the hobby, but slightly subordinated to protecting themselves as just about anyone else would do if facing an equivalent threat in their business or personal life.
I think the fact that psa’s self-preservation is getting prioritized slightly over altruism is what is really fanning the ire that we are seeing on the message boards. But for all of those throwing stones at PSA I would really like to see how you would be doing things so differently if you were in their position. It’s easy to say that you would sacrifice yourself for the good of the many when facing a hypothetical crisis, but when actually faced with that position my experience is that human nature kicks in and that most usually protect themselves first.
Being someone who could be substantially damaged by a market crash in the hobby I am certainly not pleased. However, the people who are responsible for this are not PSA. It’s the card doctors and the marketing entities that know who they are and yet still “front” for them that are the bad guys.
As for PSA, the only things I think I have a right to expect from them are:
1) efforts to improve from where they are now and demonstrable evidence that they are doing so or at least trying to do so
2) never ending efforts to legally go after, criminally and/or civilly, the bad actors who are believed to be responsible this situation. Only by continuing to try to cause and causing adverse consequences for bad actors is a meaningful deterrent ever going to get established.
3) efforts to reassure the hobby and prevent a wide scale panic. This is a subjective expectation, as what may be helpful and reassuring to some could result in adverse consequences to others. All I am sure of on this is that no matter what is done, some stakeholders are not going to be happy and will complain that something else should have been done instead.
4) for people who believe they have been directly impacted that cannot get satisfactory relief via the sellers PSA needs to accept requests for guarantee reviews, avoiding the temptation to simply re-certify these items en mass just to avoid the monetary consequences and/or diminished brand reliability consequences.
As long as PSA communicates and demonstrates that it is actually doing something in each of those areas I think they cannot be accused of not holding up their side of things.
Some of us may not agree with HOW they act in each of these dimensions, but I think that will very much correspond to the amount of adverse impact an individual experiences as a result of the actions taken or not taken.
We’ve lived through things like this before. Just a few years ago a similar thing happened with a number of homemade vintage cello packs that made it into slabs. Some were “outed” and removed from circulation in the hobby. Others are still circulating in the hobby and may never be detected for any number of reasons. As an unopened collector the fact that even a single one of these cellos exists in a slab angers me to no end, but I balance that against a confidence that the vast majority of slabbed cellos are exactly what they are supposed to be because I know the people doing the authentication work are truly experts and have a long history of personal and professional integrity.
Perfection is NOT an option. PSA never claimed it and anyone who perceived that this was psa’s message is not being honest with themselves. PSA does the best that it can, and so far no one has turned up anything to suggest that despite what is coming to light now, they are not very, very good at what they do.
Could psa be better/improved? Undoubtedly!
But is PSA willfully trying to mislead, or otherwise do things with malicious intent or deliberate ignorance? Never has and never will. The officers of public companies don’t want to risk criminal investigation and/or prosecution.
i hope that those who take the time to read this reflect and think about it. It would be nice to see what so far has mostly been an angry mob, when looking in aggregate across the message boards, transformed into something more controlled and fair.
Mob mentality is most likely to risk increasing the damage for all stakeholders. What is needed now is rationale thought, realistic expectations and well conceived action plans.
And lastly I think kudos are in order for Todd and PSA with regard to an obvious change in approach to allowing discussions like these to continue on the CU forums. Avoiding censorship and allowing the free exchange of constructive and respectful ideas is to be applauded and commended.
Dave
@70ToppsFanatic Well said.
Eric
Erikthredd’s MJ Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/publishedset/395035
Erikthredd’s Nike Air Jordan Collection: https://www.psacard.com/psasetregistry/basketball/key-card-sets/nike-poster-cards-michael-jordan-1985-1992/alltimeset/408486
I think the reason people are upset with PSA is because PSA is a trusted company. People put their hard earned money into that trust. Then they discover that something they spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars on is altered. Where does that leave them now? If I had spent thousands on their cards, I would be angry too. They are trusted. If they did it on purpose or not is irrelevent. There are a lot of people that are hurting right now because they trusted the PSA brand. Yeah, they have a right to be angry. They trusted their brand.
But what exactly, other than apparently not being perfect, did PSA itself do that violated that trust?
And In the midst of a problem with some many aspects as this, i don’t see that taking sufficient time before publicly responding constitutes such a violation. Does anyone honestly believe that they just sat there doing nothing since they first became aware of the situation? Just because we can’t see behind the curtain does not mean that they aren’t aggressively working on this.
Would I like to have seen a quick/faster response by PSA? Absolutely. But realistically I would be lying to myself if I actually thought that it was actually achievable.
Just as in the past with similar incidents this is going to take some time to figure out. There are too many things that need to be understood.
We are all angered/concerned/etc. but prematurely condemning the stakeholder with the best knowledge, resources, ability and motivation to try to get things rectified seems unfair and counterproductive to me.
Dave
I still trust PSA.
Proof is in the middle of this, I sent them my white whale.
I’ve been following along closely (with less concern that others because I self submit my collection and measure/grade myself beforehand) and I have never seen anything that suggests PSA was complicit here. What most people seem upset about is that PSA is not perfect. If this is a revelation to some, here’s a little lesson.
Most ‘agencies’ are formed to create consumer confidence and to facilitate fair trade in response to a crisis in the market.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FDIC was formed in response to the Great Stock Market crash on 1929.
The Food and Drug Administration was formed after Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle and exposes the unsanitary conditions in meatpacking plants.
The New York Tenement Act improved housing in NYC slums and held the slumlords to account for improvements in living conditions. A national movement followed in the nations big cities.
Similarly, PSA was formed to have an agency to govern fair play in the card market.
None of these agencies can possibly combat all fraud but each plays a significant role in the market place in attempting to do so.
PSA curtails a significant amount of fraud. All agencies do. However, to expect a small handful of people to govern a marketplace and containing millions of products eliminate all nefarious actors is not realistic.
Madoff’s will still happen.
Bad meat will still make it to the market.
The NYCHA Crisis is on the near 130th anniversary of How the Other Half Lives publication.
That’s the reality of it. That’s always been the reality of it. Again, I hope it leads to reforms like other scandals have but at the end of the day, blaming PSA is a bit of a fools errand unless their is some overt act of complicity.
To this point, from what I have seen, there has been none.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I’ll start off by saying I’m no expert, and I’m in no way comparing slabbed altered cards with murder, but... I just finished a podcast about the Tylenol murders back in 1982. Johnson and Johnson’s response and behavior in that very public forum was apparently so perfect that it is taught in classes as a case study in what to do from a PR perspective. They were initially hesitant to recall $100 million worth of Tylenol, but they did it. The CEO made the circuit on the news shows to talk about what J&J were doing to make sure that the situation would never occur again. Every button they pushed was apparently the right one.
Again, there’s no comparing the 2 situations from a damage or visibility perspective (no matter how big this scandal gets, it won’t come near the level of coverage of the Tylenol situation), but I hope that PSA is willing to “take a short term hit” for the longer term greater good if it turns out that there’s something they need to do. Is “recalling all of the Tylenol” equivalent to PSA recalling all cards in submissions with cards that have been found to show evidence of alteration, reviewing them free of charge, and buying the card/paying out the difference where they detect a mistake was made? Should CEOs and bosses get in front of forums, the National, etc. and go on a media blitz of sorts like J&J did (though on the smaller scale that card collectibles require)? Who knows, but I hope they show some humility to try to win back those who have lost some faith...
Jim
@70ToppsFanatic
Unless customers complain loudly and with their pocketbooks, a public company in an unregulated industry is extremely unlikely to do anything. I think we can realistically only expect PSA to make improvements to catch what these guys are doing if not catching it hurts the bottom line more than the expense of developing methods to detect the alterations. PSA May start to feel that pressure through public complaint from its customers but will only really feel it when the bottom line moves.
If we want a better PSA we have to demand it loudly and clearly.
How is it irrelevant whether they colluded with fraudsters or not?? You couldn’t be more wrong.
Edit to add: I don’t believe they did.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox