The misattribution actually added to the allure of these cards, the misconception solidified the narrative that they were the very first set ever released. As a result, the market placed a premium value on them compared to if the cards were correctly dated to 1997.
For instance, let’s consider the PSA 10 copy of the no-number Charizard. It fetched an astonishing $490k, then dropped to $190k, and eventually fell to $53,000. These fluctuations can largely be attributed to buyers trusting the label and narrative that had gained widespread traction.
From a legal perspective, these losses are significant, and if I were in the shoes of someone affected, legal action would be a viable consideration – this isn’t an exaggeration.
The legal angle becomes even more intriguing when considering PSA’s response. Had they swiftly corrected their mistake upon discovery, they could argue good faith based on the available information. However, their delayed response potentially opens the door to a negligence claim, both prior to and following the emergence of accurate information.
Naturally, various factors come into play in a legal scenario like this. The crux is proving that your purchase was influenced by the false year classification provided by PSA and that this misclassification played a pivotal role in your decision (of course, on top of being able to prove tangible loss). This argument gains strength if you obtained the item from a listing explicitly making such claims, as it emphasizes the authority attributed to them.
I’m sure they will figure it out. But to answer your question, no, I was not being hyperbolic. 