The Potential High Risk of Investing in PSA Grading and Authentication

Have you had a Bizarre or Distressing Experience with PSA Autograph Authentication and/or Card Grading?

The Pain of the PSA Reversal!

Authentication is a worthwhile service, but it is built around one dangerously inconsistent component: subjective human opinion

NOTE:   My documented distressing experience below does Not accuse PSA of any wrong doing, but just asks the questions that many collectors would love to know the answers to. 

A recent disturbing experience with a PSA Reversal has resulted in sending out this valuable information to other Collectors.  

After more than 35 years of collecting vintage film and sports memorabilia I, like many collectors, have had little choice but to often rely on the authentication and grading monopolies, namely the market dominated PSA.  And in those decades I've witnessed countless ownership changes, acquisitions, turnovers and restructurings among authentication companies such as PSA, JSA and Beckett. These companies provide a valuable service, but their processes contain serious weaknesses and hence high risk for high value collectors, particularly the inherently subjective human element.  Are there any Standards?  What are they? Where are they?

The greatest unresolved problem I have observed is the apparent lack of transparent, consistently applied standards. If these companies follow formal authentication standards, those standards are not made available to the public.   I have more then once submitted the same autograph twice, only to have it rejected the first time and approved the second. Furthermore, authentication companies generally provide little or no explanation of their findings. Customers receive an opinion but are denied the evidence and reasoning behind it.

For years, I believed this inconsistency primarily affected autograph authentication. I never imagined that card grading and encapsulation might present an even greater danger and financial risk, until today.

The situation began when I sold several PSA-graded Gilligan’s Island cards on eBay. In accordance with eBay’s authentication policy, three cards were sent to PSA for verification before being delivered to the buyers. I had purchased all three PSA Encapsulated cards on eBay a few years earlier and believed they had previously passed the applicable eBay/PSA verification process.

Over the past few years I've sent about 25 other PSA Encapsulated cards to PSA Verification with never an issue.   This time however, two cards passed and one did not.

The reason remains unclear because PSA provided almost no meaningful explanation. All three cards had appeared in PSA’s certification database for several years. Nevertheless, following this transaction, PSA flagged the certification number of the rejected encapsulated card.

I contacted eBay and eventually reached someone in its authentication department. The representative told me that the only notation she could see indicated that a PSA reviewer believed the holder might have been tampered with. However, my detailed photographs show a holder that appeared flawless and uncompromised when shipped. The card had also remained secured in a safe for years.  .  Meanwhile, it gets more confusing with the all too familiar inconsistency,  as the PSA Verification page has a red message saying,  "Card certification has been deactivated as a precautionary measure due to its association with a known counterfeit in the market.".

That raises a much larger and more troubling question.

Imagine purchasing a PSA-9 encapsulated Mickey Mantle rookie card for $15 million and  Five years later, you decide to sell it, only to be told during another verification that “something doesn’t look right.”.     My card was only $600, but imagine if it was $6 Million??

What objective standards govern that decision? What evidence must PSA provide? Is there a formal appeal or reexamination procedure? Who protects the owner when an authenticated, graded and encapsulated collectible suddenly becomes questionable based on another employee’s subjective opinion?  Years later?  
Maybe at that level PSA offers a Privilege Service for the six and seven figure Elite Cards that the rest of us don't have access to.    I don't know I'm just thinking out loud. 

Here are some disturbing possible scenarios that one might unexpectedly face.

• PSA changes their rules that may effect cards previous certified
• The 10 year old Encapsulation looks suspicious and possible tampering? Even though the card has been in a safe for a decade and the case looks flawless.
• "Card certification has been deactivated as a precautionary measure due to its association with a known counterfeit in the market.". So if after five years counterfeits are discovered are ALL existing examples of that card Deactivated in the PSA database?
• And more then likely, you will Never know exactly Why PSA Reversed your authentication or Grading.  The once assumed Unquestionable, Solid Encapsulation has spawned loopholes and Mysterious rulings that can kill your investment without evidence, explanation or appeal.

Think about this:  You base your purchase decision on the PSA Grading or Certification and hence pay an exorbitant price.   Several years later that same card is for whatever reason rejected by PSA and now that card is exponentially devalued. Maybe even Worthless, all based on someone's Opinion or Changed Opinion or Changed Process or New Policy. 

For me personally the PSA Encapsulation no longer means "Solid" or "Unquestionable".  Based on my recent experience,   all I see now is a big RED STOP SIGN!

And here is the Icing on the cake.  Because my PSA Encapsulated Card failed Verification, I now have a "Strike" on my eBay seller account!

When millions of dollars can depend on a plastic holder and an undisclosed opinion, collectors deserve transparent standards, documented findings and meaningful procedural safeguards.