You’re a good guy. Clearly. So, when you ponder, you think about things in that way. Like a good guy.
Therein lies the problem. 😂
There are lots of nefarious people out there; people who will try to game the system, whether through submitting fraudulent insurance claims, selling counterfeit merchandise, stealing, lying, etc. - it’s a fact of life. Sadly, they do on occasion succeed and it ends up driving up the costs for the rest of us.
PSA grades 1,000,000 cards a month and the process is more involved than I think most people realize. There is so much time and work involved with a single card that goes into it before it ever reaches the grading stage, including the authentication that takes place just before grading. And even if it is rejected, it only really misses grading and encapsulation and still gets packed and shipped back. Those are obviously the only steps we care about but they’re not the only steps: maybe 15% of the process.
As other posters mentioned, the $5,000 level gets you higher priority through this system. It literally bypasses and therefore slows every other order in Newport Beach. That has a defined cost and therefore is one that must be charged. Again, an incredible amount of work goes into each card besides just the work done in the grading room and the prices reflect all of the work done and the speed at which it was completed.
Lastly, the Craigslist poster has obviously been less than honest throughout his post, as other posters have pointed out. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the story and photos posted.
PSA is a business - they provide a service and they charge for it. Think of the implications of refunding for ‘disappointment’ and you’ll realize it is really just impossible.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Expensive mistake. To answer one question, the submitter like had different submissions but mailed them all together. So from those cert numbers, looks like at least 3 different forms. Gotta save on shipping for that $5000 fee. Haha.
I actually saw a post on a Facebook Group where someone asked a question about submitting an 86 Fleer Michael Jordan and one answer was to just submit at whatever value you place on it for insurance purposes, PSA wont charge you if it's not authentic. They could've been using sarcasm but even then, that's bad info for someone casually reading it.
The bottom line is that PSA makes all of the fees and terms of the transaction very clear BEFORE you choose to submit.
The submitter knew the fees they were agreeing to and all of the terms involved. Why anyone would expect different terms than what they agreed to is beyond me...
I can break it down 3 more times for you and explain how the card was never graded and his complaint is that he's being charged the price as if it were. Here's to hoping🤞
Please explain your "philosophy" when you take into account what I have highlighted.....
I believe this supports exactly my point. The card was not graded. He didn't receive the service to warrant the price for grading. It's quite simple. Thank you.
I can break it down 3 more times for you and explain how the card was never graded and his complaint is that he's being charged the price as if it were. Here's to hoping🤞
Please explain your "philosophy" when you take into account what I have highlighted.....
I believe this supports exactly my point. The card was not graded. He didn't receive the service to warrant the price for grading. It's quite simple. Thank you.
But he received Authentication, which he agreed to pay for. He also agreed that he doesn't get grading if the card doesn't "authenticate". He also agreed to "skip the line" for an increased fee, which he received. Not sure why you seem intent of "falling on the sword"!
I'm with you on whet he agreed to and what he received. I don't think it warrants full price for a first time offense or even second if it was spread out over many submissions. Imagine trying to grade a large set and they are all fake. Do all grading companies charge you full price in this situation. If this is standard practice then I should get with the program.
@JolleyWrencher said:
Imagine trying to grade a large set and they are all fake. Do all grading companies charge you full price in this situation. If this is standard practice then I should get with the program.
I'd imagine that the grader and everyone else who has to see it after the failed authentication would be laughing their assess of and maybe feeling sorry for the poor sap. But in reality I don't think there really are whole fake sets out there in the wild where such a thing would occur sending them all to psa. Now at the lower levels I could see this happening with like pokemon knockoffs from the mid teens, where someone sends in a bunch. Would be more interesting to hypothesize on someone who is gullible end up buying a stack of fake 86 jordans and sends them all in for mass rejection. Would PSA have a heart, my guess is still no. As they say, you dance with the bull, you get the horns!! Most other grading companies, even at the higher DV's are not in the PSA price range, so they probably don't refund/reduce either, and def not at entry level prices.
The key word is Authentic, once it was not deemed Authentic, they should not of charged.
Rufus is right, it’s there in black and white.
Doesn’t matter what the submitter did, should he understand better? Yes, but the card was not deemed authentic
@Harnessracing said:
The key word is Authentic, once it was not deemed Authentic, they should not of charged.
Rufus is right, it’s there in black and white.
Doesn’t matter what the submitter did, should he understand better? Yes, but the card was not deemed authentic
Huh? PSA doesn't not charge a fee if a card is trimmed, not authentic etc. This is clearly stated in their TOS. You are paying for the evaluation of the card. If it's genuine and unaltered, the card is also graded but if not, the fee is not waived. Frankly, I'm shocked anyone here would think otherwise.
Merry Christmas everyone!
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.
@Harnessracing said:
Why Huh? The card was not deemed authentic correct? If it isn’t authentic they should not charge, if it was authentic then they should
You need to familiarize yourself with how submitting cards to PSA works.
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.
@craig44 said:
Why does PSA not charge if a card is short?
Because minsize is a factory condition vs a card that's been altered, trimmed or counterfeit.
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.
@craig44 said:
Why does PSA not charge if a card is short?
Because when PSA grades a card, they are saying that the card is authentic to the point that it meets industry/MFG specs of 3.5x2.5 inch dimensions. I guess they could have a qualifier that says (SC) for short cut, but obs that would introduce all sorts of issues and valuation issues. Because we are talking about 64th's of an inch here, a submitter cannot be expected to tell that a card is short in that way, so it would be absurd to issue a charge, otherwise they would just claim altered and call it a day.
@Harnessracing said:
The key word is Authentic, once it was not deemed Authentic, they should not of charged.
Rufus is right, it’s there in black and white.
Doesn’t matter what the submitter did, should he understand better? Yes, but the card was not deemed authentic
Are you having a brain-fart and using the word "charged" when you mean "graded"
@craig44 said:
Why does PSA not charge if a card is short?
Because minsize is a factory condition vs a card that's been altered, trimmed or counterfeit.
that makes sense.
do they differentiate between trimmed and factory short cut? I know the 2000 contenders Brady pretty well, and many were cut short from the factory. there are many psa authentic slabs for those. i am sure some were just cut short from the factory, many have also been trimmed. Is there an "altered" slab option for those that have been trimmed, but are authentic cards?
another example are the 2000 momentum brady rookies. those are more often than not cut oddly from the factory.
I’ve submitted many thousands more cards than you ever did grote so I’m really familiar with what the PSA rules are. I probably submitted more this year than you ever have in all your submissions.
You can have your opinion I have mine.
If the card was not deemed authentic the submitter should not of been charged $5000.
Numerous examples could be sited as far as various company policies out there, that some if not many think aren't fair. Well you've got a choice, accept the policies or buy someplace else.
Yes, 5k is a lot of money. But I'll tell ya, if I'm about to submit a high dollar card like this to get graded, I'm gonna find out all the fees involved ahead of time, before I submit it. Even if I opened the wax pack as a kid and of course am 100% sure that it's genuine.
With some very simple legwork, the Craigslist guy could have easily read the PSA rules. He would then know that whether or not PSA authenticated the card, that he was gonna pay 5k. If there was any confusion, he could contact PSA for clarification. Case closed.
@Harnessracing said:
I’ve submitted many thousands more cards than you ever did grote so I’m really familiar with what the PSA rules are. I probably submitted more this year than you ever have in all your submissions.
You can have your opinion I have mine.
If the card was not deemed authentic the submitter should not of been charged $5000.
It’s literally stated in the second point of their T&Cs - not sure how you could argue the opposite.
@craig44 said:
Why does PSA not charge if a card is short?
Because minsize is a factory condition vs a card that's been altered, trimmed or counterfeit.
that makes sense.
do they differentiate between trimmed and factory short cut? I know the 2000 contenders Brady pretty well, and many were cut short from the factory. there are many psa authentic slabs for those. i am sure some were just cut short from the factory, many have also been trimmed. Is there an "altered" slab option for those that have been trimmed, but are authentic cards?
another example are the 2000 momentum brady rookies. those are more often than not cut oddly from the factory.
They do. It's also a common issue with 1975 minis, too, as it's fairly common for those cards on the edges of the sheets (green/yellow and red/yellow, specifically) to be found short right out of the pack. With vintage stock, at least, the edges of cards that are cut short at the factory will exhibit different characteristics vs cards that are short due to being trimmed and PSA won't charge you for those examples like they will with cards that don't measure up because they are trimmed.
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.
@Harnessracing said:
I’ve submitted many thousands more cards than you ever did grote so I’m really familiar with what the PSA rules are. I probably submitted more this year than you ever have in all your submissions.
You can have your opinion I have mine.
If the card was not deemed authentic the submitter should not of been charged $5000.
It’s literally stated in the second point of their T&Cs - not sure how you could argue the opposite.
Exactly.
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.
Many have been critical of the submitter, saying he didn't do his homework when submitting and his choice of service, etc.
I don't see where he did anything wrong. Assuming he felt the card was in good faith, authentic and valued at $200k, PSA's price for a card of that value is $5000, Premium 5 service level. He chose the correct service level per PSAs guidelines.
There are several service levels with 3 day turnarounds where it seems the only difference is declared value and corresponding price.
Super Express $300($4999 or less), Walkthru $600($9999 or less),....up to Premium 10 $10,000($250,000 or higher)
Should the submitter have chosen the $300 service level just in case it was a counterfeit and then hope for an upcharge?
It against PSA terms to knowingly submit a card believed to not be authentic.
If the submitter chose the $300 service level for a $200,000, isn't he kind of admitting he thinks it might not be authentic?
I don't know, is the shipping charge increased also, after it's uncharged? Otherwise the $200,000 card gets shipped with only $4999 declared value insurance.
As another poster mentioned, since there is an upcharge if the card value increases, so then, the opposite should occur when a card's value decreases. The appropriate service level and price should also change. Not a full refund, but the appropriate service level in step with determined card value.
Perhaps that’s what they should do from a “good customer service” experience, but their T&Cs only cover the up charge condition. The problem becomes like others have mentioned above. You’ve jumped to the front of the line and you’ve likely engaged a higher tier of authenticators / graders - there must be a cost associated with that. If it doesn’t pass muster, you still need to pay for those advantages. Would it be nice if they charged less? Sure, but that’s not how they’ve decided to do business.
@RonSportscards said:
Many have been critical of the submitter, saying he didn't do his homework when submitting and his choice of service, etc.
I don't see where he did anything wrong. Assuming he felt the card was in good faith, authentic and valued at $200k, PSA's price for a card of that value is $5000, Premium 5 service level. He chose the correct service level per PSAs guidelines.
There are several service levels with 3 day turnarounds where it seems the only difference is declared value and corresponding price.
Super Express $300($4999 or less), Walkthru $600($9999 or less),....up to Premium 10 $10,000($250,000 or higher)
Should the submitter have chosen the $300 service level just in case it was a counterfeit and then hope for an upcharge?
It against PSA terms to knowingly submit a card believed to not be authentic.
If the submitter chose the $300 service level for a $200,000, isn't he kind of admitting he thinks it might not be authentic?
I don't know, is the shipping charge increased also, after it's uncharged? Otherwise the $200,000 card gets shipped with only $4999 declared value insurance.
As another poster mentioned, since there is an upcharge if the card value increases, so then, the opposite should occur when a card's value decreases. The appropriate service level and price should also change. Not a full refund, but the appropriate service level in step with determined card value.
THIS^^^^^^^^^100%
I would like to add, that as an old man, I miss the old days when you didn't have to be an attorney in order to make a simple purchase.
There's been some good points on both sides of this debate, and I don't KNOW exactly how the card in question was submitted.
I do have a question for someone out there who might actually know the answer;
When entering into a contract, don't both parties have to have what's called "a meeting of the minds"?
In this case I assume if someone told the (obviously novice) submitter he would be charged $5,000.00 if his card was rejected, he would not have gone forward.
Any business who obliterates a new customer like this should be ASHAMED of themselves, and I would look for someone else to give my business to.
It APPEARS that customer was submitting the card honestly. People here are always advised to lie on their submissions and "wait and pay any upcharge".
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
The card itself has been determined to be worth very near $0.00. Therefore the amount due should be minimum amount of the service level.
Was Premium 5 Level selected? If yes looking at the pic, seems a very ill-conceived choice by submitted as the card at best is an 8.
While PSA totally legally* right on the full charge, seems foolish they did a lower Premium Level charge with a explanation to submitter they were doing them a huge favor. Yet more proof they do not care about loosing any individuals business.
*legally is independent of morally and ethically
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
Has the 5000 already been paid or only billed? What if the OP doesn't pay or would it be cheaper to take PSA to court? I think the op and PSA will work something out . If the 5000 has not been paid, How is PSA going to get there money.? I would not send them 5000 dollars . Peroid.
@82FootballWaxMemorys said:
The card itself has been determined to be worth very near $0.00. Therefore the amount due should be minimum amount of the service level.
Was Premium 5 Level selected? If yes looking at the pic, seems a very ill-conceived choice by submitted as the card at best is an 8.
While PSA totally legally* right on the full charge, seems foolish they did a lower Premium Level charge with a explanation to submitter they were doing them a huge favor. Yet more proof they do not care about loosing any individuals business.
*legally is independent of morally and ethically
I'm absolutely NOT trying to start an argument, but are you a lawyer?
Legally?
I used to work in sales for American Linen (now owned by a different textile rental company), I negotiated many contracts that were, in my opinion, (I'm NOT a lawyer) either unenforceable or outright illegal.
If a company signed a 5 year agreement to use our services, and tried to "quit" at any time before the contract expired (without us agreeing), the company was required to pay us an amount equal to their current bills for the entire remaining duration of the contract, even if we stopped making deliveries and took back all of our product.
Additionally, the contracts would "roll over" for the entire 5 years if we weren't given written notice 30 days prior to the contract expiration date.
Savvy customers usually refused to sign for 5 years, and many would object to the "roll over" clause. We were free to negotiate for a shorter term, but my boss usually (big not always) refused to eliminate the "roll over" part of the agreement. Leverage.
This was considered a "standard agreement". When I questioned my sales manager about these conditions, I was told "those things will never hold up in court, it's just a way to make it harder for customers to quit".
You can't agree to something that's illegal and as I stated above, if there's not a "meeting of the minds", I don't think it's a legal document.
This kind of garbage is just another way wealthy institutions screw the little guy, who cannot afford to fight it in court.
I think it's reprehensible if someone gets charged $5,000.00 for anyone to take a look at this card and say it's questionable.
The entire reason the customer agrees to pay such a ridiculous price in the first place is because the card has a potential value well over the grading charge.
Other be than insurance/buy back guarantee, why should it cost any more to grade a 52 Mantle than a 1987 common? It probably took 10 seconds to determine the card was "questionable". At that point, there's no costs associated with the card more than that 1987 common.
If you want to charge extra for jumping ahead in line and maybe having a "senior grader" look at it, I can accept that, but $5,000.00?
No.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
^ said legally as Credit card issuer ruled in PSA's favor. Generally speaking they take appreciable laws into consideration. But yeah you are correct that does not make it legal.
Still though my point is even if it is legal, IMHO it also immoral and unethical.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
@1959 said:
Has the 5000 already been paid or only billed? What if the OP doesn't pay or would it be cheaper to take PSA to court? I think the op and PSA will work something out . If the 5000 has not been paid, How is PSA going to get there money.? I would not send them 5000 dollars . Peroid.
I once called to cancel a credit card that was paid in full.
The representative began arguing with me that I was making a bad financial decision. I told him several times, I no longer wanted the card.
A few months later, I got a bill from them for several hundred dollars, saying the card was still active, and I had failed to pay the yearly fee ($150.00 ridiculous) and some late charges had also accrued .
WHAT?!?!??
Long story longer, I was furious, called and complained, and subsequently disputed the charges, BUT I WAS NOT GOING TO PAY!
The company then lowered my credit score down TWO levels and I ended up paying a higher interest rate on my car loan. Appealed to the credit bureau and was denied, big effen surprise!
Yes, I ended up paying the charges. Was it my fault? I don't see it that way.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Once the card was deemed fake then everything falls apart. PSA doesn't say we will still charge you the value of what you thought you had even though we know it's not. It's undefined what they will charge.
This might be a good time for PSA to define the process and charges. It's a slippery slope because I can guarantee there are many people making counterfeits and submitting them. Likely using different names or 3rd party consignors to prevent easy detection of a repeat offender.
I think the process should be first Authentication...if it fails then you are charged a flat fee and the fee depends on the service level. Then grading comes next. It's not hard to do the right thing in business when all you have to do is walk through the customer experience and determine if the outcome is something you believe is fair. People can say this was fair acording to the T&C but I don't believe anyone arguing this was fair would accept these charges without calling customer service or posting on this forum to solicit others for their opinions.
The time spent on a counterfeit card should be compensated of course. Especially because each legit card goes through the process and if one is removed from the process then the downstream people are now waiting (assuming they are caught up which is a bad assumption but good for this example). The first person to evaluate authenticity can only look at one submission at a time and if 50% of the cards are counterfeit they see in a day then it can be disruptive to the business model where they anticipate throughput of X amount of cards which generates Y amount of revenue to justify paying employees their wages and justify the fees for the customer.
I try and see all perspectives and usually fall in the middle. I don't expect a free pass for all my mistakes but I also don't expect a response to be 'it's in the fine print dumbass."
Those who have given this response are the same people with apps on their phones who have no idea what they've agreed to and just want to assume there's nothing in their aimed at taking advantage of you.
The shitty party of having a moral compass and empathetic nature is that others who don't can spot us like a tourist in a foreign country and take advantage of you. The non empathetic individual walks away rich and believes the other person is a weak suckerer and the empathetic person has to wonder how they can continue their mission of trying to help while safeguarding against those who are looking out for #1.
My perspectives are relative to me. I was 3rd in command at a successful start-up right out of college and a large portion of profit was Nigerian scam calls utilizing our service. I aimed to shut them down because it was preventing actual disabled people from using our services but, little did I know, a decent portion of profits were forecasted to come from this demographic and I didn't get the support from the top to implement a process I developed to snub it out.
In the end...the workforce was upset and many took matters into their own hands and were terminated for not continuing to perform the service. Some quit, some got fired, and the rapport of the business went from great (for 2 years) and then it completely fell apart. I didn't suspect what I got myself into because I wouldn't have written my business plan the same way, I don't believe, and I learned a lot of myself, business ethics, and I changed careers.
PSA is in a tough spot. Per their policies they’re acting appropriately but it’s a very harsh policy in this situation.
On the other hand if they don’t then they open themselves to everyone sending in fakes (knowingly or not) at the highest level and wasting their resources for no return.
Unfortunately, I think they’re doing the right thing for the company even if it isn’t for the customer.
@RonSportscards said:
Many have been critical of the submitter, saying he didn't do his homework when submitting and his choice of service, etc.
I don't see where he did anything wrong. Assuming he felt the card was in good faith, authentic and valued at $200k, PSA's price for a card of that value is $5000, Premium 5 service level. He chose the correct service level per PSAs guidelines.
There are several service levels with 3 day turnarounds where it seems the only difference is declared value and corresponding price.
Super Express $300($4999 or less), Walkthru $600($9999 or less),....up to Premium 10 $10,000($250,000 or higher)
Should the submitter have chosen the $300 service level just in case it was a counterfeit and then hope for an upcharge?
It against PSA terms to knowingly submit a card believed to not be authentic.
If the submitter chose the $300 service level for a $200,000, isn't he kind of admitting he thinks it might not be authentic?
I don't know, is the shipping charge increased also, after it's uncharged? Otherwise the $200,000 card gets shipped with only $4999 declared value insurance.
As another poster mentioned, since there is an upcharge if the card value increases, so then, the opposite should occur when a card's value decreases. The appropriate service level and price should also change. Not a full refund, but the appropriate service level in step with determined card value.
this is exactly what i mentioned at the beginning, but most people vehemently disagreed. it makes sense to me that if submission levels are based on valuation, the final price should be a sliding scale based on graded valuation.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
Never one should confuse/intermingle morals with business. You can be legally right, but morally wrong.
I hate your world.
You can also be wealthy enough to move parts of your business to areas of the world who don't have labor laws and take advantage of the people, then put a swoosh on the side with an inflated price.
Where everyone draws the line is different. If card grading dropped to $2 a card and it was discovered that labor conditions were beyond horrible then I suspect there are many people in this discussion who wouldn't think twice about their next move.
You'll have some who don't give a hoot and will increase their submissions
You'll have those who don't want to submit but likely will and eventually forget about the issue.
You'll have those who plan to submit just 1 more time and it happens to be their largest submission since it could be their last...empathy is in the arena here but it's not rooted deep.
Some will stop submitting.
Some will take it further and sell anything affiliated with the company.
If I wanted to be a multimillion the easy way then I would be. Ask anyone who knows me and has worked with me from 2011 onwards. My career in the military industrial complex has been very intentional. I removed myself from the government sector, I removed myself from leadership positions, and then ultimately I removed myself from the company. You can see the correlation to this claim on my LinkedIn page for Jesse Maire. I don't bullshit. I went to contract work at the beginning of 2022 for moral/ethical reasons. I did this with a wife and 2 kids also. I'm not bragging but I'm trying to teach a different way than what many people living in the concrete jungle are learning. I also think your environment plays a big role. I forget my dad signed up for Vietnam in 1968 as a marine when some of your dads/grandpa's were draft dodgers. If they were dodging because they didn't agree with the war then I can get behind that, my dad didn't understand most of it because he was 17, but he believed our country was needing people to help be liberators of freedom and he didn't think twice.
The debate of what "should" be the case vs what is the case per the TOS is another debate entirely.
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.
@1959 said:
I would go to the Media. They love this kind of stuff. CARD GRADING COMPANY CHARGES 5000 DOLLARS TO NOT GRADE A CARD!!!!-
When it turns out the Submitter is a Pawn Shop, that's going to really gain favor with the public. A business that in a sense preys on the financially weak (per se, not exactly their pure motive, but a lot of the clientele are desperate/need quick cash) got punked.
@BBBrkrr said:
PSA is in a tough spot. Per their policies they’re acting appropriately but it’s a very harsh policy in this situation.
>
In my experiences with PSA, they do whatever they decide to do regardless of policy. It's their company, that is their right. There's no way that I agree that it's "appropriate " to charge someone $5,000.00 to reject this card.
>
>
On the other hand if they don’t then they open themselves to everyone sending in fakes (knowingly or not) at the highest level and wasting their resources for no return.
>
Wasting their resources? Anyone who is in the position they are in is going to get hundreds if not thousands of submissions from people with fakes hoping to get their card authenticated. That's part of the deal in setting yourself up as an authority on anything. Being successful is a beatch.
>
>
Unfortunately, I think they’re doing the right thing for the company even if it isn’t for the customer.
>
>
This is the new world I hate. The Company only exists because of the customer. Obviously our world worships money and will do anything to anyone for a profit.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I appreciate everyone's point of view. I've never been close to running a corporation and corporations are victims of all sorts of scandals that evolve constantly. I must be mindful of the fact that despite the integrity many of us have, many of their customers won't have it. I often chalk these situations to corporate greed when that's not always going to be true.
@BBBrkrr said:
PSA is in a tough spot. Per their policies they’re acting appropriately but it’s a very harsh policy in this situation.
>
In my experiences with PSA, they do whatever they decide to do regardless of policy. It's their company, that is their right. There's no way that I agree that it's "appropriate " to charge someone $5,000.00 to reject this card.
>
>
On the other hand if they don’t then they open themselves to everyone sending in fakes (knowingly or not) at the highest level and wasting their resources for no return.
>
Wasting their resources? Anyone who is in the position they are in is going to get hundreds if not thousands of submissions from people with fakes hoping to get their card authenticated. That's part of the deal in setting yourself up as an authority on anything. Being successful is a beatch.
>
>
Unfortunately, I think they’re doing the right thing for the company even if it isn’t for the customer.
>
>
This is the new world I hate. The Company only exists because of the customer. Obviously our world worships money and will do anything to anyone for a profit.
I’m not arguing any of that, but I still understand their policy, why they have it and why they’re doing what they’re doing. If I was the CEO (and I’m not campaigning 😂) I’d do the same.
Our world, and corporations, worshipping money is certainly not a new thing, and I’m sure all their employees appreciate them making all they’re making. I’m with you in that I wish it was different though.
Imagine a scenario where the (approx.) 32,258 cards that PSA graded each day are all fakes. Some high end cards, some commons, some TCGs, a few jumbos, some bulk subs and all the items are bogus.
Is PSA just supposed to skip the revenue it would have generated that day? What about the work performed by everyone from receiving to imaging to handling, to submission ordering, to re-organizing to the grader who deems the card ‘Not Authentic’ - they didn’t work, do their jobs and perform the exact service as they would otherwise?
By the way, and it seems I’m in the minority here, but I feel like ‘Authentication’ is about 100 times more important than the grade it receives and is being taken for granted. I mean, I t’s called PSA, not PSG, for a reason.
Who gives a frog’s fat ass what the grade is on a fake card? So if they said the card is fake, but to be clear it’s a NM 7 fake, would that somehow make it worth the $5,000 fee when it is still returned to the customer unholdered?
Lastly, and I put this here for the general public who may read this:
It is financially prudent to believe that you are not submitting a ‘10’ when the grade is, simply put, incredibly difficult to achieve. Most reasonable people would suggest that you submit high end cards at the value of the card at the Near Mint level if you believe you will achieve that grade or higher.
This is why the upcharge policy exists - to protect both the customer and PSA. It is the ‘fairness’ people are seeking and it is why I recommend to everyone that they educate themselves and really study the boards and the system that is in place before you ever submit to a third party grader. And even then, start small and go from there. Or better still, for a novice, submit through a group! A good group leader might have caught it before it ever headed to Newport Beach.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Imagine a scenario where the (approx.) 32,258 cards that PSA graded each day are all fakes. Some high end cards, some commons, some TCGs, a few jumbos, some bulk subs and all the items are bogus.
>
Why on earth would anyone bother to imagine this? It's a ridiculous scenario that would never happen. Instead, let's imagine every card submitted is a fake high dollar card. People do NOT create fake commons.
PSA then gets to charge $5,000.00 per card to reject every card submitted. Once the card is determined to be fake, they don't have to bother inspecting it for flaws, or encapsulate it. Just return to customer without explaining why there's a problem and charging them $5,000.00. PSA would absolutely LOVE that!
Let's stick with reality and not make up wildly impossible scenarios.
>
>
Is PSA just supposed to skip the revenue it would have generated that day? What about the work performed by everyone from receiving to imaging to handling, to submission ordering, to re-organizing to the grader who deems the card ‘Not Authentic’ - they didn’t work, do their jobs and perform the exact service as they would otherwise?
>
NO ONE is saying this!
>
>
By the way, and it seems I’m in the minority here, but I feel like ‘Authentication’ is about 100 times more important than the grade it receives and is being taken for granted. I mean, I t’s called PSA, not PSG, for a reason.
>
There's a good reason you are in the minority here. Since a card has to be authentic to receive a grade, yes authenticity is important, but people are not paying good money for PSA "Authentic" cards, they are paying for HIGH GRADE authentic cards!
>
>
Who gives a frog’s fat ass what the grade is on a fake card? So if they said the card is fake, but to be clear it’s a NM 7 fake, would that somehow make it worth the $5,000 fee when it is still returned to the customer unholdered?
>
Your post becomes more bizarre as it goes on. Fake cards do not get a grade. NOTHING justifies charging $5,000.00 to not grade a card.
>
>
Lastly, and I put this here for the general public who may read this:
It is financially prudent to believe that you are not submitting a ‘10’ when the grade is, simply put, incredibly difficult to achieve. Most reasonable people would suggest that you submit high end cards at the value of the card at the Near Mint level if you believe you will achieve that grade or higher.
>
"Financially prudent" another phrase for lying about what you card is worth and hoping for an upcharge?
Ridiculous, we're not the professional card grader, they are. Every card should be automatically submitted at a maximum of a PSA 7-8 value. Your odds at getting a 10 are about 3%? How many cards even get a 9? How many people are buying modern 9's at over the cost of grading?
>
>
This is why the upcharge policy exists - to protect both the customer and PSA. It is the ‘fairness’ people are seeking and it is why I recommend to everyone that they educate themselves and really study the boards and the system that is in place before you ever submit to a third party grader. And even then, start small and go from there. Or better still, for a novice, submit through a group! A good group leader might have caught it before it ever headed to Newport Beach.
>
>
The upcharge policy exists for one thing and one thing only, for PSA to make more money for doing the same exact thing. It's no harder to grade a 52 Mantle than to grade a 72 Aaron.
Now you will probably say that PSA could get burned if they grade a card that's a fake and it gets proven they were wrong. Why should the customer have to pay for this? If PSA screws up, they should carry insurance to cover their mistakes. I wonder how often they have to pay out because of this? Not very often, I am guessing. Yet they charge extra for every single card that's over a certain dollar amount.
Additionally, unless I am mistaken, if you sent a card in for a review and the grade changes, you have to pay two times (or more) to get the card correctly graded, so your paying for their mistakes.
No one forced PSA to go into business just as no one is forced to use their service.
When a customer makes an honest mistake, charging an outrageous amount is bad business. Charge $100.00 or even $200.00 to cover your costs.
$5,000.00.
No.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
@JolleyWrencher
You’re a good guy. Clearly. So, when you ponder, you think about things in that way. Like a good guy.
Therein lies the problem. 😂
There are lots of nefarious people out there; people who will try to game the system, whether through submitting fraudulent insurance claims, selling counterfeit merchandise, stealing, lying, etc. - it’s a fact of life. Sadly, they do on occasion succeed and it ends up driving up the costs for the rest of us.
PSA grades 1,000,000 cards a month and the process is more involved than I think most people realize. There is so much time and work involved with a single card that goes into it before it ever reaches the grading stage, including the authentication that takes place just before grading. And even if it is rejected, it only really misses grading and encapsulation and still gets packed and shipped back. Those are obviously the only steps we care about but they’re not the only steps: maybe 15% of the process.
As other posters mentioned, the $5,000 level gets you higher priority through this system. It literally bypasses and therefore slows every other order in Newport Beach. That has a defined cost and therefore is one that must be charged. Again, an incredible amount of work goes into each card besides just the work done in the grading room and the prices reflect all of the work done and the speed at which it was completed.
Lastly, the Craigslist poster has obviously been less than honest throughout his post, as other posters have pointed out. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the story and photos posted.
PSA is a business - they provide a service and they charge for it. Think of the implications of refunding for ‘disappointment’ and you’ll realize it is really just impossible.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Expensive mistake. To answer one question, the submitter like had different submissions but mailed them all together. So from those cert numbers, looks like at least 3 different forms. Gotta save on shipping for that $5000 fee. Haha.
I actually saw a post on a Facebook Group where someone asked a question about submitting an 86 Fleer Michael Jordan and one answer was to just submit at whatever value you place on it for insurance purposes, PSA wont charge you if it's not authentic. They could've been using sarcasm but even then, that's bad info for someone casually reading it.
The bottom line is that PSA makes all of the fees and terms of the transaction very clear BEFORE you choose to submit.
The submitter knew the fees they were agreeing to and all of the terms involved. Why anyone would expect different terms than what they agreed to is beyond me...
I think > @RufussCkingston said:
I believe this supports exactly my point. The card was not graded. He didn't receive the service to warrant the price for grading. It's quite simple. Thank you.
But he received Authentication, which he agreed to pay for. He also agreed that he doesn't get grading if the card doesn't "authenticate". He also agreed to "skip the line" for an increased fee, which he received. Not sure why you seem intent of "falling on the sword"!
I'm with you on whet he agreed to and what he received. I don't think it warrants full price for a first time offense or even second if it was spread out over many submissions. Imagine trying to grade a large set and they are all fake. Do all grading companies charge you full price in this situation. If this is standard practice then I should get with the program.
I'd imagine that the grader and everyone else who has to see it after the failed authentication would be laughing their assess of and maybe feeling sorry for the poor sap. But in reality I don't think there really are whole fake sets out there in the wild where such a thing would occur sending them all to psa. Now at the lower levels I could see this happening with like pokemon knockoffs from the mid teens, where someone sends in a bunch. Would be more interesting to hypothesize on someone who is gullible end up buying a stack of fake 86 jordans and sends them all in for mass rejection. Would PSA have a heart, my guess is still no. As they say, you dance with the bull, you get the horns!! Most other grading companies, even at the higher DV's are not in the PSA price range, so they probably don't refund/reduce either, and def not at entry level prices.
The key word is Authentic, once it was not deemed Authentic, they should not of charged.
Rufus is right, it’s there in black and white.
Doesn’t matter what the submitter did, should he understand better? Yes, but the card was not deemed authentic
Huh? PSA doesn't not charge a fee if a card is trimmed, not authentic etc. This is clearly stated in their TOS. You are paying for the evaluation of the card. If it's genuine and unaltered, the card is also graded but if not, the fee is not waived. Frankly, I'm shocked anyone here would think otherwise.
Merry Christmas everyone!
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.
Why Huh? The card was not deemed authentic correct? If it isn’t authentic they should not charge, if it was authentic then they should
You need to familiarize yourself with how submitting cards to PSA works.
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.
Why does PSA not charge if a card is short?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Because minsize is a factory condition vs a card that's been altered, trimmed or counterfeit.
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.
Because when PSA grades a card, they are saying that the card is authentic to the point that it meets industry/MFG specs of 3.5x2.5 inch dimensions. I guess they could have a qualifier that says (SC) for short cut, but obs that would introduce all sorts of issues and valuation issues. Because we are talking about 64th's of an inch here, a submitter cannot be expected to tell that a card is short in that way, so it would be absurd to issue a charge, otherwise they would just claim altered and call it a day.
Are you having a brain-fart and using the word "charged" when you mean "graded"
Your answer will define you
that makes sense.
do they differentiate between trimmed and factory short cut? I know the 2000 contenders Brady pretty well, and many were cut short from the factory. there are many psa authentic slabs for those. i am sure some were just cut short from the factory, many have also been trimmed. Is there an "altered" slab option for those that have been trimmed, but are authentic cards?
another example are the 2000 momentum brady rookies. those are more often than not cut oddly from the factory.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I’ve submitted many thousands more cards than you ever did grote so I’m really familiar with what the PSA rules are. I probably submitted more this year than you ever have in all your submissions.
You can have your opinion I have mine.
If the card was not deemed authentic the submitter should not of been charged $5000.
So PSA should not be compensated for their time and for prioritizing the submitter's order?
Numerous examples could be sited as far as various company policies out there, that some if not many think aren't fair. Well you've got a choice, accept the policies or buy someplace else.
Yes, 5k is a lot of money. But I'll tell ya, if I'm about to submit a high dollar card like this to get graded, I'm gonna find out all the fees involved ahead of time, before I submit it. Even if I opened the wax pack as a kid and of course am 100% sure that it's genuine.
With some very simple legwork, the Craigslist guy could have easily read the PSA rules. He would then know that whether or not PSA authenticated the card, that he was gonna pay 5k. If there was any confusion, he could contact PSA for clarification. Case closed.
It’s literally stated in the second point of their T&Cs - not sure how you could argue the opposite.
Jim
They do. It's also a common issue with 1975 minis, too, as it's fairly common for those cards on the edges of the sheets (green/yellow and red/yellow, specifically) to be found short right out of the pack. With vintage stock, at least, the edges of cards that are cut short at the factory will exhibit different characteristics vs cards that are short due to being trimmed and PSA won't charge you for those examples like they will with cards that don't measure up because they are trimmed.
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.
Exactly.
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.
Many have been critical of the submitter, saying he didn't do his homework when submitting and his choice of service, etc.
I don't see where he did anything wrong. Assuming he felt the card was in good faith, authentic and valued at $200k, PSA's price for a card of that value is $5000, Premium 5 service level. He chose the correct service level per PSAs guidelines.
There are several service levels with 3 day turnarounds where it seems the only difference is declared value and corresponding price.
Super Express $300($4999 or less), Walkthru $600($9999 or less),....up to Premium 10 $10,000($250,000 or higher)
Should the submitter have chosen the $300 service level just in case it was a counterfeit and then hope for an upcharge?
It against PSA terms to knowingly submit a card believed to not be authentic.
If the submitter chose the $300 service level for a $200,000, isn't he kind of admitting he thinks it might not be authentic?
I don't know, is the shipping charge increased also, after it's uncharged? Otherwise the $200,000 card gets shipped with only $4999 declared value insurance.
As another poster mentioned, since there is an upcharge if the card value increases, so then, the opposite should occur when a card's value decreases. The appropriate service level and price should also change. Not a full refund, but the appropriate service level in step with determined card value.
Perhaps that’s what they should do from a “good customer service” experience, but their T&Cs only cover the up charge condition. The problem becomes like others have mentioned above. You’ve jumped to the front of the line and you’ve likely engaged a higher tier of authenticators / graders - there must be a cost associated with that. If it doesn’t pass muster, you still need to pay for those advantages. Would it be nice if they charged less? Sure, but that’s not how they’ve decided to do business.
Nothing here about a down charge.
Jim
THIS^^^^^^^^^100%
I would like to add, that as an old man, I miss the old days when you didn't have to be an attorney in order to make a simple purchase.
There's been some good points on both sides of this debate, and I don't KNOW exactly how the card in question was submitted.
I do have a question for someone out there who might actually know the answer;
When entering into a contract, don't both parties have to have what's called "a meeting of the minds"?
In this case I assume if someone told the (obviously novice) submitter he would be charged $5,000.00 if his card was rejected, he would not have gone forward.
Any business who obliterates a new customer like this should be ASHAMED of themselves, and I would look for someone else to give my business to.
It APPEARS that customer was submitting the card honestly. People here are always advised to lie on their submissions and "wait and pay any upcharge".
The card itself has been determined to be worth very near $0.00. Therefore the amount due should be minimum amount of the service level.
Was Premium 5 Level selected? If yes looking at the pic, seems a very ill-conceived choice by submitted as the card at best is an 8.
While PSA totally legally* right on the full charge, seems foolish they did a lower Premium Level charge with a explanation to submitter they were doing them a huge favor. Yet more proof they do not care about loosing any individuals business.
*legally is independent of morally and ethically
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
Has the 5000 already been paid or only billed? What if the OP doesn't pay or would it be cheaper to take PSA to court? I think the op and PSA will work something out . If the 5000 has not been paid, How is PSA going to get there money.? I would not send them 5000 dollars . Peroid.
I'm absolutely NOT trying to start an argument, but are you a lawyer?
Legally?
I used to work in sales for American Linen (now owned by a different textile rental company), I negotiated many contracts that were, in my opinion, (I'm NOT a lawyer) either unenforceable or outright illegal.
If a company signed a 5 year agreement to use our services, and tried to "quit" at any time before the contract expired (without us agreeing), the company was required to pay us an amount equal to their current bills for the entire remaining duration of the contract, even if we stopped making deliveries and took back all of our product.
Additionally, the contracts would "roll over" for the entire 5 years if we weren't given written notice 30 days prior to the contract expiration date.
Savvy customers usually refused to sign for 5 years, and many would object to the "roll over" clause. We were free to negotiate for a shorter term, but my boss usually (big not always) refused to eliminate the "roll over" part of the agreement. Leverage.
This was considered a "standard agreement". When I questioned my sales manager about these conditions, I was told "those things will never hold up in court, it's just a way to make it harder for customers to quit".
You can't agree to something that's illegal and as I stated above, if there's not a "meeting of the minds", I don't think it's a legal document.
This kind of garbage is just another way wealthy institutions screw the little guy, who cannot afford to fight it in court.
I think it's reprehensible if someone gets charged $5,000.00 for anyone to take a look at this card and say it's questionable.
The entire reason the customer agrees to pay such a ridiculous price in the first place is because the card has a potential value well over the grading charge.
Other be than insurance/buy back guarantee, why should it cost any more to grade a 52 Mantle than a 1987 common? It probably took 10 seconds to determine the card was "questionable". At that point, there's no costs associated with the card more than that 1987 common.
If you want to charge extra for jumping ahead in line and maybe having a "senior grader" look at it, I can accept that, but $5,000.00?
No.
^ said legally as Credit card issuer ruled in PSA's favor. Generally speaking they take appreciable laws into consideration. But yeah you are correct that does not make it legal.
Still though my point is even if it is legal, IMHO it also immoral and unethical.
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
I once called to cancel a credit card that was paid in full.
The representative began arguing with me that I was making a bad financial decision. I told him several times, I no longer wanted the card.
A few months later, I got a bill from them for several hundred dollars, saying the card was still active, and I had failed to pay the yearly fee ($150.00 ridiculous) and some late charges had also accrued .
WHAT?!?!??
Long story longer, I was furious, called and complained, and subsequently disputed the charges, BUT I WAS NOT GOING TO PAY!
The company then lowered my credit score down TWO levels and I ended up paying a higher interest rate on my car loan. Appealed to the credit bureau and was denied, big effen surprise!
Yes, I ended up paying the charges. Was it my fault? I don't see it that way.
^ any chance it was Wells Fargo?
Unless otherwise specified my posts represent only my opinion, not fact.
That's hilarious! I've been banking with those #&*#$# since 1982, they are the scum of the earth.
I believe the credit card issuer was CitiBank, but I am not positive anymore.
Would like to meet the representative that refused to cancel the card when I originally called and take a baseball bat to his head.
Once the card was deemed fake then everything falls apart. PSA doesn't say we will still charge you the value of what you thought you had even though we know it's not. It's undefined what they will charge.
This might be a good time for PSA to define the process and charges. It's a slippery slope because I can guarantee there are many people making counterfeits and submitting them. Likely using different names or 3rd party consignors to prevent easy detection of a repeat offender.
I think the process should be first Authentication...if it fails then you are charged a flat fee and the fee depends on the service level. Then grading comes next. It's not hard to do the right thing in business when all you have to do is walk through the customer experience and determine if the outcome is something you believe is fair. People can say this was fair acording to the T&C but I don't believe anyone arguing this was fair would accept these charges without calling customer service or posting on this forum to solicit others for their opinions.
The time spent on a counterfeit card should be compensated of course. Especially because each legit card goes through the process and if one is removed from the process then the downstream people are now waiting (assuming they are caught up which is a bad assumption but good for this example). The first person to evaluate authenticity can only look at one submission at a time and if 50% of the cards are counterfeit they see in a day then it can be disruptive to the business model where they anticipate throughput of X amount of cards which generates Y amount of revenue to justify paying employees their wages and justify the fees for the customer.
I try and see all perspectives and usually fall in the middle. I don't expect a free pass for all my mistakes but I also don't expect a response to be 'it's in the fine print dumbass."
Those who have given this response are the same people with apps on their phones who have no idea what they've agreed to and just want to assume there's nothing in their aimed at taking advantage of you.
The shitty party of having a moral compass and empathetic nature is that others who don't can spot us like a tourist in a foreign country and take advantage of you. The non empathetic individual walks away rich and believes the other person is a weak suckerer and the empathetic person has to wonder how they can continue their mission of trying to help while safeguarding against those who are looking out for #1.
My perspectives are relative to me. I was 3rd in command at a successful start-up right out of college and a large portion of profit was Nigerian scam calls utilizing our service. I aimed to shut them down because it was preventing actual disabled people from using our services but, little did I know, a decent portion of profits were forecasted to come from this demographic and I didn't get the support from the top to implement a process I developed to snub it out.
In the end...the workforce was upset and many took matters into their own hands and were terminated for not continuing to perform the service. Some quit, some got fired, and the rapport of the business went from great (for 2 years) and then it completely fell apart. I didn't suspect what I got myself into because I wouldn't have written my business plan the same way, I don't believe, and I learned a lot of myself, business ethics, and I changed careers.
I think i have a solution to the problem.
I suggested he contact Fred's Authentication Kard Enterprises
He can then get the card slabbed and list it on Ebay for 250k, free shipping.
Never one should confuse/intermingle morals with business. You can be legally right, but morally wrong.
A few weeks ago on Nat Turner's Twitter:
_Crazy stat I just learned in the office at @psacard.
So far in 2023, we have authenticated/graded 1,604 1986 Fleer #57 Michael Jordan rookie cards.
On top of that, we failed 447 additional copies as fake/counterfeit.
So, YTD, 2,051 copies of MJ's rookie card came in and 21% were fake.
10:40 AM · Dec 7, 2023·128K Views_
So let's see, 447 x $5000 = $2,235,000 !!
Yeah I know, not everyone submitted at $5000 level, but still.
I wonder how many of the 1604 legit Jordan got upcharged.
PSA is in a tough spot. Per their policies they’re acting appropriately but it’s a very harsh policy in this situation.
On the other hand if they don’t then they open themselves to everyone sending in fakes (knowingly or not) at the highest level and wasting their resources for no return.
Unfortunately, I think they’re doing the right thing for the company even if it isn’t for the customer.
I would go to the Media. They love this kind of stuff. CARD GRADING COMPANY CHARGES 5000 DOLLARS TO NOT GRADE A CARD!!!!-
this is exactly what i mentioned at the beginning, but most people vehemently disagreed. it makes sense to me that if submission levels are based on valuation, the final price should be a sliding scale based on graded valuation.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I hate your world.
You can also be wealthy enough to move parts of your business to areas of the world who don't have labor laws and take advantage of the people, then put a swoosh on the side with an inflated price.
Where everyone draws the line is different. If card grading dropped to $2 a card and it was discovered that labor conditions were beyond horrible then I suspect there are many people in this discussion who wouldn't think twice about their next move.
You'll have some who don't give a hoot and will increase their submissions
You'll have those who don't want to submit but likely will and eventually forget about the issue.
You'll have those who plan to submit just 1 more time and it happens to be their largest submission since it could be their last...empathy is in the arena here but it's not rooted deep.
Some will stop submitting.
Some will take it further and sell anything affiliated with the company.
If I wanted to be a multimillion the easy way then I would be. Ask anyone who knows me and has worked with me from 2011 onwards. My career in the military industrial complex has been very intentional. I removed myself from the government sector, I removed myself from leadership positions, and then ultimately I removed myself from the company. You can see the correlation to this claim on my LinkedIn page for Jesse Maire. I don't bullshit. I went to contract work at the beginning of 2022 for moral/ethical reasons. I did this with a wife and 2 kids also. I'm not bragging but I'm trying to teach a different way than what many people living in the concrete jungle are learning. I also think your environment plays a big role. I forget my dad signed up for Vietnam in 1968 as a marine when some of your dads/grandpa's were draft dodgers. If they were dodging because they didn't agree with the war then I can get behind that, my dad didn't understand most of it because he was 17, but he believed our country was needing people to help be liberators of freedom and he didn't think twice.
The debate of what "should" be the case vs what is the case per the TOS is another debate entirely.
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.
When it turns out the Submitter is a Pawn Shop, that's going to really gain favor with the public. A business that in a sense preys on the financially weak (per se, not exactly their pure motive, but a lot of the clientele are desperate/need quick cash) got punked.
>
In my experiences with PSA, they do whatever they decide to do regardless of policy. It's their company, that is their right. There's no way that I agree that it's "appropriate " to charge someone $5,000.00 to reject this card.
>
>
>
Wasting their resources? Anyone who is in the position they are in is going to get hundreds if not thousands of submissions from people with fakes hoping to get their card authenticated. That's part of the deal in setting yourself up as an authority on anything. Being successful is a beatch.
>
>
>
>
This is the new world I hate. The Company only exists because of the customer. Obviously our world worships money and will do anything to anyone for a profit.
I appreciate everyone's point of view. I've never been close to running a corporation and corporations are victims of all sorts of scandals that evolve constantly. I must be mindful of the fact that despite the integrity many of us have, many of their customers won't have it. I often chalk these situations to corporate greed when that's not always going to be true.
I’m not arguing any of that, but I still understand their policy, why they have it and why they’re doing what they’re doing. If I was the CEO (and I’m not campaigning 😂) I’d do the same.
Our world, and corporations, worshipping money is certainly not a new thing, and I’m sure all their employees appreciate them making all they’re making. I’m with you in that I wish it was different though.
It's not my world. Just pointing out the way some of the world is. Wish it wasn't so.
Imagine a scenario where the (approx.) 32,258 cards that PSA graded each day are all fakes. Some high end cards, some commons, some TCGs, a few jumbos, some bulk subs and all the items are bogus.
Is PSA just supposed to skip the revenue it would have generated that day? What about the work performed by everyone from receiving to imaging to handling, to submission ordering, to re-organizing to the grader who deems the card ‘Not Authentic’ - they didn’t work, do their jobs and perform the exact service as they would otherwise?
By the way, and it seems I’m in the minority here, but I feel like ‘Authentication’ is about 100 times more important than the grade it receives and is being taken for granted. I mean, I t’s called PSA, not PSG, for a reason.
Who gives a frog’s fat ass what the grade is on a fake card? So if they said the card is fake, but to be clear it’s a NM 7 fake, would that somehow make it worth the $5,000 fee when it is still returned to the customer unholdered?
Lastly, and I put this here for the general public who may read this:
It is financially prudent to believe that you are not submitting a ‘10’ when the grade is, simply put, incredibly difficult to achieve. Most reasonable people would suggest that you submit high end cards at the value of the card at the Near Mint level if you believe you will achieve that grade or higher.
This is why the upcharge policy exists - to protect both the customer and PSA. It is the ‘fairness’ people are seeking and it is why I recommend to everyone that they educate themselves and really study the boards and the system that is in place before you ever submit to a third party grader. And even then, start small and go from there. Or better still, for a novice, submit through a group! A good group leader might have caught it before it ever headed to Newport Beach.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
>
Why on earth would anyone bother to imagine this? It's a ridiculous scenario that would never happen. Instead, let's imagine every card submitted is a fake high dollar card. People do NOT create fake commons.
PSA then gets to charge $5,000.00 per card to reject every card submitted. Once the card is determined to be fake, they don't have to bother inspecting it for flaws, or encapsulate it. Just return to customer without explaining why there's a problem and charging them $5,000.00. PSA would absolutely LOVE that!
Let's stick with reality and not make up wildly impossible scenarios.
>
>
>
NO ONE is saying this!
>
>
>
There's a good reason you are in the minority here. Since a card has to be authentic to receive a grade, yes authenticity is important, but people are not paying good money for PSA "Authentic" cards, they are paying for HIGH GRADE authentic cards!
>
>
>
Your post becomes more bizarre as it goes on. Fake cards do not get a grade. NOTHING justifies charging $5,000.00 to not grade a card.
>
>
>
"Financially prudent" another phrase for lying about what you card is worth and hoping for an upcharge?
Ridiculous, we're not the professional card grader, they are. Every card should be automatically submitted at a maximum of a PSA 7-8 value. Your odds at getting a 10 are about 3%? How many cards even get a 9? How many people are buying modern 9's at over the cost of grading?
>
>
>
>
The upcharge policy exists for one thing and one thing only, for PSA to make more money for doing the same exact thing. It's no harder to grade a 52 Mantle than to grade a 72 Aaron.
Now you will probably say that PSA could get burned if they grade a card that's a fake and it gets proven they were wrong. Why should the customer have to pay for this? If PSA screws up, they should carry insurance to cover their mistakes. I wonder how often they have to pay out because of this? Not very often, I am guessing. Yet they charge extra for every single card that's over a certain dollar amount.
Additionally, unless I am mistaken, if you sent a card in for a review and the grade changes, you have to pay two times (or more) to get the card correctly graded, so your paying for their mistakes.
No one forced PSA to go into business just as no one is forced to use their service.
When a customer makes an honest mistake, charging an outrageous amount is bad business. Charge $100.00 or even $200.00 to cover your costs.
$5,000.00.
No.