Card damaged during reholdering process

[Quuador]

Since I don’t have the reading capacity of a lawyer and English also isn’t my native language, I initially agreed with @tyranitardaddy that it wasn’t explicitly mentioned.
However, this was mostly due to my misunderstanding of this particular prefix of a sentence:

Notwhitstanding anything to the contrary in the preceding paragaph

What I thought this meant, was that if the ‘preceding paragraph’ (aka, the earlier mentioned paragraph above this sentence) didn’t apply, this entire sentence would be void. But on the contrary, this quoted expression apparently means:

Regardless of what we just said in the paragraph above, the following rule overrides it:

source: (Google) AI

So in this part of PSA’s policy agreement:

The orange underlined part would seem relevant at first, but can basically be ignored completely. The yellow highlighted part is as mentioned above. The ‘may’ is purposely kept vague, in that this doesn’t always apply if they feel like it.
And the red underlined part is what applied to your card: your slab was defintely fractured over the card, and thus:

if the card accidently gets damaged taking it out of the fractured slab, or in theory, even if they’d then drop it; step on it; use their greasy fingers; and accidently put it in their coffee machine…

YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTAND, AND AGREE THAT PSA MAY IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES fwck you over completely , WHICH MAY RESULT IN A LOWER GRADE.

Aka, they’re indeed assholes, and I doubt they’ll pay you the difference in value.

Looks like potential loss in the mail isn’t the only reason to not try a reholder with a grading company..

I’d still try to fight it, maybe they’ll at least give some of the money back in the end. Either way, sorry this happened to your card.

Greetz,
Quuador

[trevcatchem]

All this and it means nothing because that wonderfully placed first word of the second sentence. “Generally,” That word basically means they can do whatever they want, you can just stop reading anything below that. But if you’re still interested, here’s the interpretation of Quuador’s orange underline.

Orange essentially reads:
Integrity of PSA holder and label is good = Remove card → reslab with same grade
Integrity of PSA holder and label is compromised = Remove card → reassess grade and authenticity (maybe check to see if card is altered?) → assign new grade or keep old grade → reslab card.

Orange DOES NOT read:
Integrity of PSA holder and label is compromised = Contact buyer to see if they still want to reholder the card → check to see if whatever caused the cracked slab also caused damage to the card → record prior whitening, dents, dings, and scratches THROUGH A CRACKED SLAB → remove the card from the slab → see if they caused any additional damage which leads to a whole rabbit hole of he said she said → I’ll just stop here because now we branch off into multiple situations from here.

@tyranitardaddy Do you see why it reads like it does? The second situation, which is what you wanted them to do, leads to so many issues.

[tyranitardaddy]

Firstly thank you for your thought out reply I appreciate it. I’m also not a lawyer but I guess that’s why I wanted to get some different insights into this.

I understand your interpretation, and I agree that the “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary” language allows PSA to examine the card outside its holder and potentially change its grade.

However, I think there’s an important distinction being overlooked: the difference between PSA’s right to examine a card raw and its responsibility for physically damaging that card while it’s in their possession.

Section 10 specifically states that PSA will exercise “reasonable and ordinary care” when handling items submitted for authentication, grading, review, or reholdering . It also addresses compensation for items damaged while in PSA’s possession or control.

If the Reholder exception completely absolved PSA of responsibility for damage whenever a slab was fractured near the card, why would PSA explicitly include reholdering in its damaged-item policy?

I believe these provisions address two separate issues: PSA’s authority to examine and potentially regrade a card, and its responsibility for physical damage caused while handling that card.

I agreed to PSA potentially changing my card’s grade under the stated circumstances. I don’t believe that automatically means I agreed to accept physical damage caused during the process or waived the protections outlined in Section 10.

Ultimately, I don’t think one provision automatically eliminates the other, and I believe both should be interpreted together.

I know they probably had a team of lawyers write up their policy and like @trevcatchem is saying the wording was carefully selected for a reason but I think there’s a lot of flaws and contradictions.

I’m going to continue to fight the good fight and see where it leads me. It’ll either end up with this post getting deleted and me signing an NDA or it being shared like the Lenticular Deoxys reholder story(even though we are talking about a $1000 loss in my case vs a $20k loss in the other case)

[eeveeteam]

@tyranitardaddy

PSA will exercise “reasonable and ordinary care

Yeah but cracking a slab always carries risk. In particular a slab with a fracture already on it. When I crack slabs, it always sucks getting the card out when you don’t get a clean break.

We are all trying to help, but at the end of the day, giving PSA a broken slab essentially provides no guarantee it will remain a 10. PSA definately damaged it but they will stand behind the 10 foot steel wall of “look at the pictures when it was in the slab”

[pfm]

Ignore ToS and fight it

[Frosty.Puppy]

I can’t find the full thread that there was about this UniKarp and I don’t know if there was ever an outcome.

This is just to show you more of PSA’s handy work and experience in dodging bullets caused by their own.

The Giant Professional Grading Thread

I decided to test my luck and send the PSA 9 Unikarp for a review. It’s a $1,000 bet that could’ve paid off by increasing the card’s value from around $30,000 to around $70,000. PSA promptly destroyed the card and returned it in a new slab, same grade. This was my favorite card. This is so disheartening that I’ve decided to quit the hobby. I cannot partake in this while these extortionist monkeys are the de facto entity to deal with. We all know it will be hell for me to open a claim against t…

[Dyl]

This is one of the most passive aggressive threads that I’ve read on e4. Anyway, no use in armchair lawyering. Ask for compensation and see what they say.

[tyranitardaddy]

I’ve seen a few that top this one, I think it’s only passive aggressive cause we are all guilty of arm chair lawyering trying to interpret PSA’s policies.

I did try to get compensated and i posted the reply from PSA in my original post unfortunately left a lot to be desired but i’m waiting for another reply back so I’ll update in 15 business days.

[tyranitardaddy]

Thats the plan, gonna continue to fight it until I get a meaningful reply from PSA.

[pokesun]

I just want to say sorry this happened to you. Hope they can make it right for you.

[tyranitardaddy]

Thanks I appreciate it. Even if they don’t make it right I hope the topic sheds some light on the risks of reholdering a cracked slab for anyone who plans to do so in the future.

[DeekBoy]

Hope this gets resolved for you dude! Reading this thread was frustrating on many levels!

[tyranitardaddy]

Thank you and hope you’re well, I appreciate you!

[KazaamCollectibles]

Seeing this section is helping calm my nerves a bit right now. I’m going to on site grading in Toronto for a reholder tomorrow. I have a low pop lv.x with slight inner cracking in the bottom right corner of the slab. According to this write up it should be a simple reholder since it’s nowhere near the card itself. It will be a sad day if they instead decide to lower the grade.

[tyranitardaddy]

Good luck! Out of all the 40-50 cards I’ve had reholdered I’ve never had any issues. All varying in different conditions. This is the first time I’ve had an issue personally.

[jac2357]

Hi glad it helped. The real problem is PSA can basically do as it wishes. Read number 2 the second part of sentence leaves it wide open for interpretation as what constitutes near the item itself. The corners are very near the card as is the whole case. In person is always going to be your best choice as you can ask them for yourself. Id record the conversation with video evidence to cover yourself best and take lots of pics and video of your card before handing it over.

[Profunda]

Please challenge it. Sure, they can examine it raw, but that does not mean that they can damage your card while breaking the holder.

[tyranitardaddy]

Absolutely challenging it and I agree completely. We will see how things play out. Will continue to keep the post updated as I receive any more replies from PSA about the matter.