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.
Dude, relax. Go back and read my posts. I have repeatedly said Steve is a good guy. No where did I accuse him of gross negligence. However I am pointing out that those that say he’s only ever going to be on the hook for fees paid would be incorrect in the instance of gross negligence. That’s simply the way the civil process works, like it or not. And I said I hope Steve, who again is a good guy, is insured for that risk.
Sincerely,
Anonymous online identity guy who probably won’t sit a few plays out.
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'm sure he uses the same legal mumbo jumbo as PSA which says your screwed... "Certification and authentication involves an individual judgment that is subjective and requires the exercise of professional opinion, which can change from time to time.
But who knows what he paid for it. Has anyone produced any documentation that he paid $3.5M?
Dude, relax. Go back and read my posts. I have repeatedly said Steve is a good guy. No where did I accuse him of gross negligence. However I am pointing out that those that say he’s only ever going to be on the hook for fees paid would be incorrect in the instance of gross negligence. That’s simply the way the civil process works, like it or not. And I said I hope Steve, who again is a good guy, is insured for that risk.
Sincerely,
Anonymous online identity guy who probably won’t sit a few plays out.
I misread your post, which was more well intentioned than I first thought. I believe you are correct there, and it's likely there is insurance for this type of claim against an authenticator. But wouldn't the standard for gross negligence be quite high in litigation? They would have to prove not only the extreme negligence and/or deliberate intent.
I misread your post, which was more well intentioned than I first thought. I believe you are correct there, and it's likely there is insurance for this type of claim against an authenticator. But wouldn't the standard for gross negligence be quite high in litigation? They would have to prove not only the extreme negligence and/or deliberate intent.
The real issue might not even be the high bar to prove gross negligence. Rather, it is the defense costs. Someone that can afford that kinda coin on Pokémon cards can certainly lawyer up and file motion after motion. It’s a basic strategy to make defending yourself so expensive so as to force settlement, before the claim is actually adjudicated. It’s a problem with our system (IMHO) and thus one reason I support tort reform. Hopefully, Steve has a robust policy that would cover such defense costs. Logan Paul vs BBCE has a likely different outcome than Logan Paul vs AIG.
And I appreciate rereading the post and acknowledgment of the misread. Rare these days. We’re good.
Thanks for your nice response. I'm coming in hot in this thread, and I misread your post. I am just a little passionate about collectors (and people in general) doing their own due diligence and planning/research instead of blaming society/third parties/companies/the world for their problems when things don't work out. Sounds like we both agree on that one for sure.
I am going to step out on a limb and hazard a guess that Logan Paul knows enough about the unopened corner of the market that he won't be badmouthing or suing BBCE over this, if it does turn out to be a scam. On the subject of scams, did anyone see the Youtube video of the bad Pokemon box opening from early 2020? If the timestamp below doesn't work, the fireworks start at minute 35:
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.
You're showing your lack of character by attacking a stranger you know nothing about. This isn't personal, it's business. Any good businessman knows rule number one is protect your business from liability. I know nothing about Steve Hart and could care less about him. But someone who claims to be an expert in any field had better be able to back it up or deal with the financial ramifications of screwing up the job he was paid to do.
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.
For his sake, I hope you're right. This blunder could cost him big time.
Great video West22. Didn't know the Woke generation is so passionate about Pokemon. I'm assuming the clear wrap around 1st edition boxes is not stamped with a logo?? If not, then that wrap is easily replicated, correct. Seems to me BBCE needs to open that case, remove the boxes from the case, remove the clear wrap off the boxes, verify the packs, then re-seal with BBCE wrap. Steve could even put the boxes back in the case and seal it up if acceptable. Don't be surprised if this is the policy moving forward for Pokemon.
If this video was a vintage baseball card case, it would turn our unopened hobby upside down as far as cases are concerned.
BBCE would have to revise their authentication procedures for sealed cases to include opening said cases, inspecting the individual boxes and packs, then closing the case and wrapping. This doesn't necessarily devalue the product, just makes BBCE's review more tedious.
I have complete confidence in Steve and BBCE. Steve is well aware of the monkey business these imposters try to sneak past his desk. BBCE recently introduced new standards of authentication, with some duplicity in their trademarks. I'm sure we will see more updates as these clowns get creative.
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."
From PSA’s website:
The PSA Financial Guarantee of Grade & Authenticity
The PSA Financial Guarantee of Grade & Authenticity (“Guarantee”) is fundamental to PSA's concept of third-party grading. Subject to the exceptions noted below, the Guarantee ensures the accuracy of the grade assigned to any PSA-graded card.
PSA guarantees that all cards submitted to it shall be graded in accordance with PSA grading standards and under the procedures of PSA.
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.
The current market value is determined by PSA, based in part on the PSA Price Guide values and/or recent prices realized from the marketplace. PSA will be the sole determiner of the current market value.
I personally know some people who have been paid on the guarantee.
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."
From PSA’s website:
The PSA Financial Guarantee of Grade & Authenticity
The PSA Financial Guarantee of Grade & Authenticity (“Guarantee”) is fundamental to PSA's concept of third-party grading. Subject to the exceptions noted below, the Guarantee ensures the accuracy of the grade assigned to any PSA-graded card.
PSA guarantees that all cards submitted to it shall be graded in accordance with PSA grading standards and under the procedures of PSA.
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.
The current market value is determined by PSA, based in part on the PSA Price Guide values and/or recent prices realized from the marketplace. PSA will be the sole determiner of the current market value.
I personally know some people who have been paid on the guarantee.
The guarantee is, however at PSA’s discretion. “ If PSA, in fact, concludes that the card in question no longer merits the PSA grade”…
I wonder if those who got refunds were exceptions not the rule. It looks like the Gurantee and the TOS are saying two different things. So maybe one was written with soft language for a client vs PSA customer service situation and one was written in all caps for the lawyers.
Comments
Dude, relax. Go back and read my posts. I have repeatedly said Steve is a good guy. No where did I accuse him of gross negligence. However I am pointing out that those that say he’s only ever going to be on the hook for fees paid would be incorrect in the instance of gross negligence. That’s simply the way the civil process works, like it or not. And I said I hope Steve, who again is a good guy, is insured for that risk.
Sincerely,
Anonymous online identity guy who probably won’t sit a few plays out.
I really wished FBI has more things to do than things like this. FBI knocked on my door once and I know how much free time they have.
I'm sure he uses the same legal mumbo jumbo as PSA which says your screwed... "Certification and authentication involves an individual judgment that is subjective and requires the exercise of professional opinion, which can change from time to time.
But who knows what he paid for it. Has anyone produced any documentation that he paid $3.5M?
https://kennerstartinglineup.blogspot.com/
I misread your post, which was more well intentioned than I first thought. I believe you are correct there, and it's likely there is insurance for this type of claim against an authenticator. But wouldn't the standard for gross negligence be quite high in litigation? They would have to prove not only the extreme negligence and/or deliberate intent.
The real issue might not even be the high bar to prove gross negligence. Rather, it is the defense costs. Someone that can afford that kinda coin on Pokémon cards can certainly lawyer up and file motion after motion. It’s a basic strategy to make defending yourself so expensive so as to force settlement, before the claim is actually adjudicated. It’s a problem with our system (IMHO) and thus one reason I support tort reform. Hopefully, Steve has a robust policy that would cover such defense costs. Logan Paul vs BBCE has a likely different outcome than Logan Paul vs AIG.
And I appreciate rereading the post and acknowledgment of the misread. Rare these days. We’re good.
Thanks for your nice response. I'm coming in hot in this thread, and I misread your post. I am just a little passionate about collectors (and people in general) doing their own due diligence and planning/research instead of blaming society/third parties/companies/the world for their problems when things don't work out. Sounds like we both agree on that one for sure.
I am going to step out on a limb and hazard a guess that Logan Paul knows enough about the unopened corner of the market that he won't be badmouthing or suing BBCE over this, if it does turn out to be a scam. On the subject of scams, did anyone see the Youtube video of the bad Pokemon box opening from early 2020? If the timestamp below doesn't work, the fireworks start at minute 35:
You're showing your lack of character by attacking a stranger you know nothing about. This isn't personal, it's business. Any good businessman knows rule number one is protect your business from liability. I know nothing about Steve Hart and could care less about him. But someone who claims to be an expert in any field had better be able to back it up or deal with the financial ramifications of screwing up the job he was paid to do.
For his sake, I hope you're right. This blunder could cost him big time.
Great video West22. Didn't know the Woke generation is so passionate about Pokemon. I'm assuming the clear wrap around 1st edition boxes is not stamped with a logo?? If not, then that wrap is easily replicated, correct. Seems to me BBCE needs to open that case, remove the boxes from the case, remove the clear wrap off the boxes, verify the packs, then re-seal with BBCE wrap. Steve could even put the boxes back in the case and seal it up if acceptable. Don't be surprised if this is the policy moving forward for Pokemon.
If this video was a vintage baseball card case, it would turn our unopened hobby upside down as far as cases are concerned.
BBCE would have to revise their authentication procedures for sealed cases to include opening said cases, inspecting the individual boxes and packs, then closing the case and wrapping. This doesn't necessarily devalue the product, just makes BBCE's review more tedious.
I have complete confidence in Steve and BBCE. Steve is well aware of the monkey business these imposters try to sneak past his desk. BBCE recently introduced new standards of authentication, with some duplicity in their trademarks. I'm sure we will see more updates as these clowns get creative.
From PSA’s website:
The PSA Financial Guarantee of Grade & Authenticity
The PSA Financial Guarantee of Grade & Authenticity (“Guarantee”) is fundamental to PSA's concept of third-party grading. Subject to the exceptions noted below, the Guarantee ensures the accuracy of the grade assigned to any PSA-graded card.
PSA guarantees that all cards submitted to it shall be graded in accordance with PSA grading standards and under the procedures of PSA.
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.
The current market value is determined by PSA, based in part on the PSA Price Guide values and/or recent prices realized from the marketplace. PSA will be the sole determiner of the current market value.
I personally know some people who have been paid on the guarantee.
The guarantee is, however at PSA’s discretion. “ If PSA, in fact, concludes that the card in question no longer merits the PSA grade”…
I wonder if those who got refunds were exceptions not the rule. It looks like the Gurantee and the TOS are saying two different things. So maybe one was written with soft language for a client vs PSA customer service situation and one was written in all caps for the lawyers.
thank you for posting that video. i cant imagine the disappointment of opening that.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The moral of the story is stick with Mantle and Ruth and leave Pikachu and Charizard alone 🤣