Highest level contact info at PSA
pengvin67
Posts: 177 ✭✭✭
Hello all,
I have a situation with a PSA 10 Ovechkin card that is now costing me several thousand dollars. I'm going to have to go to a very high level person at PSA to voice my concerns most likely. Does anyone have a suggestion to do to contact? I can lay out the details of what is happening but I'm in the initial phases of the problem and communication with PSA. So far it's totally going against me. So I'm needing to prepare for a long fight I believe.
Thanks to those that can help.
There can be only one....
0
Comments
was there a surcharge for a higher grade than anticipated? If so...you will have to pay more to have it graded....just how it works.
Contact an attorney. Preferably one versed in Cali law
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Without an attorney, you don't really get to dictate who you talk to, at least from the start. But unless you disagree on the "value" of this PSA 10 Ovechkin, you have to pay PSA the proper fee for them "granting" you said value. What are your "concerns"? Give us a chance to give you a reality check before you waste your time and mental anguish....
I just posted my situation. I'm just shocked and feeling sick that a damaged card in 2018 is costing me $5000 today. I'm not trying to push an agenda or narrative. I'm very disappointed at this point and don't even know what to think.
I advise against divulging any further details online until you have consulted with an attorney!
Edit: see you have done the opposite...
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
I wasn't sure how to handle or what to do. Wasn't sure what attorney to contact. I think I'm just feeling blindsided by this. I do appreciate your advice.
That is a genuine horror story, I am very sorry for your loss.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
If you really want to scare someone, write them a demand letter. take your time, do it well, and specify that you intend to proceed as a pro se litigant. You will need to know what jurisdiction your case could be filed in. Familiarize yourself with any terms of service, click-thru or otherwise, and how they have been interpreted as binding in the jurisdiction your case would be filed in. cite anything which allows an argument that a court would hear. Meeting the burden to open a case is your first hurdle and you'll need to review anything that you may have accepted in submitting that specified the jurisdiction, where they are located, where they file taxes, where they do business. Sounds like fun. But if you can get into court hearings and arbitration as a pro se litigant and navigate the procedural stuff you can really scare a big company because it's just your time to file. Sometimes knowing you've cost someone a fortune is just as sweet.
Thanks man. It's stunning for sure.
Can I hire you? I do have some friends that are attorneys and I'll definitely get an idea of if there is some type of smoke that can create a fire.
I just am shocked at the stance of PSA. $135 is their valuation on compensation for $4500 worth of negligent behavior to a patron. Go figure. Yes, I know that they have terms or something that prevents them from doing much more. 🤷 but if I had sold the card to a buyer they would make that buyer whole if the damage was pointed out and I'd have $5000 potentially. Life is a fine line between the outhouse and penthouse apparently.
There are a few instances of this happening in this forum and ultimately it came down to the Terms of Service. I recall as far back as the late 2000's that the guarantee is never extended to the original submitter. It's company policy and rightfully so. There are too many instance of submitter's testing the boundaries of PSA's knowledge. I mean how many late 90's Jordan and Kobe inserts and fake autos could someone send in, hope to pass and then attempt to use the guarantee? It costs them $20 a shot, hope for the upcharge phone call and then make $10k a shot on a guarantee. So there should really be zero shock with the exception it was your card it happened to. Sorry it happned to you man, gotta do more homework next time.
There’s an interesting angle here > @pengvin67 said:
No, and I'm not a lawyer, but I can read and I have successfully litigated pro se on my own behalf.
The jurisdiction for any claims would be California. I don't know what the state of the card is right now, but I suspect that they got you to submit it for review where they have removed it from the slab and re-graded the card. There's another form of review where you can assign a min-grade (which you could have said, grade it again as long as it's a 10, and if it isn't a 10, then do not grade it again and don't remove it from the slab unless you can be sure, from looking at it within the slab, that it would grade a 10).
CA consumer product liability protection is interesting. This gives you 10 years and economic damages. This is the case I would cite.
https://casetext.com/case/seely-v-white-motor-co/
This is the decision from the appeals court after a district court had awarded the judgement affirming the petition.
TLDR;
Plaintiff sued for damages the company they purchased a vehicle from. The district court found that Defendant (Car company) breached its warranty to plaintiff. In this case, the warranty referred to was that of "express warranty" so it's a stretch here as I doubt highly PSA provides any guarantee or warranty on their slabs. In fact they probably state that our slabs are terrible and you're stupid for trusting us with your cards but no one reads this anyways so we own you and if something happens to your card... tough luck!".
Plaintiff won.
Defendant's feelings were hurt so bad. Appeal!
Appellate court affirmed - Means they agreed that District Court applied the law successfully.
Defendant now double-hurt.
So you would have to find something where an officer, and if not an officer, an agent of PSA was bold enough to make a claim of protection the card or something similar. This can be taken as an express warranty claim, so peruse any Nat Turner videos where he doesn't follow the script from the lawyers and write your demand letter. If anything it will cost them $$$ and it's an unbalanced system as it is today.
This is not a thing. Only cross-overs allow for min grade. The only point of a PSA Review is for a bump in grade, so of course the min grade is the grade that the card arrives to PSA as. OP sent the card as a Damage return or Guarantee claim (who knows what PSA is terming it since the OP was not eligible for a Guarantee claim). PSA per terms will not allow a card to be of an inaccurate higher grade if it is made aware (by deactivating the cert and requesting return), or by regrading if in possession. There is no way, nohow a PSA 10 that is not a PSA 10 after review/inspection (after it has been returned to PSA, not talking about QC checks when intentionally graded), would be allowed to be returned to the graded population as a PSA 10.
The express warranty is more for tangible things that function in some form, as in a car working. I'm going to assume the verdict was for the cost to repair the car and nothing to do with current or past valuation.
As for PSA, the only thing I can see with an express warranty is the actual slab (disintegrating slab, damaging cards due to some chemical makeup of the slab, flip deteriorating, etc) And even if the guarantee was ruled as part of express warranty, I'm sure we are back to square one of the damages being retroactive and not present day. But even then, I don't know that express warranty can really apply to something involving appreciation. It's for continued function, not wealth/investment accrual.
Oddly enough you can specify a min grade on a review. This happens in the occasion that a card is graded in a PSA slab, but has not been assigned a numerical grade for the card, or if it's autographed, for the autograph. Rufus - I'm not trying to break news here. In this case I've experienced what I've stated.
Don't assume. The interesting part of the verdict was that it included damages from economic loss. That's why I pointed out the case. That a car works for car things isn't related to an express warranty. An express warranty is usually a very specific statement. Something like "this car is very reliable and won't break down" as opposed to "car working", but I suspect that's what you're trying to state, with a counter-productive example. Here, an express warranty might exist in a statement from a PSA officer or agent that [a function of their slabs is to provide protection for the asset]. Something along those lines would equate to an express warranty.
Again, this is why I cited this case.