Should the TPA's place a sticker on an authenticated item?

[RichardSimon]

As per Leon's suggestion.
Take it away guys, let us see what you think.

[GrayGhost]

No, no, a hundred times NO. Let them give you a card w a number and a small photo of the item, and it can be kept with the piece. Stickers anywhere on an item deface it. One exception could be on a ball cube underneath or something, where it doesn't block the ball in any ways.

[Leon]

Clarification maybe needed with the poll.....I don't have an issue, as much or barely any, with a sticker on a blank backed photo that doesn't block any period writing.....or in other inconspicuous and non-menacing places. A sticker on the front of anything is just wrong, imo. Not sure how to vote with it so black and white?

[Jason]

No way on the front my eye's would just shoot to that all the time.

[Caseyatbat]

This option is 100% up to the buyer. If they want the sticker on their forehead they can probably arrange that as well. If you don't want it on the item, they give you the option to have the sticker placed on the letter itself.

How come nobody has a problem with Upper Deck holograms? Or the big ugly Ted Williams one from his company? The PSA one is actually much smaller than those ones. I have found as a dealer, that most buyers want it there believe it or not. If it is hidden, for instance on the backside of the photo, often times buyers specifically request to see it before they buy the item. As they know that making a bogus letter is possible. Like that crook down in Florida was doing last year. I realize they can make a bogus sticker too, but probably a lot tougher to get both right.

[Leon]

This option is 100% up to the buyer. If they want the sticker on their forehead they can probably arrange that as well. If you don't want it on the item, they give you the option to have the sticker placed on the letter itself.

How come nobody has a problem with Upper Deck holograms? Or the big ugly Ted Williams one from his company? The PSA one is actually much smaller than those ones. I have found as a dealer, that most buyers want it there believe it or not. If it is hidden, for instance on the backside of the photo, often times buyers specifically request to see it before they buy the item. As they know that making a bogus letter is possible. Like that crook down in Florida was doing last year. I realize they can make a bogus sticker too, but probably a lot tougher to get both right.

I didn't single out PSA. This thread isn't ONLY about them. It is about ANY company that does this. I am not saying it's the end of the world but it's not right either. There shouldn't be a service that totally defaces property for no good reason. And if it is on the back and the customer needs to see a scan of it, big deal. Show them a scan. best regards

[Caseyatbat]

agreed. I usually specifically ask to put it on the backside if possible. And with a ball to leave it off all together.

[Scott Garner]

Never on the front of an item, and realistically I wouldn't want it anywhere on anything vintage, IMHO.

As long as I'm on a soapbox right now, I hate these stickers on all baseballs.

[perezfan]

The collectible itself will carry significance indefinitely.

The sticker represents advertising for an authentication company that will inevitably be here today/gone tomorrow.

A sticker should never be placed anywhere in view. That includes anywhere on a Ball, Bat, Glove, Cleats, Uniform or on the front side of a flat item (Photo, Litho or Artwork). I suppose the reverse side of a flat item is ok, but even then you are compromising the piece.

Why can't their meaningless sticker or hologram simply appear on the LOA (which can contain a photo of the item in question?)

[old13man]

Another thread on here exemplifies that balls can be replicated to look identical to the original. What would stop someone from having a replica made to be sold with the original LOA? They could keep the authentic autograph while selling a forgery with proper documentation. I am against putting a sticker on the item but if you put the sticker on the LOA this is always a possibility.

CJ

[travrosty]

The collectible itself will carry significance indefinitely.

The sticker represents advertising for an authentication company that will inevitably be here today/gone tomorrow.

A sticker should never be placed anywhere in view. That includes anywhere on a Ball, Bat, Glove, Cleats, Uniform or on the front side of a flat item (Photo, Litho or Artwork). I suppose the reverse side of a flat item is ok, but even then you are compromising the piece.

Why can't their meaningless sticker or hologram simply appear on the LOA (which can contain a photo of the item in question?)



like

[Scott Garner]

like

Me likee too!

[HRBAKER]

The sticker is only an "option" for the first in line, most items are sold and some repeatedly. I think it is a terrible "choice."

[drc]

Depends on the situation/what/where. Modern versus old, front versus back. A PSA sticker on the back a 2005 Nolan Ryan photo doesn't bother me.

[travrosty]

The sticker is only an "option" for the first in line, most items are sold and some repeatedly. I think it is a terrible "choice."



exactly, the next owner in line won't have a choice unless it is to avoid the piece with the sticker on the front, hopefully will lead to unstickered certed photos worth more than the stickered, then the stickering will stop.

otherwise removing the sticker without damaging the photo, (that's the trick),is the only other solution to the sticker problem. i think it can be done.

[bn2cardz]

They should not put stickers on any item any more than they should write the grade of a card on the card itself.

I have never walked into a museum and saw stickers on the paintings, statues, or other misc pieces of history with a sticker on it telling me it is authentic. I certainly don't want there to be anything either.

[RichardSimon]

Since the solution is so simple, I would think they use the sticker as an advertising device more than for anything else.

[Bilko G]

I voted no. What happens if the TPA goes out of business?? What happens if years down the road no one trusts this particular TPA anymore??

Can you imagine if say GAI (when they were somewhat reputable) put their sticker on almost everything you owned? Wouldn't that decrease the value largely in today's market??

[RichardSimon]

I just thought of this also,, is the sticker acid free? If not, just wait, it will take a while, but in my opinion it will damage any item.

[travrosty]

My favorite ruined photo with an advertisment sticker on it.

an iconic shot of archie moore-ali, in the heat of the battle, black and white photo. then your eye goes right to the gaudy, red, white and blue sticker on Ali's kidneys. just disgusting what they do to these photos.

[travrosty]

Disgusting what psa and jsa and others do to these wonderful pieces of memorabilia. cheapens them. crass commercialization for the purpose of cheap advertising.

would you rather own this piece with the sticker on it, or without?

[RichardSimon]

I am wondering if you can blow dry that sucker, er, sticker off.
I have successfully used a blow dryer to remove scotch tape.

[HRBAKER]

Richard,

Why would you want to do that?
The sticker is what makes it worth anything!

:cool:;):D:rolleyes:

[tjlives]

I am wondering if you can blow dry that sucker, er, sticker off.
I have successfully used a blow dryer to remove scotch tape.

If anyone actually knows the answer to this, I've got at least one piece (and probably a couple others) that could use freeing from a poorly placed TPA sticker.

I don't mind them in all instances, but yikes, they can end up in some weird places. OTOH, sometimes they devalue the item into my price range...

[perezfan]

Regarding the Ali/Moore Photo...

It speaks volumes that the authenticator placed the ugly sticker on Ali's body (rather than in the expansive empty black are towards the upper-right). It shows how little regard they have for the collectible itself, and how it's all about their own self-promotion.

Who in their right mind would cover up the very subject of the photo (Ali) when such an obvious, more preferable option exists? And even then, it should be on the reverse side, rather than the front.

The Munson piece is even worse.... you couldn't even mat the sticker out (for display purposes) if you wanted to. This is beyond idiocy :eek:

[thecatspajamas]

The Munson piece is even worse.... you couldn't even mat the sticker out (for display purposes) if you wanted to. This is beyond idiocy :eek:

Placement on that one actually appears to be so that you could mat the sticker IN rather than out. It's even aligned with the Munson signature rather and being placed in any corner of the page and aligned appropriately.

[Exhibitman]

Phuck NO! I've seen more beautiful vintage items ruined by an uggo sticker from a TPA. If I have a flat sent to a TPA I always try to have it encapsulated without a sticker instead.

[RichardSimon]

Regarding the Ali/Moore Photo...

It speaks volumes that the authenticator placed the ugly sticker on Ali's body (rather than in the expansive empty black are towards the upper-right). It shows how little regard they have for the collectible itself, and how it's all about their own self-promotion.

Who in their right mind would cover up the very subject of the photo (Ali) when such an obvious, more preferable option exists? And even then, it should be on the reverse side, rather than the front.

The Munson piece is even worse.... you couldn't even mat the sticker out (for display purposes) if you wanted to. This is beyond idiocy :eek:

This is also beyond decency, promoting themselves regardless of the fact that they messed up the clients item.

[travrosty]

Another beauty

The fab five? the TPA played the tambourine I guess.

[doug.goodman]

I voted no no no no no no no no a million times no.

And, this entire thread makes me laugh.

Doug

[Leon]

This is also beyond decency, promoting themselves regardless of the fact that they messed up the clients item.

Truthfully I think one of these TPA stickers would make a good court case. I would swear in court that I would pay substantially less for an item with that kind of sticker on it, than one without it.

[RichardSimon]

Travis - OMG on that Beatles piece,, what collector could have asked them to do that???? Just horrendous.
A few days ago I sold three Johnny Unitas autographed index cards to a regular customer.
My receipt is also my COA with my authenticity guarantee stamped on the receipt.
The customer asked me to stamp the back of the index cards with my guarantee.
I told him that is defacing the card and that I would write out a separate receipt for each index card in lieu of defacing the card. I don't need the free advertising that badly to make me deface a piece.

[travrosty]

yes, you did right, the piece should be left alone as is. documentation can always be made up to the satisfaction of both parties without altering the piece.


Last one I have, the goudey card signed by Chas Gehringer, with the PSA sticker on the back of the actual card.

sigh.

:(

[thecatspajamas]

yes, you did right, the piece should be left alone as is. documentation can always be made up to the satisfaction of both parties without altering the piece.


Last one I have, the goudey card signed by Chas Gehringer, with the PSA sticker on the back of the actual card.

sigh.

:(

AND IT'S NOT EVEN STRAIGHT! You would think, if you were going to make your advertisement a permanent part of the piece, you would pay a little more attention to the alignment of the sticker in relation to the card back!

Is "aesthetically unsettling" a usable phrase? Because that's exactly what that card back is to me, aside from any feelings about the presence of the sticker itself.

[HRBAKER]

AND IT'S NOT EVEN STRAIGHT! You would think, if you were going to make your advertisement a permanent part of the piece, you would pay a little more attention to the alignment of the sticker in relation to the card back!

Is "aesthetically unsettling" a usable phrase? Because that's exactly what that card back is to me, aside from any feelings about the presence of the sticker itself.

Wouldn't you think that some moderately intelligent person would try to place the sticker toward the areas where there was ALREADY paperloss on the back instead in the middle of the text?

I used to be inclined to cut these companies a little slack but now I just scratch my head in wonderment.

[Gary Dunaier]

I don't know if this is germane to the specific topic at hand, but here goes...

There was an autograph event at Citi Field last Sunday, where a number of former Mets were signing autographs for fees. There was a representative from PSA/DNA who would, for an additional fee, "authenticate" the item you just got signed...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7015/6746711249_68316b2e6a_b.jpg

Interesting concept, on-site authentication... according to the sign on the table (as seen in the photograph), all you had to do was provide “proof of purchase of the autograph signing.” From what I saw, the man from PSA/DNA who was certifying the signatures as authentic did not actually see the autographs being signed with his own eyes, so he had no personal first-hand knowledge of their authenticity. Correct me if I'm wrong - there may be something I'm missing here - but as far as I could tell, there’s nothing to stop someone from bringing in something that already has a fake autograph, buying a ticket for a real signature, getting that real signature on something that for whatever reason they didn't need authentication for (for example, a blank 3x5 card), present the fake signature with the proof of purchase, and presto - you’ve got yourself a fake that’s been authenticated as genuine.

[travrosty]

If they advertise that as "in the presence" and the man did not actually see the athlete sign the piece, I think that is deplorable.

The Sal Bando incident proved pieces that were described as being signed at the show could easily be switched and get a cert for them by 'trusting' the individual.

In the presence, means right there watching, not 'in the general area'. The sign says to provide the receipt, that's not really in the presence, is it?

What's the difference between providing the receipt there at the show, or asking someone to walk across the street to the hotel and provide the receipt in order to get the item stickered?

How close you are to the athlete means nothing if you aren't watching him sign the piece in question and advertising it as "in the presence".

Now we know how this program works. Nothing is as it seems to be with these companies.

Clarification is below

[travrosty]

From the PSA website

"When you see the PSA/DNA Guaranteed Authentic certificate, it means that a PSA representative has witnessed the item being signed."


It looks like this is a lie, asking for the receipt isn't the same as witnessing the items being signed, is it? If the PSA representative witnessed the item being signed, you wouldnt even need the receipt, you could just move 3 feet over and get it stickered for 8 bucks.

When is the shell game going to stop? Witnessing means that the guy watching it being signed is the guy putting the sticker on. When collectors see one definition of 'in the presence on a website, and experience another in person, they don't know which shell the ball in under anymore. doesn't mean the company is trying to pull one over on someone, but they allow for shenanigans to occur like we have seen in the past. Seeing the item being signed, then immediately stickering it allows for none of that.

[Fuddjcal]

I always thought that this was about the stupidest concept anyway. The only signing I went to in recent memory was when I saw the late Willie Davis at a signing near where I was working about 5 years ago. I stopped in bought a ball, an autograph ticket and stood in a 1 person line to have him sign it.

Then, some numb-skull kid with PSA sitting next to him asks me if I'd like an authentication with that? ($7.00 at the time) I asked "what the hell I needed that for when I just saw the man sign the thing right in front of my face.":D

[RichardSimon]

from the psa website

"when you see the psa/dna guaranteed authentic certificate, it means that a psa representative has witnessed the item being signed."


it looks like this is a lie, asking for the receipt isn't the same as witnessing the items being signed, is it? If the psa representative witnessed the item being signed, you wouldnt even need the receipt, you could just move 3 feet over and get it stickered for 8 bucks.

When is the shell game going to stop?

++++1111
sham, con, fake, false advertising and that's just their good side :D
And they are putting a f------ d--- sticker on the item in the picture,, where does it end?

[travrosty]

It never ends.

to clarify, they might have another representative on the other end witnessing the signatures, but to have only the receipt as proof that you had something signed, might as well not even have the other guy watch the signing, as the visual chain of custody has been broken, and the item or receipt could have been switched, or tampered with in the meantime.

Even if they initialed a receipt or whatever, it may be a fact that a rep witnessed AN item, and the guy stickering stickered AN item, but for PSA to say that the stickered items mean that THE item has been witnessed is not right, because for witnessing to occur, the guy putting on the sticker has to be the guy who saw the signing.

Anything else, no matter what safeguards they put in place, is whatever they want to call it but it is not witnessing.

Think of a notary public stamping something, saying they saw a guy signing, when all they did is look at a receipt that says ANOTHER guy saw him sign something, and taking the receipt at the same face value as actually WITNESSING the guy signing. Not the same, so it should not be advertised as witnessing.

[HRBAKER]

It doesn't end until people quit lining up and paying the freight.
Where's the incentive to do any different?