Help/Opinions on PSA Turnaround & Customer Service
kencope
Posts: 416 ✭✭
I was hoping that some of you that might submit more frequently and/or in larger quantity than I do could give me your opinion on something.
I sent in a '52 Topps Mantle for grading at the "Walk Through" same day service level, for which I paid $150 + $36 shipping. The item arrived to PSA on the 14th and was entered into their system at 11am on the 15th. Given that it was "same day", I thought I'd have a result by the end of the day. I noticed that the result was posted at approximately 5pm on the 16th, and I received the shipment notification today, the 17th.
I called and asked one of the CS reps, Madelyn, if they could consider lowering the fee to $75 which would be equal to their 2-day service level (which is what occurred). I was politely told no. I asked that she discuss with her manager. She called me back later in the day and claimed that they met the 24-hour window, and would not be giving me any credit or reimbursement.
I've been disappointed with PSA turnaround in the past, and quit using them for a year because of it. Thought I'd try it out again, but I not very happy this time around either.
I understand that they go a few days late on 10 or 20-day turnarounds all the time, and it's just to be expected and excused by the disclaimer of "approximate" turnaround times. BUT, when you pay $150 for same day service, and your card gets shipped out 3 days after they receive it, I don't feel I'm in the wrong for asking to at least be charged at the lower service level.
Any suggestions on what I could/should do? Thanks in advance for any help the community can provide.
I sent in a '52 Topps Mantle for grading at the "Walk Through" same day service level, for which I paid $150 + $36 shipping. The item arrived to PSA on the 14th and was entered into their system at 11am on the 15th. Given that it was "same day", I thought I'd have a result by the end of the day. I noticed that the result was posted at approximately 5pm on the 16th, and I received the shipment notification today, the 17th.
I called and asked one of the CS reps, Madelyn, if they could consider lowering the fee to $75 which would be equal to their 2-day service level (which is what occurred). I was politely told no. I asked that she discuss with her manager. She called me back later in the day and claimed that they met the 24-hour window, and would not be giving me any credit or reimbursement.
I've been disappointed with PSA turnaround in the past, and quit using them for a year because of it. Thought I'd try it out again, but I not very happy this time around either.
I understand that they go a few days late on 10 or 20-day turnarounds all the time, and it's just to be expected and excused by the disclaimer of "approximate" turnaround times. BUT, when you pay $150 for same day service, and your card gets shipped out 3 days after they receive it, I don't feel I'm in the wrong for asking to at least be charged at the lower service level.
Any suggestions on what I could/should do? Thanks in advance for any help the community can provide.
0
Comments
The person I bought it from has agreed to refund the money and the grading charges, but it's the principle of the matter that I'm interested in hearing about. If anyone knows what I can do to change PSA's opinion (short of a chargeback to my cc), I'd greatly appreciate it. Was thinking of calling Scott, as I have his phone number.
If everyone thinks it's no big deal and just the norm, that's helpful feedback as well, as I'll probably just stop using PSA entirely once my subscription runs out if that's the case. Thanks again!
$150
SAME DAY
(Autographed Cards: 5 business days) 2
Any card with a declared value of $5,000 - $9,999 must be submitted at this service level or higher. This includes autographed cards. Walk-Through Service is PSA’s super priority service for those cards you need to have graded and returned right away. Cards may be submitted to Walk-Through service by mail or at PSA headquarters. Drop off service is by appointment only and cards must be received by 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time. Please call customer service at (800) 325-1121 to schedule Walk-Through service drop off.
Nothing on their website about 24 hours. It says same day.
Eyebone
While I think the blanket "all times are approximate" disclaimer is ridiculous, I'm ok with it from the standpoint that I'm not asking for a full refund. However, if it takes them 2-3 days I should be charges at the 2 day level instead of the walk-through.
I'm not the kind of person to just "take it", so I plan on fighting this. If anyone else has done it successfully, would love to hear your suggested method. Would prefer to pursue an easy way rather than the hard way. Thanks for everyone's opinion and help.
<< <i>All turnaround times are approximate. Even the short ones. I feel ya on the complaint and the 24-hour excuse sounds like schenanigans, but there's not much more you can do. >>
Used to working on HOF SS Baseballs--Now just '67 Sox Stickers and anything Boston related.
<< <i>It came back as questionable authenticity, but I don't see how the grade it received should affect anything regarding the turnaround time?
The person I bought it from has agreed to refund the money and the grading charges, but it's the principle of the matter that I'm interested in hearing about. If anyone knows what I can do to change PSA's opinion (short of a chargeback to my cc), I'd greatly appreciate it. Was thinking of calling Scott, as I have his phone number.
If everyone thinks it's no big deal and just the norm, that's helpful feedback as well, as I'll probably just stop using PSA entirely once my subscription runs out if that's the case. Thanks again! >>
If you had scored the grade you wanted this thread wouldn't exist. That is why I asked.
Not sure what their policy is at this service level and what is normal to expect in terms of turn around time.
You state you plan to fight it. What is your plan of attack?
The service level is "same day", per the submission form, of course with the "all times are approximate" disclaimer.
Walkthrough "same day" costs $150
2-day costs $75
<< <i>The thread would exist regardless of the grade. One has nothing to do with the other in my book.
The service level is "same day", per the submission form, of course with the "all times are approximate" disclaimer.
Walkthrough "same day" costs $150
2-day costs $75 >>
Also, it's an unpopular opinion, but you did receive something for paying for same day service: priority grading time. If you had paid for 2-day, it may have taken 3-4 or more. The pricing tiers are for service levels that, as you go higher, increase your priority. You were in the same day category and were graded in priority with items under that tier. That it missed the same day mark doesn't mean you deserve a refund, as you still benefitted from a quicker return than you otherwise would have gotten.
That would be one day service to me.
The day it arrives at PSA doesn't count, neither does the ship out date.
It was graded within ONE day. That's all that matters.
You're wasting your time and breath arguing with PSA about their policies.
If you don't like their service level, stay away from sending them any more items for another
year. I'm sure they really could care less.
<< <i>While I agree with you in spirit and personally wish that times were guaranteed, I don't think there's much grounds for a chargeback. Times are approximate and you agreed to those terms when submitting.
Also, it's an unpopular opinion, but you did receive something for paying for same day service: priority grading time. If you had paid for 2-day, it may have taken 3-4 or more. The pricing tiers are for service levels that, as you go higher, increase your priority. You were in the same day category and were graded in priority with items under that tier. That it missed the same day mark doesn't mean you deserve a refund, as you still benefitted from a quicker return than you otherwise would have gotten. >>
-----
My suggestion would be to read what charrigan wrote carefully.
His points are dead-on.
I would also add that, I get the right/wrong, fair/unfair argument
you're making. I really do, but in the grand scheme of things you're
talking about 75 bucks. My question to you is, how much mental
anguish, phone calls, arguments, forum posts and general
negativity are you willing to put yourself through for 75 dollars?
Just some food for thought.
John
"America suffers today from too much pluribus and not enough unum.".....Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
John & Charrigan - Very much appreciate your viewpoint. In answer to your questions:
While I understand the "priority" argument, that's not what was paid for. If the claim on their submittal form and website said that you're paying for priority, then there would be no issue. What I paid for was "same day" service. Same day, not one day (to cardbender's point). Someone had mentioned that it took 24 hours so that is same day. As a reminder, it also took longer than 24 hours from submittal log to grade release. Regarding, the $75 and the time/anguish fighting it may cause, this is not at all about the money to me. As I said earlier, I'm not out of pocket at all as the grading costs will be reimbursed no matter what they are. It's a matter or principle to me. Cardbender - you're right I may be wasting my time. But, if everyone thinks that way it allows companies to not honor their policies and do whatever they want without any recourse. If they can consistently not honor their service level (seems to me this is a very common occurrence), they should either adjust their pricing to higher more graders or change their stated grading times for each service level to something that they can adhere to. You're right that they don't care, at least not until everyone collectively says "I won't stand for this anymore" and does something about it.
Thanks again for everyone's comments, greatly appreciated.
Their policy is that turnaround times are estimated, which is clearly stated on the submission form. If it was guaranteed you'd have an argument, but it's not.
Also, the $75 price difference has very little to do with a 1-2 day faster turnaround time. It's more a fee for: a) the extra time and attention the card will garner by graders, b) the expertise of knowing what to look for and authenticating an expensive card, and c) the risk PSA is assuming by handling a $5000+ card since they will have to reimburse you if it gets damaged. These are the primary reasons for the price difference in service levels, not the turnaround time.
You sent PSA a potentially very valuable card and they told you it was fake. That's what you paid for. Whether it happened on Wednesday or Thursday is splitting hairs and you're really getting bent out of shape for nothing.
Lee
their terms are clearly spelled out.
For those holding clct stock, is $75 worth losing a potential long-time customer?
As far would I want to lose a customer as a shareholder, I wouldn't want a customer who submits fakes. I might even ban said submitter
All - Thanks again so much for your opinions. My purpose for the original post was to ask if anyone had success in the past with getting reimbursement when PSA does not adhere to their stated timeline. This thread has started to go a bit off track, as they can tend to do from time to time.
Thanks to all that posted and happy collecting!
<< <i>As far would I want to lose a customer as a shareholder, I wouldn't want a customer who submits fakes. I might even ban said submitter >>
<< <i>As far would I want to lose a customer as a shareholder, I wouldn't want a customer who submits fakes. I might even ban said submitter >>
I don't have any real opinion one way or another on whether a partial refund is warranted in this case, but this is an asinine statement.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>As far would I want to lose a customer as a shareholder, I wouldn't want a customer who submits fakes. I might even ban said submitter >>
I don't have any real opinion one way or another on whether a partial refund is warranted in this case, but this is an asinine statement. >>
+1
<< <i>You have a legit beef. I would try another phone call and then do a chargeback. >>
I would contact your credit card company and start a dispute. In the real world, where PSA doesn't live, your credit card company will surely know what "same day" means. I'm having a problem with PSA, whose graders apparently can't see the "green" in 1962 green tints. After several "reviews" they sent the cards back and charged me. I made scans of every card, both versions, sent the scans to PSA and told them the same scans were going to my credit card company and we could let them decide while I was disputing the charges if they could recognize the color green. Surprise, they told me to send the cards back. No results yet. So the moral of this story is, DON'T BACK DOWN. The $75 difference will look better in your wallet than theirs. And if they make a remark, that a dispute would force them to "cut off" their services, tell them its a moot point since you will never use their services again anyway. Good luck, you will win.
<< <i>
<< <i>You have a legit beef. I would try another phone call and then do a chargeback. >>
I would contact your credit card company and start a dispute. In the real world, where PSA doesn't live, your credit card company will surely know what "same day" means. I'm having a problem with PSA, whose graders apparently can't see the "green" in 1962 green tints. After several "reviews" they sent the cards back and charged me. I made scans of every card, both versions, sent the scans to PSA and told them the same scans were going to my credit card company and we could let them decide while I was disputing the charges if they could recognize the color green. Surprise, they told me to send the cards back. No results yet. So the moral of this story is, DON'T BACK DOWN. The $75 difference will look better in your wallet than theirs. And if they make a remark, that a dispute would force them to "cut off" their services, tell them its a moot point since you will never use their services again anyway. Good luck, you will win. >>
Does a situation like this where the collector is trying to retrieve his $75, and he wins or loses his appeal, get you banned from the forum?
PSA can I help you?
Hi it's Visa
Hi
Are your turnaround times guaranteed?
No
Ok thanks
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
That looks like darn fast service to me. Your expectation was that you would have a result by the end of the day. Just because the result wasn't updated in the system viewable to you doesn't mean it wasn't graded that day. But that really isn't the real issue here.
I've sent hundreds of items to PSA, including two '52 Topps Mantles which did come back authentic. To infer I should be "banned" because this item came back as questionable is a bit offensive. I could not determine for myself, and my cost was covered by the seller if it was deemed to not be authentic, so I sent it in to them for their opinion. In fact, any time I buy something on eBay even if I KNOW it's unauthentic (such as a fake Jordan rookie), I'm required to send it in to 3rd party grading in order to get reimbursed by eBay or the seller, that's eBay policy.
DPeck is correct that the only reason you're complaining about the turnaround time is because your $200 Ebay estate find Mantle turned out to be a fake. With your experience stated above there's no way you didn't know the card was fake. But you think you had to submit it for grading to be able to return it to the seller. It of course comes back a fake and now it costs you $186 to return the $200 Ebay estate find 52 Mantle you never should have bought in the first place. You want to gamble on irresponsible purchases and pay nothing when you lose. You want your money back from the seller, and now PSA for grading, so your roll of the dice ends up costing you nothing. You don't need PSA to return Ebay purchases. Just return them and if you use your credit card protection if Ebay or the seller gives you any resistance. Disputing PSA's charge based on your interpretation of what was suppose to occur is a weasel way of trying to get out of your bad purchase unscathed.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>You have a legit beef. I would try another phone call and then do a chargeback. >>
I would contact your credit card company and start a dispute. In the real world, where PSA doesn't live, your credit card company will surely know what "same day" means. I'm having a problem with PSA, whose graders apparently can't see the "green" in 1962 green tints. After several "reviews" they sent the cards back and charged me. I made scans of every card, both versions, sent the scans to PSA and told them the same scans were going to my credit card company and we could let them decide while I was disputing the charges if they could recognize the color green. Surprise, they told me to send the cards back. No results yet. So the moral of this story is, DON'T BACK DOWN. The $75 difference will look better in your wallet than theirs. And if they make a remark, that a dispute would force them to "cut off" their services, tell them its a moot point since you will never use their services again anyway. Good luck, you will win. >>
Does a situation like this where the collector is trying to retrieve his $75, and he wins or loses his appeal, get you banned from the forum? >>
I'd bet on it. And banned from submitting cards in the future.
<< <i>I was hoping that some of you that might submit more frequently and/or in larger quantity than I do could give me your opinion on something.
I sent in a '52 Topps Mantle for grading at the "Walk Through" same day service level, for which I paid $150 + $36 shipping. The item arrived to PSA on the 14th and was entered into their system at 11am on the 15th. Given that it was "same day", I thought I'd have a result by the end of the day. I noticed that the result was posted at approximately 5pm on the 16th, and I received the shipment notification today, the 17th.
I called and asked one of the CS reps, Madelyn, if they could consider lowering the fee to $75 which would be equal to their 2-day service level (which is what occurred). I was politely told no. I asked that she discuss with her manager. She called me back later in the day and claimed that they met the 24-hour window, and would not be giving me any credit or reimbursement.
I've been disappointed with PSA turnaround in the past, and quit using them for a year because of it. Thought I'd try it out again, but I not very happy this time around either.
I understand that they go a few days late on 10 or 20-day turnarounds all the time, and it's just to be expected and excused by the disclaimer of "approximate" turnaround times. BUT, when you pay $150 for same day service, and your card gets shipped out 3 days after they receive it, I don't feel I'm in the wrong for asking to at least be charged at the lower service level.
Any suggestions on what I could/should do? Thanks in advance for any help the community can provide. >>
You have two choices:
1. Use a different grader.
2. Increase your tolerance level.
You have two choices:
1. Use a different grader.
2. Increase your tolerance level. >>
+1
<< <i>You have two choices:
1. Use a different grader.
2. Increase your tolerance level. >>
+1 >>
I agree with this, but it's sad.
For this issue, it's unquestionably terrible customer service. People are pointing to the technicality of the estimated turnaround time as if that makes this okay. You can technically do all kinds of things in Tijuana, but they still aren't right.
PSA got to set the value for a same day turn around time and set it at $150. They believe $75 is fair for 2 day turnaround and charge that. If they can't come through with the first level of service, they should automatically kick the price down to the service that was actually provided. For 45 day turnarounds, estimates are fine. But this is simply getting to it today or tomorrow and charging an extra $75 to get to it today. Protecting yourself with fine print doesn't make it reasonable to keep the extra money for service not provided.
But, if I was the OP, I would probably decide it is not worth the time and energy to fight over the amount of money. If I was really upset, I'd opt for a different company in the future.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
<< <i>bottom line is that we do not know their gap in posting the grades compared to when card was actually inspected and opinion rendered. just because the dates on the web imply that it was not "same day" or even potentially 25 hours post "log in" doesn't mean that it took that long. i am pretty sure that PSA doesn't updated submission info on line in real time. and that could be when we see a date stamp added. second i think the "popage" date has to do with when the card grade goes through the next step. not the exact second a card was finally graded. its not like they start a clock like in a chess match. >>
There is a time lag between grading, sealing, and shipping.
I am not sure how long it is generally but I would imagine cards such as the one the OP submitted get in a different line but the steps still take place.
KBKards - I've already explained that I'm getting reimbursed the cost of the grading, no matter what it is. This item cost me over $5000, not a "$200 eBay estate find". I've seen fake Mantles that are obvious, this was not one of them. It was purchased from a very reputable dealer with hundreds and hundreds of 100% positive feedback. I've owned real '52 Mantles, and I had my doubts, but truly wasn't sure. Again, my grading fees, no matter what they are, are covered by the seller. The money doesn't matter to me ; the principle does. Your opinions are yours to express, but they'd carry more weight if they were backed by fact.
<< <i>It came back as questionable authenticity, but I don't see how the grade it received should affect anything regarding the turnaround time?
The person I bought it from has agreed to refund the money and the grading charges, but it's the principle of the matter that I'm interested in hearing about. If anyone knows what I can do to change PSA's opinion (short of a chargeback to my cc), I'd greatly appreciate it. Was thinking of calling Scott, as I have his phone number.
If everyone thinks it's no big deal and just the norm, that's helpful feedback as well, as I'll probably just stop using PSA entirely once my subscription runs out if that's the case. Thanks again! >>
Was this the card?
Mantle
<< <i>Yes, it is. >>
They got me a few months ago with the same card. Nicest looking copy I've ever seen. Gave a full refund though.
Edit: I was able to avoid paying grading fees, the print dots on the back gave it away under a loop.
Looking for 1970 MLB Photostamps
- uncut
Positive Transactions - tennesseebanker, Ahmanfan, Donruss, Colebear, CDsNuts, rbdjr1, Downtown1974, yankeeno7, drewsef, mnolan, mrbud60, msassin, RipublicaninMass, AkbarClone, rustywilly, lsutigers1973, julen23 and nam812, plus many others...
<< <i>DBCoin - Could you explain why someone should be banned for using PSA's service? I'm not going to go ahead and call your comment asinine as others have, but I don't understand why you would say someone should be banned for using PSA to authenticate cards, which is the basis of their business.
KBKards - I've already explained that I'm getting reimbursed the cost of the grading, no matter what it is. This item cost me over $5000, not a "$200 eBay estate find". I've seen fake Mantles that are obvious, this was not one of them. It was purchased from a very reputable dealer with hundreds and hundreds of 100% positive feedback. I've owned real '52 Mantles, and I had my doubts, but truly wasn't sure. Again, my grading fees, no matter what they are, are covered by the seller. The money doesn't matter to me ; the principle does. Your opinions are yours to express, but they'd carry more weight if they were backed by fact. >>
you used their service then came on their board and trashed them and acting like a baby. That's what you should be banned for. Would you like me to forward this thread to Orlando?
Who is the one reimbursing you for grading fees, the guy knowingly selling the fake Mantle? Good luck with that.
<< <i>
<< <i>DBCoin - Could you explain why someone should be banned for using PSA's service? I'm not going to go ahead and call your comment asinine as others have, but I don't understand why you would say someone should be banned for using PSA to authenticate cards, which is the basis of their business.
KBKards - I've already explained that I'm getting reimbursed the cost of the grading, no matter what it is. This item cost me over $5000, not a "$200 eBay estate find". I've seen fake Mantles that are obvious, this was not one of them. It was purchased from a very reputable dealer with hundreds and hundreds of 100% positive feedback. I've owned real '52 Mantles, and I had my doubts, but truly wasn't sure. Again, my grading fees, no matter what they are, are covered by the seller. The money doesn't matter to me ; the principle does. Your opinions are yours to express, but they'd carry more weight if they were backed by fact. >>
you used their service then came on their board and trashed them and acting like a baby. That's what you should be banned for. Would you like me to forward this thread to Orlando? >>
<< <i>KBKards - I've already explained that I'm getting reimbursed the cost of the grading, no matter what it is.
Who is the one reimbursing you for grading fees, the guy knowingly selling the fake Mantle? Good luck with that. >>