Hub, Do you know of any methods or procedures in place that would prevent the T206 card in question from disappearing in a like manner from the other grading companies?
As far as your first situation, mistakes are made an PSA fixed it.
On the second situation, I cannot beleive that there is not some sort of notation made when you hand over your cards that denotes the contents of the submission form were received by PSA rep intact.
Thank you very much. I have withheld getting involved in this fray. As a collector of vintage cards since I was 7 years old, I have started to get my cards graded over the past 3 years. In addition, I have purchased thousands of dollars of graded cards from such fine people as you Dan and Rob McBride.
What bothers me the most is that cards are no longer graded by committee. As such, PSA saves money by having only one person grade each card but I see a tremendous inconsistency between cards I get returned graded, as well as the fact that cards are damaged and no one else cross checks it. Cards that I know are PSA 7 get graded PSA 8 and cards that I think should be PSA 8 come back PSA 6. They in my opinion were graded by different people. I just got back a 1959 Blaylock and Susce hi numbers that were both PSA 5 (creased). These cards were hand selected raw for me (along with 25 other hi number 1959 commons) at a premium price. by a PSA dealer. They were meticuloiusly reviewed by me. There were no creases in any of the cards. The 2 creased cards are irreplaceable...pop of 10 on the Blaylock.
One of the 1961 cards that was missing was a Gentile hi number. Try to replace that one.
All I would like to know is where is my 1951 Bowman Hank Sauer. Since no one at PSA can answer that question, then Mr. McKee's situation is a valid one, as well as where are the other missing cards of mine.
Sure there are. You sit with the PSA rep (in my case it was over an hour becuz I had that many cards) and you match up the card(s) with the hand written invoice, listing each card #, the name of the player and the brand (Topps, Fleer, etc.). Then based on the total number submitted, the PSA rep gives you a final price for the service with return shipping (which includes insurance).
The loss of the card did not occur on my end or at the show. It occurred at PSA when the box was opened and the contents were taken out. Someone had to, in my humble opinion, remove the card and either discard it or take it. So then the contents do not match up with the invoice. Maybve the card got left in the box when they "flattened" it ( I have no idea they do that but that is what I am told). And I am told there are cameras watching the receivers to make certain their integrity. But now we find out there isn't?
I just don't know about other companies. I am a loyal PSA customer.
Thank you for the kind words. I have no idea if cards are being graded by only one person or more than one anymore. I know that Zardoz took a tour of the facility last winter and may be able to shed some light on that. I agree that at times the grading is inconsistent. There's a human factor involved and I'm not sure if there is an easy solution to that problem since it's so subjective.
Good luck with your sets. Both the '59's and '61's are classics! Please feel free to be more active on the Message Board!
I've heard of cards being damaged and on rare occasion lost. I must be lucky I've sent over 18000 and never a card missing, maybe misgraded, but never missing.
To not record the transaction and to not insure the package.....
the guy has a lot of stones to think that PSA is somehow responsible. I feel bad for the guy, but even if he is being truthful, it is his lack of judgment that caused this problem.
First time to the network 54 board. Interesting reading. Very supportive of the submitter. Opposite of here.
I noticed that this guy just posted a scan of his UPS slip. NO INSURANCE. Is this guy for real?
If there was grading company for stupidity, this guy would get at least a MINT 9, if not a GEM MINT 10!
PSA is in a no win situation on this one. Priority mail cost about 4 bucks and that slip cost about another dollar or two. For 5 to 6 dollars anyone can create a stink.
I have made about a dozen submissions to PSA over the past year. Never a problem.
I've dealt with Dan before and that is how he shipped my $2.5k card, priority with signature confirmation. He does not believe in insurance as he thinks the high postage cost might attract some dishonest postal worker...I'd tend to disagree with him and after this fiasco he might reconsider his position.
Either way I do believe that he did send the Magie to PSA and it was lost somewhere, either on the way to PSA or at PSA due to negligence/theft. I can see how Joe would hold his firm stance as wavering might open a floodgate for future scammers. However it would be nice if PSA would privately contact Dan and try to work something out where both parties don't look bad and harbor no ill will (free gradings?).
Completing 1910s caramel sets. LMK if you can help.
Welcome to the boards! Sorry about your missing cards. I think it would impossible for a company like PSA grading a couple hundred thousand cards a month not to lose or damage some. I have certainly damaged my share, and I have never dealt with that quantity, plus I like to think I am careful. An entry level box unloader I am sure is going to damage some. Fortunately, in my few hundred submisions, I have never had any lost. Almost all have ben undergraded.
I will see you Saturday at the Show, as I won't be able to get there on Friday. I will have your cards with me. I look forward to meeting you in person.
I've submitted over 5000 cards and never had one go missing. A few damaged (none recently) but none lost. Of course I don't send in cards that book raw in the thousands either, so that adds a whole new dimension of risk into the equation.
I've graded about 2000-3000 cards and never had any missing.
As for this situation, it's looking more and more like a dishonest postal employee. Think about this. If you were a crook and lived in southern California and knew about sports cards, it would be very lucrative to get a job at the Newport Beach Post Office. Anything that came through there addressed to PSA and wasn't insured would be like candy to a 4 year old. I would bet that there are postal employees in every major metropolitan city in this country who know who PSA is and know what contents are in a box addressed to PSA.
I don't know any of the individuals involved. However, assuming the facts are as Joe Orlando stated, I make the following observations:
(1) If I had a card worth $6,000, I would never, ever, send it by any method less secure than registered mail (and I would probably take it to a show for onsite grading if that was feasible);
(2) Several posts have mentioned the possibility of postal fraud. This might be possible if the package was sent by a method less secure than registered mail. However, it would be difficult with registered mail. As I'm sure many of you are aware, when a package is sent by registered mail, all of the edges are stamped with a special red stamp that bears the postmark of the sender's post office. Even if a postal worker in Newport Beach knew about PSA and the likely contents of the package, he or she would need to open the package, take out the card, and reseal the package. The problem is that the postal worker in Newport Beach has the Newport Beach stamp, not the stamp from the sender's post office. Therefore, he or she would not be able to duplicate the stamp. This, of course, does not prevent someone in the sender's post office from opening the package, but he or she would be unlikely to know about PSA.
John
Mainly collecting 1956-1980 Topps Football, 1960-1963 Fleer Football, 1964-1967 Philadelphia Football, 1957-1980 Topps Hockey, 1968-1980 O-Pee-Chee Hockey, and 1976 Topps Basketball. Looking for PSA 9 NQ (or higher) in 1972-1980, and PSA 8 NQ or higher for pre-1972.
I agree that registered mail appears to be the most secure manner of shipping. But I'm confused about these remarks that the submitter was foolish for not having insurance. Please explain how it would have made a difference. As I understand it, the insurance essentially guarantees that your package will arive at its destination in an undamaged state. It is undisputed that it arrived and it was undamaged. So what would the insurance claim be?
I do not believe you need insurance to protect against theft of some of the contents. If the package is intentionally opened by someone other than the addressed recipient or their authorized agent, it is a crime, and will be investigated by the postal inspector's office regardless of whether it was insured, especially if an allegation is made that the USPS' own employees were involved.
Here again, and I don't mean to sound thick, but one of five things happened; 1) the card arrived and went unnoticed by PSA, eventually tossed out; 2) a PSA employee took it; 3) the card was received and acknowledged, and got lost somehow before/without being graded; 4) a postal employee took it; or 5) the card was never in the package in the first place. I do not see how insurance would have mattered in any of these events. 1,2 and 3 surely cannot be the USPS fault. 4 will be investigated and restitution ordered if proven true, plus someone goes to prison (federal offense). 5 will be investigated and if a false claim made, prison for the submitter, with (obviously) no insurance payment.
Please tell me what I'm missing here. It may have been foolish to not have insurance if the package never arrived or arrived in shambles, but that's really not the issue here.
The Network 54 post by Dan McKee is very interesting indeed. In the latest development, he is threatening to write an article exposing the insecure nature of the postal delivery system and PSA's receipt system. Also he is fishing around the forum over there for a lawyer who might want to take his case in his lawsuit against PSA.
Give me a friggin' break! When his article comes out I hope Collectors Universe picks out all the inaccuracies and sues the pants off this guy. When he files his lawsuit over the alleged $6000, I hope the fees and costs just bleed his bank account dry. There is absolutely no way he can prove that he placed the alleged rare card in the package.
The more that he writes, the less sympathy I have for him. I don't know Dan McKee nor do I ever want to meet him, but his behavior in this case is laughable. If he follows up with his threats, he deserves all that comes his way.
Be careful what you ask for. If you find Mr. McKee's story unbelievable, so be it, but I do not, nor do many others. I can say with some degree of confidence that if a lawsuit is filed, it will be far more regrettable from PSA's standpoint than Mr. McKee's.
As I see it, PSA can put this matter to rest. Tell us exactly why this could not have happened---show us the video and describe the procedures that inspire us to believe that this could not happen.
You misapprehend the entire concept of proof as it is applied in a civil case. A Plaintiff in a case like this need only show that it is more likley true than not that he shipped the card and PSA lost it. Re-read the Net54 thread. I have no reason to doubt McKee could show: 1) he owned the card (proof of purchase, witnesses saw him with it, etc.); 2) he sold the card on condition that it come back graded (probably to show authentic and unaltered) and has the e-mail showing the transaction; 3) the sale was arms' length--not a trumped up deal with Uncle Joe; 4) this is why he requested a five-day or short turnaround from PSA on this card; 5) he placed at least 25 other T206s in a package that has a written notation on a US Postal Signature Confirmation Receipt ststing "T206" Magie; 6) he will testify under oath that he depositied the Magie card in that package and delivered it to theUSPS; 7) the package was received at PSA, signed for by someone named D Sarbrick; 8) the package was not damaged, for PSA's policy is to not accept damaged packages, return them or notate the damage (I forget which, doesn't matter, none occurred here) 9) the other cards were received, processed and graded.
That is sufficient to show claim of negligence that PSA lost it. Whether a jury believes McKee is not for us to decide, but juries usually apply common sense. In my view, common sense says this guy had the card, sold the card subject to grading, had every incentive to have it graded quickly to close the sale, and sent it to PSA. To find in PSA's favor, in my opinion, you have to conclude the guy is lying. He generated a bogus submission form, put a false note on a USPS receipt, and hoped that PSA would not have a video of the package being opened, even though he had believed that such processes were in place at PSA. Or, I suppose you could argue the USPS employee took it, which is even more far-fetched. Apart from the problems with opening and re-taping the package, you would have to conclude that the employee would be able to tell that a Sherry Magee card, basically common but for the misspelling, was the jewel of the package, a hundred times more valuable than the other T206s in the package that looked essentially the same.
In sum, while Mr. McKee does not by any means have an ironclad case, it is foolish to conclude he cannot win. Watch and see.
The fact that Mr. McKee didn't insure a package of that value is truly amazing to me (and not sending it Registered too). To take it one step further, it probably should have been insured for even a higher amount, perhaps $8,000 or $10,000 since there were 25 other T-206's in the package too.
But regarding your point concerning the insurance: it may not be a relevant factor towards why this card is missing, however, in my opinion, if he hopes to win a judgement in court, the fact that he didn't insure it may prejudice a jury's decision in favor of him and may hurt his credibility somewhat. Same goes with not following PSA's shipping recommendations by not sending it Registered Mail. That too will certainly hurt his chances.
Another big mistake he's making, in my opinion, is dumping out everything he has to say about this incident on the Network 54 Message Board. If he goes to court and if any part of the testimony is not consistent with what he wrote, the Defense Counsel will certainly turn that against him.
Your Five Point analysis is dead on and I agree with you -- the postal service is not out of the picture in spite of many people's assertion that they are. That's another big problem for the Plaintiff if this goes to court.
<<7) the package was received at PSA, signed for by someone named D Sarbrick; 8) the package was not damaged, for PSA's policy is to not accept damaged packages, return them or notate the damage (I forget which, doesn't matter, none occurred here) 9) the other cards were received, processed and graded.
That is sufficient to show claim of negligence that PSA lost it. Whether a jury believes McKee is not for us to decide, but juries usually apply common sense. In my view, common sense says this guy had the card, sold the card subject to grading, had every incentive to have it graded quickly to close the sale, and sent it to PSA. To find in PSA's favor, in my opinion, you have to conclude the guy is lying. He generated a bogus submission form, put a false note on a USPS receipt, and hoped that PSA would not have a video of the package being opened, even though he had believed that such processes were in place at PSA. Or, I suppose you could argue the USPS employee took it, which is even more far-fetched. Apart from the problems with opening and re-taping the package, you would have to conclude that the employee would be able to tell that a Sherry Magee card, basically common but for the misspelling, was the jewel of the package, a hundred times more valuable than the other T206s in the package that looked essentially the same.>>i]
Curmudgeon:
I think that you are a very gifted individual in terms of the law, and I find your analysis compelling. Nonetheless, I think that certain matters you bring up are in dispute, and cannot adequately be proven by either party.
A) Despite the fact the package arrived at PSA, at this point in time, I believe that the original package no longer exists. As such, I think it would be extremely improbably to prove (even based on a preponderance of the evidence) that the package arrived at PSA's headquarters in an untampered, original fashion . Simply because the PSA received did not see any obvious signs of tampering, there is no way to convince me that one can be assured that the package arrived in its original and unaltered package.
Heck -- having seen the Signature Confirmation sheet, all that really needed to happen was a Postal Employee to take the package home, rip it open, take out the Magie card, and then put the cards in a new package sans the Magie (sending the rest of the cards along to take the responsibility off of his shoulder). Is this unlikely? In my mind, yes, but it is nonetheless possible. In my mind, it is just as possible as a PSA employee throwing away a $6,000 card.
C) Finally, I think that PSA could argue a persuasive case that Mr. McKee, through no fault of PSA, violated many of the Guidelines that PSA publishes on its submission form. It would again be very difficult to convince me to make PSA liable for an individual who made two critical errors: 1) Not following common sense / USPS guidelines by shipping a $6,000 card without insurance and 2) Not following PSA guidelines in the packaging of the invoice. Though it is not clear from Mr. McKee's original note on this matter, PSA specificlaly says that each invoice should be placed within a box, with separate boxes for each submission. It appears from the intent of his message that Mr. McKee did not follow this procedure. In fact, the card should have been in a box with bubble wrap, styrofoam pellets or other materials around it to clearly indicate that there was a card inside and that it was packaged and shipped properly. Mr. McKee seems to have overlooked this procedure.
D) You talk about juries applying common sense, which is fine. How many people are going to find credible a story that revolves around an individual who sent a $6,000 card without insurance! In my mind, Mr. McKee's initial and glaring lack of common sense is the most difficult issue to get around in this matter.
I find it hard to think that PSA would be liable given the numerous errors that Mr. McKee applied in this matter. In a hypothetical issue, consider this. Consider that the same situation happened, with Mr. Mckee sending 25 cards Plus the Magie in an uninsured package whilst not following the Packaging and Shipping Procedures followed by PSA. If the card arrives to PSA damaged (let's just say torn into five pieces for the sake of argument), who is at fault? In my mind, the USPS and PSA have absolutely no culpability in that instance. This situation is very unfortunate, I wholeheartedly agree with that. I also concede that Mr. McKee is a hobby veteran who has earned the respect of many, and, as such, I do not doubt his story. Nonetheless, I feel that his numerous mistakes in the process of handling this card suggest to me at least that perhaps he either a) made more mistakes that he has not mentioned or b) at the very least is responsible for what has happened as a result of his mistakes (e.g. not following the mentioned procedure). If it has not been apparent from this thread, many individuals here have sent in tens of thousands of submissions to PSA, worth much more many, with nary a problem. To me, that speaks volumes.
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
Legal theories are great, but, as I understand it, when it comes to jury trials, much of it comes down to whether the plaintiff is likeable and sympathetic.
In this case he is not.
Firstly, McKee did not follow proper procedure and package the card as instructed on PSAs instructions. Second, nine out of ten people will think that it is ridiculous that a package worth $7500 was unisured. Third, he goes on and on about how he plans to stick it to PSA, by writing an article and costing them over $6000 in good will if they do not comply with his demands. This shows me, as I am confident that it will show a trier of facts, that McKee is, at this point, trying to extort money from PSA. McKee probably thinks that by threatening to write an article and bringing a lawsuit, the powers that be at CU will give in to his threats and tactics.
When it is all said and done, this is no more than a "he said, she said" case. Do you think that a jury will award this potentially dishonest, apparently vindictive and certainly irresponsible card collector an award of $6000?
For what it is worth, I believe I heard/read that one of the major hobby publications (unsure which one) has already indiciated to Mr. McKee that it will not print his story.
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
PSA's submission form contains the following statement: Exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any dispute arising from Customer's submission of cards to PSA shall be in the Superior Court, Orange County, California, and Customer agrees to waive any right to a trial by jury in any such action, and further agrees that the prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to an award of its attorney's fees and costs.
One can argue whether the waiver of a trial by jury is enforceable (in some states, I don't think a unilateral waiver on a pre-printed form is valid). The award of attorneys' fees is probably enforceable, and thus anything but a slam-dunk case becomes a real gamble.
Will Mr. McKee be willing to: (1) pay an attorney in Orange County a retainer (which he may have to do, even if the attorney works on contingency), (2) pay that attorney's expenses to conduct depositions, (3) promise 40% of any recovery to that attorney (standard contingency), and (4) possibly be liable for $20k+ in Collectors Universe's attorneys' fees if he loses?
My guess is no. His anger is understandable, if the situation is as he describes, but I don't think that a lawsuit offers any realistic remedy.
DrNguyenVanFalk -- Very well written and very informative. I agree that a lawsuit does not look like a sensible option. With no final judgement, both parties in one way or another lose. I guess at this point one can only hope that this card was stolen and it shows up somewhere and can be identified and claimed by Mr. McKee as stolen property.
You are correct on most and perhaps all points--Dude made some good points as well. However, I personally believe that enforceable or not, McKee would be better off with a bench trial instead of a jury. For one thing, I am comfortable in saying that a judge would be almost completely unimpressed by this lack of insurance issue--for reasons already stated, I believe he may even rule it irrelevant. To the extent so many on this board want to dwell on it, I will revise my thinking and recognize that it may be latched onto by a jury. Since juries can decide cases by focusing on legally minor issues or evidence (gasp!), I would want to remove that possibility if I were him. As for likeability, I'd put up Mr. McKee against PSA with no reservations.
As for attorney's fees, this is truly a deterrent for litigants, which has both advantages and disdvantages. Keep in mind though, that if he prevails, he will be reimbursed his fees. regards.............Todd
NUMBER 1. .....any questions? I spent $53,000 submitting cards last year to PSA. They lost zero and damaged zero. I am not saying they don't make mistakes, however for PSA to have lost 5 invoices in one year OF YOURS is the most ludicrous statement on this board. If they lost two of my invoices in a period of five years, I would not do business with them again. If you don't believe me, check around.
1954 WILSON 1971 TOPPS GREATEST MOMENTS 1964 TOPPS STAND UPS 1934 BATTER UPS
Looking for high grade rookie cards and unopened boxes/cases
I should say, with the insurance background I have, I basically self insure just about everything I send if I trust the recipient company (as I do with PSA). While I've taken hits, I know the $$ I've saved over the years more than outweigh the claims I've paid. Plus, I know that insurance companies very simply don't like paying claims - I'd rather be sitting with my money than be waiting for them to (hopefully) reimburse me after they've made 50% on the transactions over time. For that reason, I don't find it that unreasonable that this gentleman did not insure it, though frankly if the $6000 was that large of a loss to him (not that it isn't to everyone, I just don't want to get into the utility value of money) - he really should have.
But I just don't see how this can go much beyond a he said/he said situation. I'm sure the gentleman has plenty of character references, but PSA has more simply because of the number of submitters who've never had a problem! And I really don't think PSA is scared of this - frankly, I just don't see this being a big hobby event over $6000, unless the gentleman in discovery got a "smoking gun." CU's revenues are over $10M/quarter - $6000 + fees are a drop in the bucket.
Why do I get the feeling, that some cards are worth money, while others are not?
The lack of insurance on the parcel at face value is relevant. Any reasonable person might ask why take the chance of loss of $7,500 worth of merchandise by placing contents in the custody of a carrier without protecting oneself? Dan, for his reasons given and whether you agree with them or not, can provide evidence that this is how he ships most of the time. Sadly, as unlikely as it is, his method of shipping cannot definitively rule out theft by an employee of the USPS.
PSA can certainly provide hundreds of thousands of instances where nothing like this has occurred. This does that mean that theft cannot occur at receiving. Someone would have to be willing to risk their job and freedom if found guilty? The Magie is a very identifiable card. It would be hard to now pass this card in the market without provoking questions that would lead to the inevitable conviction of the person who stole it.
A court battle would come down to credibility. Should Dan decide to pursue litigation he will soon learn that the worst settlement is better than the best judgment. Litigation can have a life of it's own. Until you have been there you cannot understand the profound impact that it has on one's life.
PSA, having survived the WIWAG scandal, seems to be impervious to bad news. I highly doubt this would have any material adverse impact if they were found responsible for the loss of the Magie card or as a result of Dan's going public with his experience.
I would hope that both parties would re-examine the procedures that were employed. For their own protection and piece of mind of the customers, PSA should have video surveillance throughout the premises where cards are handled. They should also make available their verification of the contents of our submissions immediately so that discrepancies, should they exist, could be handled immediately.
PSA should have video surveillance throughout the premises where cards are handled. They should also make available their verification of the contents of our submissions immediately so that discrepancies, should they exist, could be handled immediately.
You bring up some terrific points. The litigation process could result in several appeals and in the end, it's only the attorneys that win.
All,
I'm actually surprised how many people are convinced that it's simply Mr. McKee's word against the word of the person who opened the package. There several deterrents in place that would keep the person at PSA who opens the package from stealing an item. One is that PSA knows exactly who opened the package. If this person would decide to steal something valuable, he knows that he would face some stiff questioning and be held under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of his career. The other deterrent is the video surveillance. Whether a video tape was running at the time the package was opened is irrelevant if the person doesn't know if the tape is running or not. In other words, as long as the person thinks he's being video taped then it's highly unlikely he would attempt to commit this crime. Then of course is the chance of getting fired or even being arrested.
If Mr. McKee had delivered the package in person and gave it to a PSA employee then it would be a McKee vs. PSA trail. However, this is not the case at all. The package was sent non-registered. Over the course of several days perhaps at least a dozen people handled the package and probably twice as many had access to the package. Best to my knowledge no records are kept regarding who handles non-registered packages and it's doubtful that there is any video surveillance at all during it's coast to coast trip. Can Mr. McKee prove the package was kept secure during the entire delivery process? Absolutely not. Even though the package arrived appearing undamaged, it would be impossible for a PSA employee to tell if the package was carefully opened and resealed by a postal employee. This would have not been the case if the package was sent registered as recommended by PSA. I'm sure that PSA's defense attorneys would argue that Mr. McKee was negligent for not sending it registered. Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if PSA hires an expert witness who will expose problems with the Postal Service and could give detailed accounts regarding how many possible scenarios there could be for package tampering as a package travels from coast to coast and throw out statistics regarding how many package tampering complaints were filed over a certain period of time. It's safe to say that more packages have been tampered with the Postal Service than complaints made against PSA.
So in short, is it really a McKee vs. one PSA package opener's trial? OR couldn't it be this scenario: McKee vs. two or three dozen unnamed postal employees who have very little accountability for the handling of non-registered packages? I believe it's the second scenario and in my opinion the several dozen postal employees over several days time are more suspect than a single PSA employee over a 5 minute period. In short, Mr. McKee doesn't have an air-tight case against PSA and it's a real shame that there are people out there clouding his judgment simply because they are anti-PSA.
That is one of the most coherent posts yet. People who are making this out as McKee against PSA are simply trying to cast a bad light on PSA, and many have an axe to grind. It is a very unfortunate situation for all, but to construe that PSA has severely wronged Mr. Mckee requires shaded glasses.
You are absolutely correct. It is the advice of certain individuals who are feeding him some really bad advise. One dealer in particular has an obvious axe to grind with PSA and he is taking this opportunity to make make Mr. McKee his pathetic little pawn without regard for Mr. McKee's well being. The sad thing is that Mr. McKee is not smart enough to recognize this.
Throughout this afternoon, Michael Wentz and others on the Network 54 Forum are advising Mr. McKee of various ways in which to find an attorney in Orange County who is willing to take such a case. Mr. McKee has indicated that he has a certain amount of money saved up and he is ready to use this a a retainer. It sounds like he is ready to litigate!
At the same time, however, he is saying that he doesn't even know how to go about finding a lawyer. Unless Mr. McKee is simply putting on an act, it is clear that Mr. McKee is not the brightest guy out there. People like Michael Wentz are exploiting Mr. McKee's ignorance and his emotional state and pushing him in a direction that he probably should not go.
What I am seeing is that there are people with agendas are quick to give advise but no one has yet to step up with any real assistance. There are several attorneys that post regularly on that forum, and I believe there are a few that practice out of Southern California. Many of these guys are quick to encourage Mr. McKee to pursue this lawsuit and some have even indicated that he might have a fair chance of prevailing. Let's see whether some of these high power attorneys can act as Mr. McKee's mouthpiece in the California Superior Court in Orange County. Maybe Mr. McKee can retain one of these guys and maybe Michael Wentz as a man of principle can contribute to his litigation funds.
Start by doing some online searches for law firms in the Orange County and surrounding areas. You might also want to call several libraries and see if they can obtain a phonebook from that area.
Keep in mind that you may run into many attorneys that will have no interest in taking your case. Eventually, though, you WILL find someone who will be very eager to see that justice is served.
Wentz forgot to tell McKee to write down some telephone numbers from late night television commercials.
With the amount of hate that MW has for PSA, it wouldn't surprise me if he throws some money his way just to see PSA embarrased. I think this is a slam dunk case for PSA.
I have to say that I have been very impressed with the input from a majority of the contributors on both of the threads. I do not necessarily agree with all that has been said or the motivation behind some of the comments, but there has been some great arguments in favor of each party. I am sorry that this is at Dan's expense and that PSA is being dragged through the mud too.
Another thing that I was thinking is that if Dan has this aversion to sending packages fully insured or a fear in alerting the "$12 an hour USPS employees" (as he put it) of a valuable package, then did he request that PSA not fully insure the value of this package on it's return to him? I would think that this would be a requirement from someone who is so adamant about his methods of shipping.
Dan if you are reading this, I am not meaning to be critical of you just trying to get a full understanding of the situation.
As near as I can tell, this submission had the following characteristics:
25 cards sent in one mass. 1 card sent by itself. Whole thing sent priority mail with no insurance.
My best guess is that the single card went out in the trash. The person who unpacked it probably grabbed the 25-card packet and thought they were done.
I've submitted boxes with more than one invoice before. I'm always a little worried when I do this that one of the will be mistaken for trash. In order to avoid this problem, I don't use a lot of "loose" packing material. Additionally, I either rubber-band the packets together, or make sure some other way that a packet cannot be missed.
BOTN - That is not an option (to have your graded PSA order sent w/ no insurance). You must specify the value of the cards submitted and add them up and pay the registered insured value to get them back. Granted w/ registered mail delivery as it must be signed for each step of the shipping process, it gives accountability to each carrier that rec'd it. A $1.00 registered package or a $10,000 one will have an almost 100% chance of reaching its destination. And with that said, didn't Dan's invoice have the $6,000 value listed? And if so, wouldn't the PSA employee who opened the package, go back and see if the $6,000 card was possibly in there? Since clearly the numbers wouldn't add up otherwise...jay
<<And if so, wouldn't the PSA employee who opened the package, go back and see if the $6,000 card was possibly in there? Since clearly the numbers wouldn't add up otherwise...jay >>
Jay, probably not. As the story was described, there would presumably be two separate invoices (as it was two different service levels), with different amounts listed on each. So the PSA employee -- if the card made it to PSA -- then would have either taken the card, or not seen the card and the ensuing (5-page) invoice.
As I've said before, if the Magie had been in a separate box within the larger package, I think this whole mess could have been avoided.
I am actively buying MIKE SCHMIDT gem mint baseball cards. Also looking for any 19th century cabinets of Philadephia Nationals. Please PM with additional details.
Hate to shoot and run, but I leave for a meeting soon.
Dude and Buckwheat, while I truly respect your contributions to the hobby and most of your remarks on this forum, your recent posts about the type of evidence that could be shown to "back" PSA or defeat McKee is incredibly off point, and, frankly, some of them are laughable from a legal perspective. I will probably take a few hits on that statement, but I'm willing to stand behind it and get into it further (if you want) when I have more time.
Brucemo, I believe your post to be frank and accurate and the most likely explanation of what occurred.
Here's what I find the most remarkable:
Read the thread about PSA grading a reprint--one page down. You'll see that they flat out blew noticing that a very significant card was fake, and graded it. "Darth Grader" and all the others to whom so many on this board either cower or praise (depending on their submissions), the best and the brightest of PSA blow one, and the response is to shrug it off because everyone makes mistakes. Yet the mere possibility or suggestion that some minimum wage receiving clerk may have tossed out a card is completely rejected by the freaking sycophants, and many board members here basically cannibalize their fellow collector and villify him as a moron or a scam artist. DO YOU SEE THE FLIPPIN FOLLY IN THAT LOGIC? Do you perhaps want to reassess who grades a 10 for stupidity?
<< <i>That is not an option (to have your graded PSA order sent w/ no insurance). You must specify the value of the cards submitted and add them up and pay the registered insured value to get them back. >>
Jay, I am very much aware of what is supposed to be done and the routine with grading at PSA. I was merely trying to illustrate that someone who has that little faith in the USPS by declaring the value of the contents of the package by virtue of the amount paid for postage and/or by shipping registered, would certainly make efforts to avoid having his valuables shipped back to him in a capacity where the value is "revealed". He took effort to send the cards in a way that he feels is the safest but that is only half the trip. The cards still need to get back to him and be handled by the same USPS who he does not have faith in.
In addition the PSA submission forms that I have a Return Carrier box at the top. In it the submitter can decide to use Fed Ex (by providing an account number), Registered Mail or Express Mail (by providing an account). In that section the submitter tells PSA how much to insure the package for.
The main reason that PSA asks for values on the lines is mainly for shipping purposes. If Dan did not want to alert the USPS of the value then he should have placed $1 in the box next to each card. In the event of a loss or damage while at PSA, the value that one places on that line is pretty much irrelevant.
What's the alleged negligent act by PSA? There is no proof of their negligence. Unless you go on a res ipsa theory. I find that highly unlikely to succeed. The only evidence that it was placed in the box is the testimony of the plaintiff. It wouldn't be too hard to cast doubt on his testimony using the fact that he didn't insure the contents. Remember, the plaintiff has to convice the jury his story is more likely than not the way things went down. I'd never put anything past a jury, but IMO most reasonable juries would conclude that there simply isn't enough proof of any wrong-doing by PSA.
But, who knows, I hardly know all the facts here and I've just browsed through the thread. Besides, a $6,000 judgment hardly seems worth the effort.
After reading all the threads, it really appears to me that both parties are being truthful and an unfortunate (and expensive) series of events resulted in the lost card. It's really hard to tell for sure since there is no evidence, but I don't doubt either party is telling the truth. The real question is what can be learned from this unfortunate incident:
1) Be sure to insure and ship via registered mail all submissions to any grading company. 2) Always rubberband the cards/Card Savers together, especially if there is a loose card included with a stack of cards from another invoice. 3) If submitting a card that you can't afford to lose, consider hand carrying it to the grading company at the next show if at all possible. That's the only way to guarantee that they received it. 4) PSA should review their oversight throughout the grading process. Whenever a potential failure occurs with an electronic component, we perform "root cause, corrective action". It helps to reduce the risk of repeat incidents. 5) If PSA did treat the customer harshly over the phone, that's making a bad situation worse. When someone loses a $6k card, they are bound to be hostile and irritated. Acting beligerantly (if PSA did indeed do so) to the customer is not good customer service.
As for the likelyhood of a successful lawsuit, I'm not a lawyer and therefore don't have an idea. Since this is a civil case, comparisons to criminal cases and burden of proof are not valid. The threshold for burden of proof in a civil case is much lower. That much I do know.
I think the consensus is that it was the manner of packing and method of shipping that leaves the door wide open for this to occur.
Most of the people on this board are seasoned, reasonable collectors who happen to prefer PSA but are not in some hypnotic state of servitude.
I also think, and I am sure others do as well, that there seems to be some gray area from the time that the cards are received by PSA until they are officially entered and accounted for in their system.
What do the other grading companies do? I haven't heard of satisfactory answer regarding any of the grading companies.
You also have to factor in the reality that most evryone on this board has submitted low/high - dollar/amount submissions without any concern or drama. And if there is a situationit would show up here first.
We just dont hear about these types of situations to warrant instantaneous belief of the collector involved.
If PSA pays off based on the record before us, all the other scam artists out there will make similar attempts in the future. They're setting themselves up for many more extortion attempts down the road.
I have read and re-read this post as well as the whole post on Network 54 and I cannot come up with a viable answer.It seems to be a very unsolvable situation from both viewpoints.It is obvious that a package was sent to PSA and signed for as received in undamaged condition.Thus,the culpability of the Post Office is no longer an issue.Therein lies the crux of the situation.How can we as submitters ever be assured that this situation will not occur with our cards?Could this situation not happen with any grading company?How about any customers that we as sellers send cards to? Does PSA have cameras in place to cover a similar occurance like this from happening again?I can understand PSA's stance on this as to relent when there is no evidence to indicate that the card was in the shipping container is surely to open the door to every scam artist that knows what a graded baseball card looks like.I would think that this scenario would make PSA rethink their receiving and opening policies and maybe install cameras as well as voice recording devices.This instance may blow over but for anyone wanting to create problems for PSA,this problem will rear it's ugly head again.It is just a matter of time and I hope that those in charge will see this.I have had a thought that has not been brought up yet.If the sender actually sent this card,would not his payment to PSA have included a charge to cover the grading of this card also?It would seem that this would throw up a flag as the amounts would not match up with the cards.Although this is not really an indicator of the card being included in the package,it would add some semblence of credibility to his position.
I hope that MW will eventually find happiness and realize that he cannot carry a grudge for the rest of his life.He seems to read everything that is posted on these boards and take out what will be the most advantageous to his point of view.I truely feel sorry for someone that has that much of a chip on his shoulder.
Vic
Please be kind to me. Even though I'm now a former postal employee, I'm still capable of snapping at any time.
<< <i>Hate to shoot and run, but I leave for a meeting soon.
Dude and Buckwheat, while I truly respect your contributions to the hobby and most of your remarks on this forum, your recent posts about the type of evidence that could be shown to "back" PSA or defeat McKee is incredibly off point, and, frankly, some of them are laughable from a legal perspective. I will probably take a few hits on that statement, but I'm willing to stand behind it and get into it further (if you want) when I have more time.
Yet the mere possibility or suggestion that some minimum wage receiving clerk may have tossed out a card is completely rejected by the freaking sycophants, and many board members here basically cannibalize their fellow collector and villify him as a moron or a scam artist. DO YOU SEE THE FLIPPIN FOLLY IN THAT LOGIC? Do you perhaps want to reassess who grades a 10 for stupidity? >>
Curmudgeon: I don't see any evidence that could be shown to "Back PSA or defeat McKee". There is just very little concrete evidence of anything here. Perhaps you weren't speaking to me in the last paragraph, but I certainly have never suggested that the card couldn't have been stolen bay a PSA employee, or lost by a PSA employee. Either is possible, but neither is provable. And without insurance or registered mail, the Post Office, while not legally liable, certainly could be the source of the missing card.
I certainly have not villified Dan, but have said that he would have a much better case if he sent the card insured and/or registered. I feel very sorry for him. Assuming he is telling the truth, which I have no reason to doubt, he is out a lot of money. Dan, however, is the one who has said that the card couldn't have been lost, and he is sure was stolen by someone at PSA. Check his posts on the 54 board. I have no idea how he can draw that conclusion.
As I have said, the situation is so nebulous, that however anyone sees it is very susceptible to the shade of their glasses. Since no one can know with any degree of certainty what happened to the card, I don't see how one can villify ANY PARTY to the situation.
Buckwheat -- Well written. You and I are in the same camp on this issue and your response pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. It isn't clear cut at all. Perhaps it would be best for Mr. McKee to take this to court. I believe in the system and I believe justice will be served.
Comments
Do you know of any methods or procedures in place that would prevent the T206 card in question
from disappearing in a like manner from the other grading companies?
As far as your first situation, mistakes are made an PSA fixed it.
On the second situation, I cannot beleive that there is not some sort of notation made
when you hand over your cards that denotes the contents of the submission form were received by PSA rep intact.
Loves me some shiny!
Thank you very much. I have withheld getting involved in this fray. As a collector of vintage cards since I was 7 years old, I have started to get my cards graded over the past 3 years. In addition, I have purchased thousands of dollars of graded cards from such fine people as you Dan and Rob McBride.
What bothers me the most is that cards are no longer graded by committee. As such, PSA saves money by having only one person grade each card but I see a tremendous inconsistency between cards I get returned graded, as well as the fact that cards are damaged and no one else cross checks it. Cards that I know are PSA 7 get graded PSA 8 and cards that I think should be PSA 8 come back PSA 6. They in my opinion were graded by different people. I just got back a 1959 Blaylock and Susce hi numbers that were both PSA 5 (creased). These cards were hand selected raw for me (along with 25 other hi number 1959 commons) at a premium price. by a PSA dealer. They were meticuloiusly reviewed by me. There were no creases in any of the cards. The 2 creased cards are irreplaceable...pop of 10 on the Blaylock.
One of the 1961 cards that was missing was a Gentile hi number. Try to replace that one.
All I would like to know is where is my 1951 Bowman Hank Sauer. Since no one at PSA can answer that question, then Mr. McKee's situation is a valid one, as well as where are the other missing cards of mine.
Hubcap
Sure there are. You sit with the PSA rep (in my case it was over an hour becuz I had that many cards) and you match up the card(s) with the hand written invoice, listing each card #, the name of the player and the brand (Topps, Fleer, etc.). Then based on the total number submitted, the PSA rep gives you a final price for the service with return shipping (which includes insurance).
The loss of the card did not occur on my end or at the show. It occurred at PSA when the box was opened and the contents were taken out. Someone had to, in my humble opinion, remove the card and either discard it or take it. So then the contents do not match up with the invoice. Maybve the card got left in the box when they "flattened" it ( I have no idea they do that but that is what I am told). And I am told there are cameras watching the receivers to make certain their integrity. But now we find out there isn't?
I just don't know about other companies. I am a loyal PSA customer.
Hubcap
Thank you for the kind words. I have no idea if cards are being graded by only one person or more than one anymore. I know that Zardoz took a tour of the facility last winter and may be able to shed some light on that. I agree that at times the grading is inconsistent. There's a human factor involved and I'm not sure if there is an easy solution to that problem since it's so subjective.
Good luck with your sets. Both the '59's and '61's are classics! Please feel free to be more active on the Message Board!
Dan
the guy has a lot of stones to think that PSA is somehow responsible. I feel bad for the guy, but even if he is being truthful, it is his lack of judgment that caused this problem.
I noticed that this guy just posted a scan of his UPS slip. NO INSURANCE. Is this guy for real?
If there was grading company for stupidity, this guy would get at least a MINT 9, if not a GEM MINT 10!
PSA is in a no win situation on this one. Priority mail cost about 4 bucks and that slip cost about another dollar or two. For 5 to 6 dollars anyone can create a stink.
I have made about a dozen submissions to PSA over the past year. Never a problem.
Either way I do believe that he did send the Magie to PSA and it was lost somewhere, either on the way to PSA or at PSA due to negligence/theft. I can see how Joe would hold his firm stance as wavering might open a floodgate for future scammers. However it would be nice if PSA would privately contact Dan and try to work something out where both parties don't look bad and harbor no ill will (free gradings?).
Welcome to the boards! Sorry about your missing cards. I think it would impossible for a company like PSA grading a couple hundred thousand cards a month not to lose or damage some. I have certainly damaged my share, and I have never dealt with that quantity, plus I like to think I am careful. An entry level box unloader I am sure is going to damage some. Fortunately, in my few hundred submisions, I have never had any lost. Almost all have ben undergraded.
I will see you Saturday at the Show, as I won't be able to get there on Friday. I will have your cards with me. I look forward to meeting you in person.
Rob
As for this situation, it's looking more and more like a dishonest postal employee. Think about this. If you were a crook and lived in southern California and knew about sports cards, it would be very lucrative to get a job at the Newport Beach Post Office. Anything that came through there addressed to PSA and wasn't insured would be like candy to a 4 year old. I would bet that there are postal employees in every major metropolitan city in this country who know who PSA is and know what contents are in a box addressed to PSA.
Unfortunately, he did not insure his package.
He took a chance and lost. Now he is crying foul???!?!??
(1) If I had a card worth $6,000, I would never, ever, send it by any method less secure than registered mail (and I would probably take it to a show for onsite grading if that was feasible);
(2) Several posts have mentioned the possibility of postal fraud. This might be possible if the package was sent by a method less secure than registered mail. However, it would be difficult with registered mail. As I'm sure many of you are aware, when a package is sent by registered mail, all of the edges are stamped with a special red stamp that bears the postmark of the sender's post office. Even if a postal worker in Newport Beach knew about PSA and the likely contents of the package, he or she would need to open the package, take out the card, and reseal the package. The problem is that the postal worker in Newport Beach has the Newport Beach stamp, not the stamp from the sender's post office. Therefore, he or she would not be able to duplicate the stamp. This, of course, does not prevent someone in the sender's post office from opening the package, but he or she would be unlikely to know about PSA.
John
I agree that registered mail appears to be the most secure manner of shipping. But I'm confused about these remarks that the submitter was foolish for not having insurance. Please explain how it would have made a difference. As I understand it, the insurance essentially guarantees that your package will arive at its destination in an undamaged state. It is undisputed that it arrived and it was undamaged. So what would the insurance claim be?
I do not believe you need insurance to protect against theft of some of the contents. If the package is intentionally opened by someone other than the addressed recipient or their authorized agent, it is a crime, and will be investigated by the postal inspector's office regardless of whether it was insured, especially if an allegation is made that the USPS' own employees were involved.
Here again, and I don't mean to sound thick, but one of five things happened; 1) the card arrived and went unnoticed by PSA, eventually tossed out; 2) a PSA employee took it; 3) the card was received and acknowledged, and got lost somehow before/without being graded; 4) a postal employee took it; or 5) the card was never in the package in the first place. I do not see how insurance would have mattered in any of these events. 1,2 and 3 surely cannot be the USPS fault. 4 will be investigated and restitution ordered if proven true, plus someone goes to prison (federal offense). 5 will be investigated and if a false claim made, prison for the submitter, with (obviously) no insurance payment.
Please tell me what I'm missing here. It may have been foolish to not have insurance if the package never arrived or arrived in shambles, but that's really not the issue here.
ebay id: nolemmings
Give me a friggin' break! When his article comes out I hope Collectors Universe picks out all the inaccuracies and sues the pants off this guy. When he files his lawsuit over the alleged $6000, I hope the fees and costs just bleed his bank account dry. There is absolutely no way he can prove that he placed the alleged rare card in the package.
The more that he writes, the less sympathy I have for him. I don't know Dan McKee nor do I ever want to meet him, but his behavior in this case is laughable. If he follows up with his threats, he deserves all that comes his way.
Be careful what you ask for. If you find Mr. McKee's story unbelievable, so be it, but I do not, nor do many others. I can say with some degree of confidence that if a lawsuit is filed, it will be far more regrettable from PSA's standpoint than Mr. McKee's.
As I see it, PSA can put this matter to rest. Tell us exactly why this could not have happened---show us the video and describe the procedures that inspire us to believe that this could not happen.
You misapprehend the entire concept of proof as it is applied in a civil case. A Plaintiff in a case like this need only show that it is more likley true than not that he shipped the card and PSA lost it. Re-read the Net54 thread. I have no reason to doubt McKee could show:
1) he owned the card (proof of purchase, witnesses saw him with it, etc.);
2) he sold the card on condition that it come back graded (probably to show authentic and unaltered) and has the e-mail showing the transaction;
3) the sale was arms' length--not a trumped up deal with Uncle Joe;
4) this is why he requested a five-day or short turnaround from PSA on this card;
5) he placed at least 25 other T206s in a package that has a written notation on a US Postal Signature Confirmation Receipt ststing "T206" Magie;
6) he will testify under oath that he depositied the Magie card in that package and delivered it to theUSPS;
7) the package was received at PSA, signed for by someone named D Sarbrick;
8) the package was not damaged, for PSA's policy is to not accept damaged packages, return them or notate the damage (I forget which, doesn't matter, none occurred here)
9) the other cards were received, processed and graded.
That is sufficient to show claim of negligence that PSA lost it. Whether a jury believes McKee is not for us to decide, but juries usually apply common sense. In my view, common sense says this guy had the card, sold the card subject to grading, had every incentive to have it graded quickly to close the sale, and sent it to PSA. To find in PSA's favor, in my opinion, you have to conclude the guy is lying. He generated a bogus submission form, put a false note on a USPS receipt, and hoped that PSA would not have a video of the package being opened, even though he had believed that such processes were in place at PSA. Or, I suppose you could argue the USPS employee took it, which is even more far-fetched. Apart from the problems with opening and re-taping the package, you would have to conclude that the employee would be able to tell that a Sherry Magee card, basically common but for the misspelling, was the jewel of the package, a hundred times more valuable than the other T206s in the package that looked essentially the same.
In sum, while Mr. McKee does not by any means have an ironclad case, it is foolish to conclude he cannot win. Watch and see.
ebay id: nolemmings
The fact that Mr. McKee didn't insure a package of that value is truly amazing to me (and not sending it Registered too). To take it one step further, it probably should have been insured for even a higher amount, perhaps $8,000 or $10,000 since there were 25 other T-206's in the package too.
But regarding your point concerning the insurance: it may not be a relevant factor towards why this card is missing, however, in my opinion, if he hopes to win a judgement in court, the fact that he didn't insure it may prejudice a jury's decision in favor of him and may hurt his credibility somewhat. Same goes with not following PSA's shipping recommendations by not sending it Registered Mail. That too will certainly hurt his chances.
Another big mistake he's making, in my opinion, is dumping out everything he has to say about this incident on the Network 54 Message Board. If he goes to court and if any part of the testimony is not consistent with what he wrote, the Defense Counsel will certainly turn that against him.
Your Five Point analysis is dead on and I agree with you -- the postal service is not out of the picture in spite of many people's assertion that they are. That's another big problem for the Plaintiff if this goes to court.
8) the package was not damaged, for PSA's policy is to not accept damaged packages, return them or notate the damage (I forget which, doesn't matter, none occurred here)
9) the other cards were received, processed and graded.
That is sufficient to show claim of negligence that PSA lost it. Whether a jury believes McKee is not for us to decide, but juries usually apply common sense. In my view, common sense says this guy had the card, sold the card subject to grading, had every incentive to have it graded quickly to close the sale, and sent it to PSA. To find in PSA's favor, in my opinion, you have to conclude the guy is lying. He generated a bogus submission form, put a false note on a USPS receipt, and hoped that PSA would not have a video of the package being opened, even though he had believed that such processes were in place at PSA. Or, I suppose you could argue the USPS employee took it, which is even more far-fetched. Apart from the problems with opening and re-taping the package, you would have to conclude that the employee would be able to tell that a Sherry Magee card, basically common but for the misspelling, was the jewel of the package, a hundred times more valuable than the other T206s in the package that looked essentially the same.>>i]
Curmudgeon:
I think that you are a very gifted individual in terms of the law, and I find your analysis compelling. Nonetheless, I think that certain matters you bring up are in dispute, and cannot adequately be proven by either party.
A) Despite the fact the package arrived at PSA, at this point in time, I believe that the original package no longer exists. As such, I think it would be extremely improbably to prove (even based on a preponderance of the evidence) that the package arrived at PSA's headquarters in an untampered, original fashion . Simply because the PSA received did not see any obvious signs of tampering, there is no way to convince me that one can be assured that the package arrived in its original and unaltered package.
C) Finally, I think that PSA could argue a persuasive case that Mr. McKee, through no fault of PSA, violated many of the Guidelines that PSA publishes on its submission form. It would again be very difficult to convince me to make PSA liable for an individual who made two critical errors: 1) Not following common sense / USPS guidelines by shipping a $6,000 card without insurance and 2) Not following PSA guidelines in the packaging of the invoice. Though it is not clear from Mr. McKee's original note on this matter, PSA specificlaly says that each invoice should be placed within a box, with separate boxes for each submission. It appears from the intent of his message that Mr. McKee did not follow this procedure. In fact, the card should have been in a box with bubble wrap, styrofoam pellets or other materials around it to clearly indicate that there was a card inside and that it was packaged and shipped properly. Mr. McKee seems to have overlooked this procedure.
D) You talk about juries applying common sense, which is fine. How many people are going to find credible a story that revolves around an individual who sent a $6,000 card without insurance! In my mind, Mr. McKee's initial and glaring lack of common sense is the most difficult issue to get around in this matter.
I find it hard to think that PSA would be liable given the numerous errors that Mr. McKee applied in this matter. In a hypothetical issue, consider this. Consider that the same situation happened, with Mr. Mckee sending 25 cards Plus the Magie in an uninsured package whilst not following the Packaging and Shipping Procedures followed by PSA. If the card arrives to PSA damaged (let's just say torn into five pieces for the sake of argument), who is at fault? In my mind, the USPS and PSA have absolutely no culpability in that instance. This situation is very unfortunate, I wholeheartedly agree with that. I also concede that Mr. McKee is a hobby veteran who has earned the respect of many, and, as such, I do not doubt his story. Nonetheless, I feel that his numerous mistakes in the process of handling this card suggest to me at least that perhaps he either a) made more mistakes that he has not mentioned or b) at the very least is responsible for what has happened as a result of his mistakes (e.g. not following the mentioned procedure). If it has not been apparent from this thread, many individuals here have sent in tens of thousands of submissions to PSA, worth much more many, with nary a problem. To me, that speaks volumes.
In this case he is not.
Firstly, McKee did not follow proper procedure and package the card as instructed on PSAs instructions. Second, nine out of ten people will think that it is ridiculous that a package worth $7500 was unisured. Third, he goes on and on about how he plans to stick it to PSA, by writing an article and costing them over $6000 in good will if they do not comply with his demands. This shows me, as I am confident that it will show a trier of facts, that McKee is, at this point, trying to extort money from PSA. McKee probably thinks that by threatening to write an article and bringing a lawsuit, the powers that be at CU will give in to his threats and tactics.
When it is all said and done, this is no more than a "he said, she said" case. Do you think that a jury will award this potentially dishonest, apparently vindictive and certainly irresponsible card collector an award of $6000?
One can argue whether the waiver of a trial by jury is enforceable (in some states, I don't think a unilateral waiver on a pre-printed form is valid). The award of attorneys' fees is probably enforceable, and thus anything but a slam-dunk case becomes a real gamble.
Will Mr. McKee be willing to:
(1) pay an attorney in Orange County a retainer (which he may have to do, even if the attorney works on contingency),
(2) pay that attorney's expenses to conduct depositions,
(3) promise 40% of any recovery to that attorney (standard contingency), and
(4) possibly be liable for $20k+ in Collectors Universe's attorneys' fees if he loses?
My guess is no. His anger is understandable, if the situation is as he describes, but I don't think that a lawsuit offers any realistic remedy.
POTD = 09/03/2003
You are correct on most and perhaps all points--Dude made some good points as well. However, I personally believe that enforceable or not, McKee would be better off with a bench trial instead of a jury. For one thing, I am comfortable in saying that a judge would be almost completely unimpressed by this lack of insurance issue--for reasons already stated, I believe he may even rule it irrelevant. To the extent so many on this board want to dwell on it, I will revise my thinking and recognize that it may be latched onto by a jury. Since juries can decide cases by focusing on legally minor issues or evidence (gasp!), I would want to remove that possibility if I were him. As for likeability, I'd put up Mr. McKee against PSA with no reservations.
As for attorney's fees, this is truly a deterrent for litigants, which has both advantages and disdvantages. Keep in mind though, that if he prevails, he will be reimbursed his fees.
regards.............Todd
ebay id: nolemmings
NUMBER 1. .....any questions? I spent $53,000 submitting cards last year to PSA. They lost zero and damaged zero. I am not saying they don't make mistakes, however for PSA to have lost 5 invoices in one year OF YOURS is the most ludicrous statement on this board. If they lost two of my invoices in a period of five years, I would not do business with them again.
If you don't believe me, check around.
1954 WILSON
1971 TOPPS GREATEST MOMENTS
1964 TOPPS STAND UPS
1934 BATTER UPS
But I just don't see how this can go much beyond a he said/he said situation. I'm sure the gentleman has plenty of character references, but PSA has more simply because of the number of submitters who've never had a problem! And I really don't think PSA is scared of this - frankly, I just don't see this being a big hobby event over $6000, unless the gentleman in discovery got a "smoking gun." CU's revenues are over $10M/quarter - $6000 + fees are a drop in the bucket.
<< <i>6) he will testify under oath that he depositied the Magie card in that package and delivered it to the USPS >>
WELL.
I am thoroughly convinced now.
No question, If he will SWEAR
that he sent it, then that is a Slam Dunk,
open-and-shut case now!!
Puuullllleeessse!
PSA can certainly provide hundreds of thousands of instances where nothing like this has occurred. This does that mean that theft cannot occur at receiving. Someone would have to be willing to risk their job and freedom if found guilty? The Magie is a very identifiable card. It would be hard to now pass this card in the market without provoking questions that would lead to the inevitable conviction of the person who stole it.
A court battle would come down to credibility. Should Dan decide to pursue litigation he will soon learn that the worst settlement is better than the best judgment. Litigation can have a life of it's own. Until you have been there you cannot understand the profound impact that it has on one's life.
PSA, having survived the WIWAG scandal, seems to be impervious to bad news. I highly doubt this would have any material adverse impact if they were found responsible for the loss of the Magie card or as a result of Dan's going public with his experience.
I would hope that both parties would re-examine the procedures that were employed. For their own protection and piece of mind of the customers, PSA should have video surveillance throughout the premises where cards are handled. They should also make available their verification of the contents of our submissions immediately so that discrepancies, should they exist, could be handled immediately.
ebay id grays
Visit my site at http://www.botn.com
You bring up some terrific points. The litigation process could result in several appeals and in the end, it's only the attorneys that win.
All,
I'm actually surprised how many people are convinced that it's simply Mr. McKee's word against the word of the person who opened the package. There several deterrents in place that would keep the person at PSA who opens the package from stealing an item. One is that PSA knows exactly who opened the package. If this person would decide to steal something valuable, he knows that he would face some stiff questioning and be held under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of his career. The other deterrent is the video surveillance. Whether a video tape was running at the time the package was opened is irrelevant if the person doesn't know if the tape is running or not. In other words, as long as the person thinks he's being video taped then it's highly unlikely he would attempt to commit this crime. Then of course is the chance of getting fired or even being arrested.
If Mr. McKee had delivered the package in person and gave it to a PSA employee then it would be a McKee vs. PSA trail. However, this is not the case at all. The package was sent non-registered. Over the course of several days perhaps at least a dozen people handled the package and probably twice as many had access to the package. Best to my knowledge no records are kept regarding who handles non-registered packages and it's doubtful that there is any video surveillance at all during it's coast to coast trip. Can Mr. McKee prove the package was kept secure during the entire delivery process? Absolutely not. Even though the package arrived appearing undamaged, it would be impossible for a PSA employee to tell if the package was carefully opened and resealed by a postal employee. This would have not been the case if the package was sent registered as recommended by PSA. I'm sure that PSA's defense attorneys would argue that Mr. McKee was negligent for not sending it registered. Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if PSA hires an expert witness who will expose problems with the Postal Service and could give detailed accounts regarding how many possible scenarios there could be for package tampering as a package travels from coast to coast and throw out statistics regarding how many package tampering complaints were filed over a certain period of time. It's safe to say that more packages have been tampered with the Postal Service than complaints made against PSA.
So in short, is it really a McKee vs. one PSA package opener's trial? OR couldn't it be this scenario: McKee vs. two or three dozen unnamed postal employees who have very little accountability for the handling of non-registered packages? I believe it's the second scenario and in my opinion the several dozen postal employees over several days time are more suspect than a single PSA employee over a 5 minute period. In short, Mr. McKee doesn't have an air-tight case against PSA and it's a real shame that there are people out there clouding his judgment simply because they are anti-PSA.
That is one of the most coherent posts yet. People who are making this out as McKee against PSA are simply trying to cast a bad light on PSA, and many have an axe to grind. It is a very unfortunate situation for all, but to construe that PSA has severely wronged Mr. Mckee requires shaded glasses.
Throughout this afternoon, Michael Wentz and others on the Network 54 Forum are advising Mr. McKee of various ways in which to find an attorney in Orange County who is willing to take such a case. Mr. McKee has indicated that he has a certain amount of money saved up and he is ready to use this a a retainer. It sounds like he is ready to litigate!
At the same time, however, he is saying that he doesn't even know how to go about finding a lawyer. Unless Mr. McKee is simply putting on an act, it is clear that Mr. McKee is not the brightest guy out there. People like Michael Wentz are exploiting Mr. McKee's ignorance and his emotional state and pushing him in a direction that he probably should not go.
What I am seeing is that there are people with agendas are quick to give advise but no one has yet to step up with any real assistance. There are several attorneys that post regularly on that forum, and I believe there are a few that practice out of Southern California. Many of these guys are quick to encourage Mr. McKee to pursue this lawsuit and some have even indicated that he might have a fair chance of prevailing. Let's see whether some of these high power attorneys can act as Mr. McKee's mouthpiece in the California Superior Court in Orange County. Maybe Mr. McKee can retain one of these guys and maybe Michael Wentz as a man of principle can contribute to his litigation funds.
Advice June 11 2003, 4:52 PM
Dan,
Start by doing some online searches for law firms in the Orange County and surrounding areas. You might also want to call several libraries and see if they can obtain a phonebook from that area.
Keep in mind that you may run into many attorneys that will have no interest in taking your case. Eventually, though, you WILL find someone who will be very eager to see that justice is served.
Wentz forgot to tell McKee to write down some telephone numbers from late night television commercials.
Another thing that I was thinking is that if Dan has this aversion to sending packages fully insured or a fear in alerting the "$12 an hour USPS employees" (as he put it) of a valuable package, then did he request that PSA not fully insure the value of this package on it's return to him? I would think that this would be a requirement from someone who is so adamant about his methods of shipping.
Dan if you are reading this, I am not meaning to be critical of you just trying to get a full understanding of the situation.
Greg
ebay id grays
Visit my site at http://www.botn.com
25 cards sent in one mass.
1 card sent by itself.
Whole thing sent priority mail with no insurance.
My best guess is that the single card went out in the trash. The person who unpacked it probably grabbed the 25-card packet and thought they were done.
I've submitted boxes with more than one invoice before. I'm always a little worried when I do this that one of the will be mistaken for trash. In order to avoid this problem, I don't use a lot of "loose" packing material. Additionally, I either rubber-band the packets together, or make sure some other way that a packet cannot be missed.
bruce
Website: http://www.brucemo.com
Email: brucemo@seanet.com
Website: http://www.qualitycards.com
Jay, probably not. As the story was described, there would presumably be two separate invoices (as it was two different service levels), with different amounts listed on each. So the PSA employee -- if the card made it to PSA -- then would have either taken the card, or not seen the card and the ensuing (5-page) invoice.
As I've said before, if the Magie had been in a separate box within the larger package, I think this whole mess could have been avoided.
Dude and Buckwheat, while I truly respect your contributions to the hobby and most of your remarks on this forum, your recent posts about the type of evidence that could be shown to "back" PSA or defeat McKee is incredibly off point, and, frankly, some of them are laughable from a legal perspective. I will probably take a few hits on that statement, but I'm willing to stand behind it and get into it further (if you want) when I have more time.
Brucemo, I believe your post to be frank and accurate and the most likely explanation of what occurred.
Here's what I find the most remarkable:
Read the thread about PSA grading a reprint--one page down. You'll see that they flat out blew noticing that a very significant card was fake, and graded it. "Darth Grader" and all the others to whom so many on this board either cower or praise (depending on their submissions), the best and the brightest of PSA blow one, and the response is to shrug it off because everyone makes mistakes. Yet the mere possibility or suggestion that some minimum wage receiving clerk may have tossed out a card is completely rejected by the freaking sycophants, and many board members here basically cannibalize their fellow collector and villify him as a moron or a scam artist. DO YOU SEE THE FLIPPIN FOLLY IN THAT LOGIC? Do you perhaps want to reassess who grades a 10 for stupidity?
ebay id: nolemmings
<< <i>That is not an option (to have your graded PSA order sent w/ no insurance). You must specify the value of the cards submitted and add them up and pay the registered insured value to get them back. >>
Jay, I am very much aware of what is supposed to be done and the routine with grading at PSA. I was merely trying to illustrate that someone who has that little faith in the USPS by declaring the value of the contents of the package by virtue of the amount paid for postage and/or by shipping registered, would certainly make efforts to avoid having his valuables shipped back to him in a capacity where the value is "revealed". He took effort to send the cards in a way that he feels is the safest but that is only half the trip. The cards still need to get back to him and be handled by the same USPS who he does not have faith in.
In addition the PSA submission forms that I have a Return Carrier box at the top. In it the submitter can decide to use Fed Ex (by providing an account number), Registered Mail or Express Mail (by providing an account). In that section the submitter tells PSA how much to insure the package for.
The main reason that PSA asks for values on the lines is mainly for shipping purposes. If Dan did not want to alert the USPS of the value then he should have placed $1 in the box next to each card. In the event of a loss or damage while at PSA, the value that one places on that line is pretty much irrelevant.
Greg
ebay id grays
Visit my site at http://www.botn.com
But, who knows, I hardly know all the facts here and I've just browsed through the thread. Besides, a $6,000 judgment hardly seems worth the effort.
1) Be sure to insure and ship via registered mail all submissions to any grading company.
2) Always rubberband the cards/Card Savers together, especially if there is a loose card included with a stack of cards from another invoice.
3) If submitting a card that you can't afford to lose, consider hand carrying it to the grading company at the next show if at all possible. That's the only way to guarantee that they received it.
4) PSA should review their oversight throughout the grading process. Whenever a potential failure occurs with an electronic component, we perform "root cause, corrective action". It helps to reduce the risk of repeat incidents.
5) If PSA did treat the customer harshly over the phone, that's making a bad situation worse. When someone loses a $6k card, they are bound to be hostile and irritated. Acting beligerantly (if PSA did indeed do so) to the customer is not good customer service.
As for the likelyhood of a successful lawsuit, I'm not a lawyer and therefore don't have an idea. Since this is a civil case, comparisons to criminal cases and burden of proof are not valid. The threshold for burden of proof in a civil case is much lower. That much I do know.
I think the consensus is that it was the manner of packing and method of shipping that leaves the
door wide open for this to occur.
Most of the people on this board are seasoned, reasonable collectors who happen to prefer PSA but are not
in some hypnotic state of servitude.
I also think, and I am sure others do as well, that there seems to be some gray area from the time that the cards
are received by PSA until they are officially entered and accounted for in their system.
What do the other grading companies do? I haven't heard of satisfactory answer regarding any of the grading companies.
You also have to factor in the reality that most evryone on this board has submitted low/high - dollar/amount
submissions without any concern or drama. And if there is a situationit would show up here first.
We just dont hear about these types of situations to warrant instantaneous belief of the collector involved.
Loves me some shiny!
I have read and re-read this post as well as the whole post on Network 54 and I cannot come up with a viable answer.It seems to be a very unsolvable situation from both viewpoints.It is obvious that a package was sent to PSA and signed for as received in undamaged condition.Thus,the culpability of the Post Office is no longer an issue.Therein lies the crux of the situation.How can we as submitters ever be assured that this situation will not occur with our cards?Could this situation not happen with any grading company?How about any customers that we as sellers send cards to? Does PSA have cameras in place to cover a similar occurance like this from happening again?I can understand PSA's stance on this as to relent when there is no evidence to indicate that the card was in the shipping container is surely to open the door to every scam artist that knows what a graded baseball card looks like.I would think that this scenario would make PSA rethink their receiving and opening policies and maybe install cameras as well as voice recording devices.This instance may blow over but for anyone wanting to create problems for PSA,this problem will rear it's ugly head again.It is just a matter of time and I hope that those in charge will see this.I have had a thought that has not been brought up yet.If the sender actually sent this card,would not his payment to PSA have included a charge to cover the grading of this card also?It would seem that this would throw up a flag as the amounts would not match up with the cards.Although this is not really an indicator of the card being included in the package,it would add some semblence of credibility to his position.
I hope that MW will eventually find happiness and realize that he cannot carry a grudge for the rest of his life.He seems to read everything that is posted on these boards and take out what will be the most advantageous to his point of view.I truely feel sorry for someone that has that much of a chip on his shoulder.
Vic
<< <i>Hate to shoot and run, but I leave for a meeting soon.
Dude and Buckwheat, while I truly respect your contributions to the hobby and most of your remarks on this forum, your recent posts about the type of evidence that could be shown to "back" PSA or defeat McKee is incredibly off point, and, frankly, some of them are laughable from a legal perspective. I will probably take a few hits on that statement, but I'm willing to stand behind it and get into it further (if you want) when I have more time.
Yet the mere possibility or suggestion that some minimum wage receiving clerk may have tossed out a card is completely rejected by the freaking sycophants, and many board members here basically cannibalize their fellow collector and villify him as a moron or a scam artist. DO YOU SEE THE FLIPPIN FOLLY IN THAT LOGIC? Do you perhaps want to reassess who grades a 10 for stupidity? >>
Curmudgeon: I don't see any evidence that could be shown to "Back PSA or defeat McKee". There is just very little concrete evidence of anything here. Perhaps you weren't speaking to me in the last paragraph, but I certainly have never suggested that the card couldn't have been stolen bay a PSA employee, or lost by a PSA employee. Either is possible, but neither is provable. And without insurance or registered mail, the Post Office, while not legally liable, certainly could be the source of the missing card.
I certainly have not villified Dan, but have said that he would have a much better case if he sent the card insured and/or registered. I feel very sorry for him. Assuming he is telling the truth, which I have no reason to doubt, he is out a lot of money. Dan, however, is the one who has said that the card couldn't have been lost, and he is sure was stolen by someone at PSA. Check his posts on the 54 board. I have no idea how he can draw that conclusion.
As I have said, the situation is so nebulous, that however anyone sees it is very susceptible to the shade of their glasses. Since no one can know with any degree of certainty what happened to the card, I don't see how one can villify ANY PARTY to the situation.
edited for grammar