More on the UD Controversy [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

View Full Version : More on the UD Controversy

Archive

02-13-2006, 10:56 AM

Posted By: Richard SimonSCD Trade Fax has a story today about the Quad Card controversy. It includes several statements from UD and its president. Today's fax newsletter from Sports Collectors Digest (SCD) contains a statement from the Upper Deck Company regarding the quad card controversy. The company president Bob Andrews stated "We are disapointed that HBO chose to run a TV segment where a convicted felon was allowed to cast doubt on this card." Mr. Andrews seems to ignore myself, Global Authentication, PSA Quick Opinion, one unnamed but well known authenticator, dealer Seth Boyd, and the grandson of Walter Johnson who have all had problems with 1 or 2 of the autographs on this card. The company issued a statement that avoids any specifics and stated that "We utilize well known and respected vendors, each with many years of experience, to provide autographs for our cut-signature products. Each vendor must provide us with a COA". Well I would be curious to know who provided the following signatures which have been looked at (digital images only) by NUMEROUS autograph dealers, none of whom believes in the authenticity of these autographs. Upper Deck indicates in their statement that a "premier authenticator" will be retained for future autographs. So the actions of Mr. Jaffe and the story on Real Sports have brought about a change in Upper Deck. Interesting that they call him a felon, yet have now changed their system as a result of his actions. My question is who authenticated the autographs that are in question now? Were they ever authenticated by a third party after purchase? If so who? Who sold Upper Deck the autographs that are in question now? <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139856944.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139856920.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139856907.JPG"> I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unknown author -- We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember. No retreat baby, no surrender. The Boss

Archive

02-13-2006, 02:59 PM

Posted By: William Heitman20 years of unmatched excellence in spoiling the market.

Archive

02-13-2006, 04:54 PM

Posted By: Brettwhat percentage of UD signature cuts do you feel are fake ?

Archive

02-13-2006, 06:04 PM

Posted By: Anonymous As a collector of high end autos I am troubled by this story. I wonder how deep this problem runs? It seems like cut autos from checks are a better bet, however they are harder and harder to find due to most sitting in private collections. Like any other business, if the cost of the autograph is low then the profit is more for Upper Deck. Why spend 5K on a Babe Ruth when you can get a suspect one for $500. I can't believe the hobby is willing to overlook this issue. Isn't the coveted prize of every person who busts a box or two a rare autograph or cut autograph??! Always felt autographs on Upper Deck cards were legit, now I will have to wonder all the way back to 2001 when this trend started. <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1139882271.JPG">

Archive

02-13-2006, 06:41 PM

Posted By: DJI think the percentage of "suspect" signed Upper Deck cards are rather low, probably a couple of percentages in comparison to all that is out there. The truth of the matter is that even the best auction houses and/or authenticators have an error rate. I remember reading somewhere that Spence says his error rate is 5% and if you line up 100 Upper Deck cards, you may find a couple bad ones in the bunch. In saying this, it is rather disurbing though as I seriously doubt any of the "sources" listed on the back of the card would distribute this kind of "obvious crud" as they most certainly know better. UD got sloppy and lazy, maybe saved a couple bucks and now they are paying for it with bad press and many doubters. DJ

Archive

02-13-2006, 06:51 PM

Posted By: BlackSoxFanRichard - Would you email me (address below)? Thanks! Regards, Black Sox Fan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <a href="http://www.blacksoxfan.com" target="new" border="0"><img src="http://www.blacksoxfan.com/images/art/sig.jpg"></a> <a href=mailto:shoelessjoe@blacksoxfan.com?subject=Ne t54>email me</a>

Archive

02-14-2006, 05:33 AM

Posted By: Richard SimonIt is impossible to say to any accurate degree how many UD autographed cards are questionable. I wonder if any authentication process went on after they bought their autographs? When you see these horrendous examples, you have to think that no reliable authenticator or autograph dealer has examined these autographs. "UD got sloppy and lazy, maybe saved a couple bucks and now they are paying for it with bad press and many doubters". To quote a prior post on this thread,,, you may be right. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unknown author -- We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember. No retreat baby, no surrender. The Boss

Archive

02-14-2006, 05:50 AM

Posted By: Tom Boblittbut most I've seen have been good. The Connie Mack is the absolute most ridiculous one though. Overall, I just hate the whole move to cut up every friggin (sorry, Tbob) artifact and stick it on a card. No problems with a Ken Griffey Jr. jersey as he can change them 10 times a game but they cut up a hundred Walter Johnson checks one time to make these cut cards. JUST RIDICULOUS. Guess that makes the rest of our stuff more valuable but I don't know.......I know they've had similar problems with 'game used' bats and other items they've sliced and diced to put on cards. In the furor to get the next biggest thing out there, they've gotten close to some people who have obviously led them astray..........

Archive

02-14-2006, 07:06 AM

Posted By: Richard SimonI have seen a handful of good ones, but we don't know the extent of this problem. Thousands of cards have been made, I have only seen a handful of good ones and a handful of bad ones. Since I don't buy or sell them, my exposure to them is limited. But I have seen enough questionable ones to worry me. -- I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unknown author -- We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember. No retreat baby, no surrender. The Boss

Archive

02-15-2006, 03:02 PM

Posted By: Richard SimonI have been informed, hopefully correctly, that there will be a story about the UD controversy in the New York Daily News this Sunday Feb 19. The investigative reporter writing the story is Mike O'Keefe. He is very thorough and I expect a good story. I will post on Sunday if there is a web link to this story. -- I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unknown author -- We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember. No retreat baby, no surrender. The Boss

Archive

02-16-2006, 12:11 AM

Posted By: jay behrensDoesn't surprise me that it is O'Keefe writing it as he done a number articles exposing the seedy side of the hobby. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

02-16-2006, 05:37 AM

Posted By: Richard SimonYes O' Keefe has written several stories about the hobby. All very accurate and unfortunately true. -- I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unknown author -- We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember. No retreat baby, no surrender. The Boss

Archive

02-17-2006, 12:19 AM

Posted By: jay behrensI cannot say much about his other articles, but I know that his article about the DiMaggio streak bat had a lot of misinformation and agenda spinning going on it. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Archive

02-17-2006, 06:57 AM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaYou got that right Jay. btw...did any of the naysayers take Bushing and Kinunen up on their offer at the National last year?

Archive

02-17-2006, 07:11 PM

Posted By: Richard SimonO'Keefe wrote an excellent story on the theft of presidential signed baseballs and other autographed items from the Hall of Fame. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unknown author -- We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember. No retreat baby, no surrender. The Boss

Archive

02-17-2006, 08:56 PM

Posted By: AnsonMoney corrupts. I hate to say it, but nothing we collect seems to be exempt from it. Reprints, forgeries, alterations, all in the name of the grand dollar. Is anyone else feeling overparanoid about buying things these days?

Archive

02-17-2006, 10:51 PM

Posted By: jay behrensI was parnoid back in the late 80s. They were rebuilding corners on Goudeys with pulp from other Goudeys, creating realistic looking fake jerseys that fooled many experts, etc. I can only imagine how much more sophisticated they have become. I bought game worn jerseys and bats in the 80s, but I wouldn't touch them today knowing what I know. As was proven being part of the DiMaggio bat investigation, buying any piece of game used equipment is a leap of faith unless you get the piece directly from the hand of the player, not his agent. High grade cards have also become a leap of faith since alteration methods have become so advanced. Give me a well worn card with some charater to it and I'll let the rich guys battle it out for the pretty looking cards. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.