I like Steve and believe BBCE is the best in the business, but it's eye opening how many on this board are willing to give them a free pass on this potential screw up. People need to be held accountable even if they are the industry standard. This is a 3.5 million dollar box and if Steve looked it over as casually as his quote in the article makes it sound, then he needs to step up and make this right. Logan Paul being a douche notwithstanding, if they prove this case was tampered with, it may be a good idea for BBCE to hold off on authenticating sealed cases until they can come up with a better system.
@BJY83 said:
I like Steve and believe BBCE is the best in the business, but it's eye opening how many on this board are willing to give them a free pass on this potential screw up. People need to be held accountable even if they are the industry standard. This is a 3.5 million dollar box and if Steve looked it over as casually as his quote in the article makes it sound, then he needs to step up and make this right. Logan Paul being a douche notwithstanding, if they prove this case was tampered with, it may be a good idea for BBCE to hold off on authenticating sealed cases until they can come up with a better system.
I think some old school sports card guys might give the pass because they don't quite realize the full breadth of the Pokemon market. All I'm saying is knowing Steve, I'd reserve judgement until we know the whole story. One online blog saying it looks sketch doesn't amount to a scandal yet - though I do agree it raises some question. But as I said, we don't know the whole story and BBCE has not yet weighed in.
On the question of authenticating full cases, I did a quick Ebay search and did indeed find several fully wrapped BBCE cases! I really hadn't seen many but I don't regularly shop in the $81,000 range.
@PaulMaul said:
That 1981 case should be maybe $15-20 K at most. Like so much unopened these days, insanely overpriced.
There is a best offer option..
It will be interesting to see the results of the case being cracked open this weekend. Regardless of the outcome, I have full faith and confidence as a collector in Steve Hart and BBCE.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I figured the case I screencapped was quite overpriced. Most cases i would have broken open and the boxes wrapped FASC. Unless it was something high end like early Fleer Basketball, 1980 Topps BB, 1986 Topps football.. cases are just too big to have hanging around my house. Of course, for some of you guys with fancy man caves in your finished basements it's a different story.
If the Pokemon case is legit I can definitely see the motivation for keeping it original.
@GreenSneakers said:
From the above article: ““I’m flying to Chicago this weekend to verify the case with BBCE, the company who insured its authenticity.”
Grammar ain’t Logan’s thang. I believe he meant ensured. It will be interesting if this goes south if BBCE is insured.
From the terms and conditions:
"After the submission and authentication of an item by BBCE, new information may arise or become available that was unavailable at the time a determination of authenticity was assigned by BBCE to any item. BBCE shall have no liability to customer, and BBCE shall be under no obligation to change a determination of authenticity assigned to an item (unless such an item is re-submitted for authentication) to the extent new information arises or becomes available after a determination of authenticity is assigned by BBCE to any item."
I would assume this is a release from liability of sorts.
@GreenSneakers said:
From the above article: ““I’m flying to Chicago this weekend to verify the case with BBCE, the company who insured its authenticity.”
Grammar ain’t Logan’s thang. I believe he meant ensured. It will be interesting if this goes south if BBCE is insured.
From the terms and conditions:
"After the submission and authentication of an item by BBCE, new information may arise or become available that was unavailable at the time a determination of authenticity was assigned by BBCE to any item. BBCE shall have no liability to customer, and BBCE shall be under no obligation to change a determination of authenticity assigned to an item (unless such an item is re-submitted for authentication) to the extent new information arises or becomes available after a determination of authenticity is assigned by BBCE to any item."
I would assume this is a release from liability of sorts.
what happens if there is no NEW information that becomes available, but the same information remains, but was missed? it seems that the label, bar code and tape were all there to be researched/assessed, but were missed. would BBCE be liable in that circumstance?
@GreenSneakers said:
From the above article: ““I’m flying to Chicago this weekend to verify the case with BBCE, the company who insured its authenticity.”
Grammar ain’t Logan’s thang. I believe he meant ensured. It will be interesting if this goes south if BBCE is insured.
From the terms and conditions:
"After the submission and authentication of an item by BBCE, new information may arise or become available that was unavailable at the time a determination of authenticity was assigned by BBCE to any item. BBCE shall have no liability to customer, and BBCE shall be under no obligation to change a determination of authenticity assigned to an item (unless such an item is re-submitted for authentication) to the extent new information arises or becomes available after a determination of authenticity is assigned by BBCE to any item."
I would assume this is a release from liability of sorts.
what happens if there is no NEW information that becomes available, but the same information remains, but was missed? it seems that the label, bar code and tape were all there to be researched/assessed, but were missed. would BBCE be liable in that circumstance?
Liable for what exactly? Steve provides an expert opinion when you submit something for authentication, not a contractual guarantee.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Liable for what exactly? Steve provides an expert opinion when you submit something for authentication, not a contractual guarantee.
Businesses that provide opinions (not guarantees) are some of the most litigious businesses out there. Think of audit firms or valuation appraisers. The liability stems from not being wrong on the opinion, but a lack of rigor in forming the opinion for which you were paid.
Not saying Steve did anything wrong here. I don’t think he did. But he should have insurance for this type of thing.
Liable for what exactly? Steve provides an expert opinion when you submit something for authentication, not a contractual guarantee.
Businesses that provide opinions (not guarantees) are some of the most litigious businesses out there. Think of audit firms or valuation appraisers. The liability stems from not being wrong on the opinion, but a lack of rigor in forming the opinion for which you were paid.
Not saying Steve did anything wrong here. I don’t think he did. But he should have insurance for this type of thing.
If anyone is required to issue a refund in this case, it's the person from whom Logan Paul purchased the case, not Steve Hart or BBCE. Steve will make good on any item purchased from BBCE if it is proven not to be authentic and as I mentioned previously, he has done so even years later, but this case (to my knowledge at least) was not purchased from Steve Hart or BBCE.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
If anyone is required to issue a refund in this case, it's the person from whom Logan Paul purchased the case, not Steve Hart or BBCE.
Sounds like you’re a supporter of tort reform, Grote. Me too! But if a vendor is paid for his expertise and is negligent, liability extends beyond the fees paid.
@grote15 said:
If anyone is required to issue a refund in this case, it's the person from whom Logan Paul purchased the case, not Steve Hart or BBCE.
Sounds like you’re a supporter of tort reform, Grote. Me too! But if a vendor is paid for his expertise and is negligent, liability extends beyond the fees paid.
I'd be very surprised if anything like that came to fruition in this case. Steve has been authenticating product for over 30 years and is the most reputable and conscientious dealer in the hobby. No one is perfect and by nature this hobby is an inexact science as additional information and knowledge are learned, but too much drama has already been manufactured regarding this nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
If anyone is required to issue a refund in this case, it's the person from whom Logan Paul purchased the case, not Steve Hart or BBCE.
Sounds like you’re a supporter of tort reform, Grote. Me too! But if a vendor is paid for his expertise and is negligent, liability extends beyond the fees paid.
I agree with Grote here. I don't believe the liability extends beyond the original fee they charge for their authentication. Unless they are directly selling the item authenticated, it's my opinion they should not be held liable for mistakes. And we don't even know if there was a mistake yet.
If they were liable for something like this, as you mentioned it would definitely be something you'd have insurance for.
No need to continue this angle of the debate guys. I agree with you if Steve was wrong (and not saying he is at all), and it was a mistake, his liability is limited. But there is a difference between being wrong and the negligence standard. If a claimant showed that Steve did not have expertise in this type of product, or that he did not perform the expected duty of care while inspecting the case, we live in a country where people sue for that type of stuff. They sue for the losses they experience, not just the fees paid. And they win those suits frequently. And that I would hope Steve is insured for.
If Logan Paul had any command of the English language and said "ensured" we wouldn't have had to go down that rabbit hole. So he's still the d*bag here.
From what I've read elsewhere, they did go to BBCE and it has all been hush hush since then but some of the big pokemon collectors have hinted that it didn't go well. Who knows if its true or not though.
@GreenSneakers said:
From the above article: ““I’m flying to Chicago this weekend to verify the case with BBCE, the company who insured its authenticity.”
Grammar ain’t Logan’s thang. I believe he meant ensured. It will be interesting if this goes south if BBCE is insured.
From the terms and conditions:
"After the submission and authentication of an item by BBCE, new information may arise or become available that was unavailable at the time a determination of authenticity was assigned by BBCE to any item. BBCE shall have no liability to customer, and BBCE shall be under no obligation to change a determination of authenticity assigned to an item (unless such an item is re-submitted for authentication) to the extent new information arises or becomes available after a determination of authenticity is assigned by BBCE to any item."
I would assume this is a release from liability of sorts.
what happens if there is no NEW information that becomes available, but the same information remains, but was missed? it seems that the label, bar code and tape were all there to be researched/assessed, but were missed. would BBCE be liable in that circumstance?
Liable for what exactly? Steve provides an expert opinion when you submit something for authentication, not a contractual guarantee.
My inquiry was basically what would happen if BBCE was found to be negligent in research/authenticating the case? ie, purporting to be an "expert" on Pokemon when they may not be such? In our litigious society, I could certainly see someone opening a civil case against them with 3.5MM at stake.
I think it likely that if the case was legit there would have been something out right away. Also Dave Portnoy tagged Logan Paul in a Twitter photo with caption "Couple drinks to take the pressure off the pokeman drama"
All signs point to a bad result. I'd guess they are working behind the scenes for a resolution which would mean a BBCE refund and a very unpleasant phone call between Logan Paul and the seller. It won't be fun for Logan & Co to track the terrible provenance of this case back to the source. I'm guessing this is going to get litigious fast with multiple parties involved.
Of course, I suppose there is always the chance that it did prove legit and they are just building drama for some stupid Youtube reveal video with lots of people saying stuff like "how many charizards are in here brah?" "lol i know bruh". This is fun!
Liable for what exactly? Steve provides an expert opinion when you submit something for authentication, not a contractual guarantee.
He's paid well for his expert opinion. He needs to back it up. If I bought a 3.5 million dollar coin authenticated by PCGS, they would be legally liable if that coin ends up being counterfeit. Not just a refund on the fees, either. If you cost someone 3.5 million with a bonehead "expert" opinion that you charged for, you are going to be sued if that opinion turns out to be incorrect.
Liable for what exactly? Steve provides an expert opinion when you submit something for authentication, not a contractual guarantee.
He's paid well for his expert opinion. He needs to back it up. If I bought a 3.5 million dollar coin authenticated by PCGS, they would be legally liable if that coin ends up being counterfeit. Not just a refund on the fees, either. If you cost someone 3.5 million with a bonehead "expert" opinion that you charged for, you are going to be sued if that opinion turns out to be incorrect.
This is just not how it works in real life. Is BBCE responsible for policing the honesty and integrity of the entire unopened card market? It's a ridiculous assetion. BBCE is providing an opinion to the best of their ability. If it is wrong, the buyer of the service is entitled to a refund on the authentication fees. BBCE cannot be held liable for the purchase price of every item they have ever authenticated. The liabilities would be 1000X their operating revenue and you would never get insurance or be able to operate as a business.
When PSA and PWCC got into trouble with the whole trimming scandal, the liability for the fraudulent sales fell on PWCC, not PSA.
When PSA and PWCC got into trouble with the whole trimming scandal, the liability for the fraudulent sales fell on PWCC, not PSA.
PWCC and PSA is not comparable, PSA has a published guarantee that puts them on the hook for compensating the collector for losses based on their opinion being wrong. PSA then went to PWCC and insisted they pay back their customers. If PWCC did not agree to do this, PSA would have had to pay the victims and would have gone after PWCC in court. Had PWCC been an innocent victim they would have been able to go after the consignors and may or may not have been successful. Those consigners could then have gone after PSA because they were duped.
BBCE has no such guarantee. As you and others have stated - they are unlikely to be liable for the purchase price. The only recourse is to ask the seller for a refund. The crappy thing about fraud is that unless you can get back to the criminal who created or commissioned the “fake” or “alteration” an innocent party is left holding the bag. This all assumes the case is not legit, which I am sure we will know definitively at some point.
Yes, it is. All reputable companies should have liability insurance. If you pay someone to inspect a house you're thinking about buying and they miss something, they are legally liable for the cost of the repair. Same goes here. The cost to repair the damage is 3.5 million.
What good is an opinion if it isn't backed by anything? Refunding fees doesn't cut it. They will be legally liable if this guy loses 3.5 mil on the deal.
BBCE cannot be held liable for the purchase price of every item they have ever authenticated. The liabilities would be 1000X their operating revenue and you would never get insurance or be able to operate as a business.
Yes, they can and should be held liable for everything they authenticate. If that's not the case, why would anyone pay them to authenticate anything? You can't just take in millions in fees and say, "Sorry, we miss a few every once in awhile!" Doesn't work that way in the business world.
BBCE cannot be held liable for the purchase price of every item they have ever authenticated. The liabilities would be 1000X their operating revenue and you would never get insurance or be able to operate as a business.
Yes, they can and should be held liable for everything they authenticate. If that's not the case, why would anyone pay them to authenticate anything? You can't just take in millions in fees and say, "Sorry, we miss a few every once in awhile!" Doesn't work that way in the business world.
I’m sure BBCE is mailing Logan Paul a $3.5 mil check at this very moment. 😂
“Disclaimer
After the submission and authentication of an item by BBCE, new information may arise or become available that was unavailable at the time a determination of authenticity was assigned by BBCE to any item. BBCE shall have no liability to customer, and BBCE shall be under no obligation to change a determination of authenticity assigned to an item (unless such an item is re-submitted for authentication) to the extent new information arises or becomes available after a determination of authenticity is assigned by BBCE to any item.”
Pretty sure Logan will get his money back from the seller and then the seller will get the money back from the previous owner etc etc. For a deal this big, FBI will get involved and don't think people want to go to jail for this. BBCE will just need to refund the authentication fee and a damages of their reputation on pokemon products... that's all.
I don't see it any different than PSA/DNA authenticating or not authenticating an autograph of Babe Ruth. People don't go and sue PSA/DNA if the Ruth auto doesn't come back authentic, even if the submitter thinks it's real. No different. You're paying for their opinion and BBCE gave their opinion. You're not signing a contract that is a be all end all....it's simply an opinion based service.
Liable for what exactly? Steve provides an expert opinion when you submit something for authentication, not a contractual guarantee.
He's paid well for his expert opinion. He needs to back it up. If I bought a 3.5 million dollar coin authenticated by PCGS, they would be legally liable if that coin ends up being counterfeit. Not just a refund on the fees, either. If you cost someone 3.5 million with a bonehead "expert" opinion that you charged for, you are going to be sued if that opinion turns out to be incorrect.
This is just not how it works in real life. Is BBCE responsible for policing the honesty and integrity of the entire unopened card market? It's a ridiculous assetion. BBCE is providing an opinion to the best of their ability. If it is wrong, the buyer of the service is entitled to a refund on the authentication fees. BBCE cannot be held liable for the purchase price of every item they have ever authenticated. The liabilities would be 1000X their operating revenue and you would never get insurance or be able to operate as a business.
When PSA and PWCC got into trouble with the whole trimming scandal, the liability for the fraudulent sales fell on PWCC, not PSA.
When did PSA and PWCC officially get in trouble? I think it's all done and over with. Someone even stated that the big boy lawyer that Brent had initially retained is not even working that issue anymore. I think it's over....no one got in any trouble.
It "seams" that in this "case" that all Steve was authenticating was that the tape on the case was undisturbed since applied. I'm not sure what else he could have offered service wise. I think the Pokémon people and Logan Paul assumed more. Not exactly sure what Steve implied what he was authenticating.
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@GreenSneakers said:
I thought I was out of this thread, but I have to interject:
I’m pretty sure this isn’t in the top of the FBI’s to-do list today
You are not protected from a gross negligence claim by contract disclaimers.
The standard for gross negligence is not going to be met here, no way, no how.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
What good is an expert's opinion if he doesn't back it up? What are they paying him for anyway? "Well, Tim, I think that 3.5 million Pokemon case is authentic, but don't hold me to it!" Get real. If this guy screwed this up, his reputation is shot and he will be sued if the purchaser doesn't get his money back.
Agree with Tim this is not even close to gross negligence. Not every human error / mistake (assuming it even was a mistake), even when made by experts, creates liability.
Not a tone, just looking at it from the point of view of the person who forked over 3.5 million based on BBCE's opinion. What good is their opinion if the only liability they claim for a mistake is to refund your fees? They have to be responsible for more than that, especially in this case with such a large amount of money on the line.
Doctors have malpractice insurance, in case they screw up a diagnosis or an operation. Contractors have liability insurance in case they burn someone's house down from improperly installing a furnace, electrical wiring and so on. Roofers have insurance in case their roofing job leaks a week after they finish the job and the rain destroys furniture and other possessions in the home. This is known as the cost of doing business and BBCE is no different. They must have insurance to protect themselves against this sort of blunder. If they do, they need to come clean. If not, they're in big trouble.
I pay 2k a year for my auto insurance, just in case I blow through a red light and hit another car. It's the cost of operating a motor vehicle in this country. I also have insurance that protects me against an uninsured motorist who blows through a red light and totals my car. I shouldn't have to pay for that, but it's the reality of driving in this country. Bottom line, we all need to protect ourselves against a worst case scenario or pay the price for not doing that.
@MisterTim1962 said:
What good is an expert's opinion if he doesn't back it up? What are they paying him for anyway? "Well, Tim, I think that 3.5 million Pokemon case is authentic, but don't hold me to it!" Get real. If this guy screwed this up, his reputation is shot and he will be sued if the purchaser doesn't get his money back.
You seem to have both a personal problem with BBCE and a fundamental misunderstanding of the extent of what an authentication company is liable for.
@GreenSneakers said:
I thought I was out of this thread, but I have to interject:
I’m pretty sure this isn’t in the top of the FBI’s to-do list today
You are not protected from a gross negligence claim by contract disclaimers.
Believe it or not, if $3.5 million of fraud was committed across state lines that’s on the list of activities the FBI is looking to prosecute.
Also showing your character here accusing Steve Hart of gross negligence from behind an anonymous online identity. Maybe just sit a few plays out here.
@MisterTim1962 said:
I pay 2k a year for my auto insurance, just in case I blow through a red light and hit another car. It's the cost of operating a motor vehicle in this country. I also have insurance that protects me against an uninsured motorist who blows through a red light and totals my car. I shouldn't have to pay for that, but it's the reality of driving in this country. Bottom line, we all need to protect ourselves against a worst case scenario or pay the price for not doing that.
You're drawing a false equivalence. You just don't like BBCE.
@West22 said:
When PSA and PWCC got into trouble with the whole trimming scandal, the liability for the fraudulent sales fell on PWCC, not PSA.
When did PSA and PWCC officially get in trouble? I think it's all done and over with. Someone even stated that the big boy lawyer that Brent had initially retained is not even working that issue anymore. I think it's over....no one got in any trouble.
It's far from over. PSA, PWCC and Probstein were all hit with a class action lawsuit this fall. I think PSA will be fine. However, PWCC was booted off Ebay and was held liable for hundreds of fraudulent auctions and they accepted responsibility and paid out huge settlements to defrauded customers. They're going to take the lion's share of the hit over this.
When PSA and PWCC got into trouble with the whole trimming scandal, the liability for the fraudulent sales fell on PWCC, not PSA.
PWCC and PSA is not comparable, PSA has a published guarantee that puts them on the hook for compensating the collector for losses based on their opinion being wrong. PSA then went to PWCC and insisted they pay back their customers. If PWCC did not agree to do this, PSA would have had to pay the victims and would have gone after PWCC in court. Had PWCC been an innocent victim they would have been able to go after the consignors and may or may not have been successful. Those consigners could then have gone after PSA because they were duped.
You're just very wrong on this. It's right in PSA's TOS that you can't hold them liable. It's in all caps.
"8. THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE LIABILITY THAT PSA SHALL HAVE TO CUSTOMER, OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR WHOM THE CUSTOMER MAY BE ACTING, ARISING FROM ANY CAUSE, ACT, OMISSION OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, SHALL IN NO EVENT EXCEED THE APPRAISAL CHARGES DUE OR ACTUALLY PAID BY CUSTOMER FOR THE APPRAISAL SERVICES RENDERED BY PSA WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR APPRAISAL HEREUNDER. IN NO EVENT SHALL PSA OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES, OR ANY OF ITS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS OR AGENTS, BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER OR ANY OTHER PARTY FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."
As for the trimming cards scandal and who was responsible, PWCC was being investigated by several law enforcement agencies and had to play ball. That's why they took responsibility and started issuing refunds for affected cards.
@brad31 said:
BBCE has no such guarantee. As you and others have stated - they are unlikely to be liable for the purchase price. The only recourse is to ask the seller for a refund. The crappy thing about fraud is that unless you can get back to the criminal who created or commissioned the “fake” or “alteration” an innocent party is left holding the bag. This all assumes the case is not legit, which I am sure we will know definitively at some point.
This part I agree with - in cases like this it gets murky very quick working backwards. That's why you don't just drop $3.5 million without any research into provenance, or even taking the obvious step of asking the opinion some of the biggest collectors in the hobby who are readily available to you.
I would have to imagine Steve has some equivalent of E&O insurance in place with the current value of materials he is dealing with. Particularly since PSA material goes through his hands. This will be a good opportunity to utilize that policy.
Comments
I like Steve and believe BBCE is the best in the business, but it's eye opening how many on this board are willing to give them a free pass on this potential screw up. People need to be held accountable even if they are the industry standard. This is a 3.5 million dollar box and if Steve looked it over as casually as his quote in the article makes it sound, then he needs to step up and make this right. Logan Paul being a douche notwithstanding, if they prove this case was tampered with, it may be a good idea for BBCE to hold off on authenticating sealed cases until they can come up with a better system.
Brian
I think some old school sports card guys might give the pass because they don't quite realize the full breadth of the Pokemon market. All I'm saying is knowing Steve, I'd reserve judgement until we know the whole story. One online blog saying it looks sketch doesn't amount to a scandal yet - though I do agree it raises some question. But as I said, we don't know the whole story and BBCE has not yet weighed in.
On the question of authenticating full cases, I did a quick Ebay search and did indeed find several fully wrapped BBCE cases! I really hadn't seen many but I don't regularly shop in the $81,000 range.
That 1981 case should be maybe $15-20 K at most. Like so much unopened these days, insanely overpriced.
There is a best offer option..
It will be interesting to see the results of the case being cracked open this weekend. Regardless of the outcome, I have full faith and confidence as a collector in Steve Hart and BBCE.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I figured the case I screencapped was quite overpriced. Most cases i would have broken open and the boxes wrapped FASC. Unless it was something high end like early Fleer Basketball, 1980 Topps BB, 1986 Topps football.. cases are just too big to have hanging around my house. Of course, for some of you guys with fancy man caves in your finished basements it's a different story.
If the Pokemon case is legit I can definitely see the motivation for keeping it original.
At least it wasn't Jabs that bought the Pokémon case.
How much did it sale for is one of the funniest and most ignorant things I've ever heard.
Here's some more info that came to light over the past few days,Logan had a video chat with some of the Pokemon collectors that had originally questioned the authenticity of the box.
https://www.dexerto.com/pokemon/logan-paul-stunned-after-discovering-3-5m-pokemon-card-box-isnt-one-of-a-kind-1735757/
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
From the above article: ““I’m flying to Chicago this weekend to verify the case with BBCE, the company who insured its authenticity.”
Grammar ain’t Logan’s thang. I believe he meant ensured. It will be interesting if this goes south if BBCE is insured.
From the terms and conditions:
"After the submission and authentication of an item by BBCE, new information may arise or become available that was unavailable at the time a determination of authenticity was assigned by BBCE to any item. BBCE shall have no liability to customer, and BBCE shall be under no obligation to change a determination of authenticity assigned to an item (unless such an item is re-submitted for authentication) to the extent new information arises or becomes available after a determination of authenticity is assigned by BBCE to any item."
I would assume this is a release from liability of sorts.
Honestly, once this douche Logan Paul is involved, I'm uninterested. Most serious collectors don't take him seriously.
That doesn't change things though.
Considering our hobby is full of crooks, not sure what that has to do with anything.
what happens if there is no NEW information that becomes available, but the same information remains, but was missed? it seems that the label, bar code and tape were all there to be researched/assessed, but were missed. would BBCE be liable in that circumstance?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Liable for what exactly? Steve provides an expert opinion when you submit something for authentication, not a contractual guarantee.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Businesses that provide opinions (not guarantees) are some of the most litigious businesses out there. Think of audit firms or valuation appraisers. The liability stems from not being wrong on the opinion, but a lack of rigor in forming the opinion for which you were paid.
Not saying Steve did anything wrong here. I don’t think he did. But he should have insurance for this type of thing.
If anyone is required to issue a refund in this case, it's the person from whom Logan Paul purchased the case, not Steve Hart or BBCE. Steve will make good on any item purchased from BBCE if it is proven not to be authentic and as I mentioned previously, he has done so even years later, but this case (to my knowledge at least) was not purchased from Steve Hart or BBCE.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Sounds like you’re a supporter of tort reform, Grote. Me too! But if a vendor is paid for his expertise and is negligent, liability extends beyond the fees paid.
I'd be very surprised if anything like that came to fruition in this case. Steve has been authenticating product for over 30 years and is the most reputable and conscientious dealer in the hobby. No one is perfect and by nature this hobby is an inexact science as additional information and knowledge are learned, but too much drama has already been manufactured regarding this nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I agree with Grote here. I don't believe the liability extends beyond the original fee they charge for their authentication. Unless they are directly selling the item authenticated, it's my opinion they should not be held liable for mistakes. And we don't even know if there was a mistake yet.
If they were liable for something like this, as you mentioned it would definitely be something you'd have insurance for.
No need to continue this angle of the debate guys. I agree with you if Steve was wrong (and not saying he is at all), and it was a mistake, his liability is limited. But there is a difference between being wrong and the negligence standard. If a claimant showed that Steve did not have expertise in this type of product, or that he did not perform the expected duty of care while inspecting the case, we live in a country where people sue for that type of stuff. They sue for the losses they experience, not just the fees paid. And they win those suits frequently. And that I would hope Steve is insured for.
If Logan Paul had any command of the English language and said "ensured" we wouldn't have had to go down that rabbit hole. So he's still the d*bag here.
Could've been a freudian slip...
I think we're all pretty much on the same page when it comes to Logan.
Is Steve is liable imagine all the issues Steiner would have….
I would think he would have E & O insurance similar to an appraiser or realtor.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
What was the big reveal? Did they open the case this week-end at BBCE?
From what I've read elsewhere, they did go to BBCE and it has all been hush hush since then but some of the big pokemon collectors have hinted that it didn't go well. Who knows if its true or not though.
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
anyone hear any news yet? everything has been pretty quiet this weekend.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
My inquiry was basically what would happen if BBCE was found to be negligent in research/authenticating the case? ie, purporting to be an "expert" on Pokemon when they may not be such? In our litigious society, I could certainly see someone opening a civil case against them with 3.5MM at stake.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think it likely that if the case was legit there would have been something out right away. Also Dave Portnoy tagged Logan Paul in a Twitter photo with caption "Couple drinks to take the pressure off the pokeman drama"
All signs point to a bad result. I'd guess they are working behind the scenes for a resolution which would mean a BBCE refund and a very unpleasant phone call between Logan Paul and the seller. It won't be fun for Logan & Co to track the terrible provenance of this case back to the source. I'm guessing this is going to get litigious fast with multiple parties involved.
Of course, I suppose there is always the chance that it did prove legit and they are just building drama for some stupid Youtube reveal video with lots of people saying stuff like "how many charizards are in here brah?" "lol i know bruh". This is fun!
He's paid well for his expert opinion. He needs to back it up. If I bought a 3.5 million dollar coin authenticated by PCGS, they would be legally liable if that coin ends up being counterfeit. Not just a refund on the fees, either. If you cost someone 3.5 million with a bonehead "expert" opinion that you charged for, you are going to be sued if that opinion turns out to be incorrect.
This is just not how it works in real life. Is BBCE responsible for policing the honesty and integrity of the entire unopened card market? It's a ridiculous assetion. BBCE is providing an opinion to the best of their ability. If it is wrong, the buyer of the service is entitled to a refund on the authentication fees. BBCE cannot be held liable for the purchase price of every item they have ever authenticated. The liabilities would be 1000X their operating revenue and you would never get insurance or be able to operate as a business.
When PSA and PWCC got into trouble with the whole trimming scandal, the liability for the fraudulent sales fell on PWCC, not PSA.
PWCC and PSA is not comparable, PSA has a published guarantee that puts them on the hook for compensating the collector for losses based on their opinion being wrong. PSA then went to PWCC and insisted they pay back their customers. If PWCC did not agree to do this, PSA would have had to pay the victims and would have gone after PWCC in court. Had PWCC been an innocent victim they would have been able to go after the consignors and may or may not have been successful. Those consigners could then have gone after PSA because they were duped.
BBCE has no such guarantee. As you and others have stated - they are unlikely to be liable for the purchase price. The only recourse is to ask the seller for a refund. The crappy thing about fraud is that unless you can get back to the criminal who created or commissioned the “fake” or “alteration” an innocent party is left holding the bag. This all assumes the case is not legit, which I am sure we will know definitively at some point.
Yes, it is. All reputable companies should have liability insurance. If you pay someone to inspect a house you're thinking about buying and they miss something, they are legally liable for the cost of the repair. Same goes here. The cost to repair the damage is 3.5 million.
What good is an opinion if it isn't backed by anything? Refunding fees doesn't cut it. They will be legally liable if this guy loses 3.5 mil on the deal.
Yes, they can and should be held liable for everything they authenticate. If that's not the case, why would anyone pay them to authenticate anything? You can't just take in millions in fees and say, "Sorry, we miss a few every once in awhile!" Doesn't work that way in the business world.
I’m sure BBCE is mailing Logan Paul a $3.5 mil check at this very moment. 😂
We’ll see how it plays out I guess.
BBCE….
“Disclaimer
After the submission and authentication of an item by BBCE, new information may arise or become available that was unavailable at the time a determination of authenticity was assigned by BBCE to any item. BBCE shall have no liability to customer, and BBCE shall be under no obligation to change a determination of authenticity assigned to an item (unless such an item is re-submitted for authentication) to the extent new information arises or becomes available after a determination of authenticity is assigned by BBCE to any item.”
No way Steve will be liable.
Pretty sure Logan will get his money back from the seller and then the seller will get the money back from the previous owner etc etc. For a deal this big, FBI will get involved and don't think people want to go to jail for this. BBCE will just need to refund the authentication fee and a damages of their reputation on pokemon products... that's all.
I don't see it any different than PSA/DNA authenticating or not authenticating an autograph of Babe Ruth. People don't go and sue PSA/DNA if the Ruth auto doesn't come back authentic, even if the submitter thinks it's real. No different. You're paying for their opinion and BBCE gave their opinion. You're not signing a contract that is a be all end all....it's simply an opinion based service.
When did PSA and PWCC officially get in trouble? I think it's all done and over with. Someone even stated that the big boy lawyer that Brent had initially retained is not even working that issue anymore. I think it's over....no one got in any trouble.
It "seams" that in this "case" that all Steve was authenticating was that the tape on the case was undisturbed since applied. I'm not sure what else he could have offered service wise. I think the Pokémon people and Logan Paul assumed more. Not exactly sure what Steve implied what he was authenticating.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I thought I was out of this thread, but I have to interject:
I’m pretty sure this isn’t in the top of the FBI’s to-do list today
You are not protected from a gross negligence claim by contract disclaimers.
The standard for gross negligence is not going to be met here, no way, no how.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
What good is an expert's opinion if he doesn't back it up? What are they paying him for anyway? "Well, Tim, I think that 3.5 million Pokemon case is authentic, but don't hold me to it!" Get real. If this guy screwed this up, his reputation is shot and he will be sued if the purchaser doesn't get his money back.
MisterTim,
Respectfully, why the tone towards BBCE?
Agree with Tim this is not even close to gross negligence. Not every human error / mistake (assuming it even was a mistake), even when made by experts, creates liability.
Not a tone, just looking at it from the point of view of the person who forked over 3.5 million based on BBCE's opinion. What good is their opinion if the only liability they claim for a mistake is to refund your fees? They have to be responsible for more than that, especially in this case with such a large amount of money on the line.
Doctors have malpractice insurance, in case they screw up a diagnosis or an operation. Contractors have liability insurance in case they burn someone's house down from improperly installing a furnace, electrical wiring and so on. Roofers have insurance in case their roofing job leaks a week after they finish the job and the rain destroys furniture and other possessions in the home. This is known as the cost of doing business and BBCE is no different. They must have insurance to protect themselves against this sort of blunder. If they do, they need to come clean. If not, they're in big trouble.
I pay 2k a year for my auto insurance, just in case I blow through a red light and hit another car. It's the cost of operating a motor vehicle in this country. I also have insurance that protects me against an uninsured motorist who blows through a red light and totals my car. I shouldn't have to pay for that, but it's the reality of driving in this country. Bottom line, we all need to protect ourselves against a worst case scenario or pay the price for not doing that.
You seem to have both a personal problem with BBCE and a fundamental misunderstanding of the extent of what an authentication company is liable for.
Believe it or not, if $3.5 million of fraud was committed across state lines that’s on the list of activities the FBI is looking to prosecute.
Also showing your character here accusing Steve Hart of gross negligence from behind an anonymous online identity. Maybe just sit a few plays out here.
Well, the only thing I do know is I can probably save you 15% on your auto insurance. !!
Respect your opinion; just don’t agree with you.
Onward.
You're drawing a false equivalence. You just don't like BBCE.
It's far from over. PSA, PWCC and Probstein were all hit with a class action lawsuit this fall. I think PSA will be fine. However, PWCC was booted off Ebay and was held liable for hundreds of fraudulent auctions and they accepted responsibility and paid out huge settlements to defrauded customers. They're going to take the lion's share of the hit over this.
You're just very wrong on this. It's right in PSA's TOS that you can't hold them liable. It's in all caps.
"8. THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE LIABILITY THAT PSA SHALL HAVE TO CUSTOMER, OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR WHOM THE CUSTOMER MAY BE ACTING, ARISING FROM ANY CAUSE, ACT, OMISSION OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, SHALL IN NO EVENT EXCEED THE APPRAISAL CHARGES DUE OR ACTUALLY PAID BY CUSTOMER FOR THE APPRAISAL SERVICES RENDERED BY PSA WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR APPRAISAL HEREUNDER. IN NO EVENT SHALL PSA OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES, OR ANY OF ITS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS OR AGENTS, BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER OR ANY OTHER PARTY FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."
As for the trimming cards scandal and who was responsible, PWCC was being investigated by several law enforcement agencies and had to play ball. That's why they took responsibility and started issuing refunds for affected cards.
This part I agree with - in cases like this it gets murky very quick working backwards. That's why you don't just drop $3.5 million without any research into provenance, or even taking the obvious step of asking the opinion some of the biggest collectors in the hobby who are readily available to you.
I would have to imagine Steve has some equivalent of E&O insurance in place with the current value of materials he is dealing with. Particularly since PSA material goes through his hands. This will be a good opportunity to utilize that policy.
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS