Any new news on GAI? [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

View Full Version : Any new news on GAI?

Archive

11-14-2007, 12:00 PM

Posted By: BobAre reports of their demise greatly exaggerated, to borrow from Mark Twain? Have they moved yet? Are cards being returned, either slabbed or unslabbed? Inquiring minds would like to know <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

11-14-2007, 12:08 PM

Posted By: BrianIt will all be better on Monday.

Archive

11-14-2007, 12:16 PM

Posted By: leonI am told they are back in business, there was a large influx of capital...and they are accepting submissions. This is from one of their submission center alliances. I don't know anymore.....

Archive

11-14-2007, 12:19 PM

Posted By: MattI feel bad for whoever invested in them - the way they handled the recent situation is did severe damage to their customer base; if they were floundering before, I don't see how they survive now.

Archive

11-14-2007, 12:26 PM

Posted By: leonIt will be an up hill battle at best......Again, the news I heard is from one of their submission center folks that called me today. He said he has spoken with Baker and Rocci (sp?) in the last 1-2 days....regards

Archive

11-14-2007, 12:27 PM

Posted By: Joe D.the "We made room for a Church" release. I am wondering if there are any orphans, or puppies, or third world impoverished children that might be slowing their progress to getting their phones and server back up and running. I for one commend them for going through such a big business inconvenience in order to help that Church get into bigger space.

Archive

11-14-2007, 12:37 PM

Posted By: boxingcardmanwith my wife...Morgan Fairchild...who I've seen naked. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Archive

11-14-2007, 02:00 PM

Posted By: Sean CIt's "Planned Maintenance!" <a href="http://gacard.net/maint.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://gacard.net/maint.html</a> I'd ask how they could say such things with a straight face, but now one has been able to see them to confirm that they are.

Archive

11-14-2007, 02:02 PM

Posted By: leonTheir "Public Relations" is dismal..... edited grammar

Archive

11-14-2007, 02:06 PM

Posted By: boxingcardman<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

11-14-2007, 02:12 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI wonder if their landlord received any of that large influx of capital. I'm guessing he got fluxed instead.

Archive

11-14-2007, 02:27 PM

Posted By: PaulSo you've been chatting with Mr. Giddings. Lucky you! Does he talk with the cap lock button depressed as well? BTW. Your comment regarding dismal, you are truly the master of understatement. My hat is off to you sir.

Archive

11-14-2007, 02:59 PM

Posted By: 1880nonsportsthat the company is lacking a captain - the person who takes the lead in RUNNING a company in it's totality. I would think even a cash infussion will do nothing but delay an inevitable demise. Most here don't buy GAI (as a "I only have GAI graded cards in my collection") so we are not the bellweather but a significant percent of the people that get baseball cards graded. If it's the general consumer that is thier target then the lack of communication (phone/website/public releases) - card show "no-shows" - and unresponsiveness will diminish the submissions to a point of no return...... (edited to correct a simple spelling error before i get chided - I'm too fragile right now)

Archive

11-14-2007, 04:30 PM

Posted By: SteveFragile Frankie Merman lives!

Archive

11-14-2007, 04:39 PM

Posted By: Dave HaasAn update on my previous thread regarding GAI. As you know from my previous thread GAI owed me a sum of money for a '49 Leaf Babe Ruth that they had found a buyer for. Mike Baker told me on Thursday that they would send me a check Monday (yesterday). He called me yesterday and said the post office was closed for Veterans Day and asked if I wanted a credit to my Paypal account? I told him I preferred a money order and sending out Tuesday (today) was fine. Today he called and said the money order went out today priority mail and I should have it shortly. I must admit he is being diligent in rectifying my problem and says they are doing the same for all. He also reiterates that GAI is still in business. I'll let you know when I receive the check. Dave

Archive

11-14-2007, 04:47 PM

Posted By: Al SimeoneDave, Just curious did Mike or Darren ever tell you what grade your Ruth card received? Or was it ever graded by them?

Archive

11-14-2007, 05:02 PM

Posted By: Fred CThis kind of gets you thinking about the whole grading phenomena. Can PSA and SGC weather the storm if the economy weakens and people reduce the number of submissions to SGC and PSA? Hmmmm......

Archive

11-14-2007, 09:04 PM

Posted By: LarryI just noticed on Beckett Blog that GAI will be relocating in same area San Clemente and that they plan to attend the Sun Times Show in Chicago, this was posted November 13th 2008 at 6:48 PM, right from Steve Rocchi to Beckett magazine...(see google search) I sincerely hope that this confusion is resolved for everyone's sake, especially Mike, Steve, Danny....and the customers. If they are present in Chicago, a lot of healing can begin. I maybe overly optimistic but there has to be some good news in seeing them in person. I know some people might be pessimistic and many cannot understand how these events occurred, but I hope their stated venture capital influx can be utilized to rebuild their company goodwill, they certainly have personable and skilled talent. Again, this was only quoted from an article I read tonight and I have no direct information first hand. Nov 13th 2008 11:55 PM

Archive

11-14-2007, 09:22 PM

Posted By: Frank Evanov"venture capital influx can be utilized to rebuild their company goodwill I doubt capital can buy goodwill. Efficiency, good communication and top-notch customer service could do it, but GAI has never possessed those qualities. Frank

Archive

11-15-2007, 07:41 AM

Posted By: Dave HaasAl, I had sent the card in for a pregrade which they did prior to calling me. What they didn't know was that I had the card previously graded by PSA and was not happy with their grade. By the way, PSA and GAI graded the card the same. Dave

Archive

11-15-2007, 07:51 AM

Posted By: SteveGai is in the grading business (well was) NOT in the selling of submissions business. You can bet your last dollar that if they sold it it was overgraded. That is a sin in which I could never forgive them on. Also i wonder what happened to all the other hi end items that were mysteriousely lost during the past few years? Steve

Archive

11-15-2007, 09:23 AM

Posted By: JKSteve, That's a pretty big assumption you are making without any proof to back it up.

Archive

11-15-2007, 10:15 AM

Posted By: Joe D.I don't see that as a 'Pretty Big Assumption' I see it as a plausible assumption. Or a very easy to understand assumption. It is that assumption that hilights why a grading company should not be part of that type of deal making. And - it is very easy for a grading company to ensure that there is no basis for that assumption. In this instance, GAI left the door wide open for that type of assumption. Although.... I have to say I have to believe in the GAI's integrity - because as we know, they went through a terrible inconvenience to help out a growing Church. That is very admirable. I mean... they did go through this to help out a Church, right? edit: so as not to misquote - Josh said "pretty big" and not "very big" as I originally posted. I changed "very" to "pretty" in the one instance above. My message is otherwise untouched.

Archive

11-15-2007, 10:34 AM

Posted By: Al SimeoneThanks Dave, Let us know when you get your check!!! Al

Archive

11-15-2007, 10:54 AM

Posted By: peter chaoFor a small company, an influx of capital means that somebody sold their car. Peter C.

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:06 AM

Posted By: JKJoe, I think its fair to say that GAI handled their "move" in an entirely less than adequate or forthright fashion. I think its fair to assume that GAI doesnt know $h%t about public relations. I also think its fair to assume that GAI or the individual grader took a cut out of whatever deal they brokered with regard to the Ruth card. However, given info provided by Dave that the card received the same grade that PSA had given the card and absolutely no evidence suggesting (1) that GAI had a corporate policy permitting its graders to sell consigned cards; or (2) that GAI stole cards from consignors and sold them out the back door; I maintain that there is no evidence to support your assumption that they would intentionally overgrade a card. Im not saying it didnt happen, Im just saying I'd want to see more before I'd make a reckless comment like that. Of course, even if you or someone else have defamed GAI with your comments, they probably lack sufficient funds to sue, so its probably all good.

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:09 AM

Posted By: peter chaoIt's not good news when a grading co. sells a card that they just graded. The theory is that they are an independent 3d party. Once they stand to make some money on the sale they are no longer independent. Also the buyer has no idea whether the grading was done last month or the day before, there's only one situation in which the grading should be permitted. If the buyer specifically requests that the card be graded. Peter C.

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:12 AM

Posted By: MattJosh - "they probably lack sufficient funds to sue, so its probably all good" How many cases have there been where a company has sued a message board poster over defamation?

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:33 AM

Posted By: AnonymousPlenty

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:36 AM

Posted By: leonno comment <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:37 AM

Posted By: JKMatt, I dont have an exact answer for you, but I would bet the post right below yours is very accurate: Plenty. Heck, arent you personally aware of at least one threat to sue someone over a post on this board?

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:43 AM

Posted By: peter chaoYou can sue somebody over almost anything. Prevailing on the merits is a different story. Peter C.

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:45 AM

Posted By: Matt"threat to sue" != Actual Lawsuit People threaten to sue over almost anything. I'm interested in actual cases. You guys are the lawyers, so I certainly will defer, but if you wouldn't mind referencing one or two such cases, it would enlighten me. thanks!

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:53 AM

Posted By: JKA quick internet search (rather than through an actual legal research site which costs money) found the following examples (look at the last one): In 1991, CompuServe was sued in New York federal court for Libel (Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 S.D.N.Y). CompuServe was sued because it hosted a daily newsletter called "Rumorville" (which was also a defendant) in its Journalism Forum. Plaintiff published an electronic news and gossip column for the TV news and radio industries called "Skuttlebut". Defendant "Rumorville" published articles which claimed that Skuttlebut was a "new start-up scam" and it's owner had been "bounced" by his previous employer. The court dismissed CompuServe as a defendant by Summary Judgment because CompuServe had no contractual, employment, or other relationship with Rumorville which allowed them to edit or even read what was going to be published in Rumorville. Ii other words, CompuServe was merely acting like a newsstand which displayed other publications and cannot be held responsible for their content. In 1994, an Australian anthropologist named Gil Hardwick was ordered by the Australian Supreme Court to pay David Rindos $40,000 because he libeled Mr. Rindos on the Internet. Mr. Hardwick claimed that Rindos had lost his job teaching at the University of Western Australia because he was a bully and had sexually molested a boy. These were false statements which hurt Rindo's chances at finding a job and harmed his reputation to the public. In 1994, Suarez Corporation sued Brock Meeks for publishing an article in his electronic newsletter called the CyberWire Dispatch for Libel. Suarez Corp. v. Meeks, Civil Action No. 267513 (Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio). Meeks had written that Benjamin Suarez, the owner of Suarez Corp., was "infamous for his questionable direct marketing scams" and that "he (Suarez) has a mean streak". The lawsuit was settled for only $64 in court costs, but Mr. Meeks spent a lot in lawyer's fees defending himself. In 1995, Prodigy was held potentially liable by the New York Supreme Court for damaging statements made by an anonymous subscriber to Prodigy's "Money Talk" board (Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.). Because Prodigy exercises some control over content, it acts as a publisher rather than a mere newsstand like host (as CompuServe had been). The court held that a jury could find Prodigy liable for failing to exercise its control to weed out Libelous statements by its subscribers. Currently, there is a $200 Million Libel lawsuit pending (Medphone v. DeNigis). Medphone is a Fortune 500 company which makes medical instruments. Prodigy subscriber Peter DeNigis lost $9,000 when he sold off his Medphone stocks and is alleged to have published negative posts stating that the Medphone company "appears to be a fraud". Edited to add - these cases are all pulled from a website on the internet - I have not checked the accuracy of anything reported in the case summaries.

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:54 AM

Posted By: Joe D.To be clear.... I am not saying that GAI overgraded the Ruth Card. I am saying... my willingness to believe such an assumption is greatly enhanced based on the actions GAI took. Also - my willingness to call it a 'pretty big assumption' is greatly diminished based on the actions GAI took. Getting evicted does not necessarily make you bad.... citing a growing Church to cover up that eviction is very bad imho. Brokering deals on submissions is very bad - any way you cut it imho. I happen to like the people I have had the chance to talk to from GAI. I hope all works out for them.

Archive

11-15-2007, 11:56 AM

Posted By: JKJoe, I understand perfectly what you were trying to say and agree in most respects. My original post, however, was responsive to Steve who clearly was asserting that the card was overgraded: "You can bet your last dollar that if they sold it it was overgraded."

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:01 PM

Posted By: JKMatt, I also know for a fact that several web hosts (such as AOL) have been sued for material posted by their members. These cases ultimately led to the enactment of a federal law that essentially makes providers like AOL immune from defamatory postings by other parties using their services. Of course, that immunity doesnt extend to the actual person making the post.

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:05 PM

Posted By: MattJosh - thanks for posting those - the only one which seems relevant is the last one: Currently, there is a $200 Million Libel lawsuit pending (Medphone v. DeNigis). Medphone is a Fortune 500 company which makes medical instruments. Prodigy subscriber Peter DeNigis lost $9,000 when he sold off his Medphone stocks and is alleged to have published negative posts stating that the Medphone company "appears to be a fraud". I'd be very interested in the resolution of the case, since personally, I would have a hard time convicting the guy for only saying the company "appears" to be a fraud (as opposed to stating as a fact that the company IS a fraud). The other suits are against the board provider and not the poster (except for the one where he called the guy a child molester...).

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:05 PM

Posted By: boxingcardmanAnd I think I speak for many of my colleagues here: Eeewww!!! After all the craziness I do not consider them fit to grade a 3rd grader's math test and would not trust them with a 1990 Topps common.

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:11 PM

Posted By: leonYou ARE liable for what you say....but I am not liable for what you say <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> (I am liable for what I say though) What is this "Section 230" thing anyway? Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230). It was passed as part of the much-maligned Communication Decency Act of 1996. Many aspects of the CDA were unconstitutional restrictions of freedom of speech (and, with EFF'S help, struck down by the Supreme Court), but this section survived and has been a valuable defense for Internet intermediaries ever since. What protection does Section 230 provide? Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to limit the reach of Section 230 to "traditional" Internet service providers, instead treating many diverse entities as "interactive computer service providers." How does Section 230 apply to bloggers? Bloggers can be both a provider and a user of interactive computer services. Bloggers are users when they create and edit blogs through a service provider, and they are providers to the extent that they allow third parties to add comments or other material to their blogs. Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...." So if you are actively going out and gathering data on your own, then republishing it on your blog, we cannot guarantee that Section 230 would shield you from liability. But we believe that Section 230 should cover information a blogger has selected from other blogs or elsewhere on the Internet, since the originator provided the information for publication to the world. However, no court has ruled on this. Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content? Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficiently contributed to the content to take it as your own. Likewise, if you link to an article, but provide a defamatory comment with the link, you may not qualify for the immunity. The courts have not clarified the line between acceptable editing and the point at which you become the "information content provider." To the extent that your edits or comment change the meaning of the information, and the new meaning is defamatory, you may lose the protection of Section 230. Is Section 230 limited to defamation? No. It has been used to protect intermediaries against claims of negligent misrepresentation, interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, intentional nuisance, violations of federal civil rights, and emotional distress. It protected against a state cause of action for violating a statute that forbids dealers in autographed sports items from misrepresenting those items as authentically autographed. It extends to unfair competition laws. It protected a library from being held liable for misuse of public funds, nuisance, and premises liability for providing computers allowing access to pornography. Wow, is there anything Section 230 can't do? Yes. It does not apply to federal criminal law, intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law.

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:18 PM

Posted By: JKMatt, That was a fairly quick search that didnt even check any actual court databases. I would be willing to bet there are hundreds of cases out there. If you are really interested in libel suits brought as a result of internet posts, Im sure there is a lawyer or two on this board who you could hire to do a memorandum for you. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:20 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanLeon: too much damn information. Stop reading legal statutes as your hobby. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> For the rest: as I've said earlier, why on earth would anyone use GAI now unless you had a gun pointed at your head -- especially with SGC around?

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:24 PM

Posted By: JoannPeter C said: "For a small company, an influx of capital means that somebody sold their car. Peter C." hhahahaa. Good one Peter. That one gets you a coupon (at least from me) for one free thread. Sold their car. hee. Not saying it applies to GAI - just very funny. J

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:27 PM

Posted By: JKMatt, Some more links: Here's an article about a school principal that sued students over posts on myspace: <a href="http://www.news.com/2100-1030_3-6174506.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.com/2100-1030_3-6174506.html</a> Check out the case log and archives down the left hand side of this website: <a href="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/cyberlaw-clinic" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/cyberlaw-clinic</a>

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:33 PM

Posted By: MattJosh - thanks so much for the information (you can bill me for the time <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ) My question is, what is the legal definition of what message board statements would result in a conviction for defamation? Without what was posted above, I would have thought that a claim that a company "appears to be a fraud" would be fine since it wasn't stating the company actually was a fraud; it just appeared that way. So is it problematic to use any negative adjective when describing a company?

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:48 PM

Posted By: Al SimeoneJOANN, Please dont encourage Peter!! LOL No free threads for him. You will be sorry!! Leon, As we know YES you can be sued !!!!

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:57 PM

Posted By: Paul MossOur very own Alan Hagar sued 20 or more entities and individuals including members of the CU message boards for statements made regarding his coin grading company. One poster suggested that Mrs. Hagar was a "Screaming Fishwife" (whatever that is) and found himself served and spending five figures in legal fees before he was dropped from the suit when it was revised....................some were dropped, others added. There have been MANY cases of message board posters being sued, even within the card collecting community. Trust me on this one, I have an inside track. One of the reasons you don't hear about it is that as soon as a person is served and obtains council, the first thing any attorney is going to tell you to do is to shut the hell up and not discuss or say one thing.

Archive

11-15-2007, 12:58 PM

Posted By: JoannAl, I know! I thought about it! lolol. I really did. But the sold their comment was so perfect I couldn't resist. I've tried to stay out of the recent threads concerning Peter's posts b/c I feel like I've made my views so strongly known before now (and because I note that it really does seem like he is trying to do better and different). But in this case I couldn't help myself - I laughed out loud an an airport bar when I read that one. Peter's "influx of capital" comment + 1 pint Sam Adams = out loud laugh at airport bar. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> J

Archive

11-15-2007, 01:00 PM

Posted By: davidcycleDon't state your opinion as fact, state your opinion as your opinion. People are allowed to express their opinions. If you give what is clearly expressed as your opinion ("I think...," "It is my opinion...," "I don't know, but it seems to me..."), your statement as a whole is factually accurate in that it is indeed your opinion just as you say it is. The opinion itself may be dubious and you may later correct it, but no one's going to win in court trying to prove that it was not your opinion. If you don't know something as fact, don't state it as fact. If you don't know that a company committed fraud, don't say they did-- especially if it later turns out they didn't. Of course people are allowed to give their opinions and criticiz companies, products, practices and point out flaws. While one should be prudent about what one says (in my opinion), if a company is evicted from its offices, its web site and telephone communications go down for a lengthy duration-- objective outsiders, including judges, will excuse a few conspiracy theories that came from the understandably nervous customers left in the dark. Also libel requires that you know what you are stating is wrong. If you innocently get your facts mixed up, that's not libel.

Archive

11-15-2007, 01:08 PM

Posted By: Al SimeoneJoann, Glad someone is having a GOOD time! As they say have 2 there small!! Just waiting for Peter to fall off the wagon! With one of those Knee slappers! Like show us your wax stained cards! Or heres a good one Plastic or Lucite which one is stronger!! Have a drink for me!!!

Archive

11-15-2007, 01:24 PM

Posted By: MattDavid thanks for that. One thought struck me as I read your post; in English class, we were always taught not to put "I think" or such statements in our writing, since it was understood that each person's writing is what they think. You are suggesting that legally, my English teacher was incorrect... edited to correct spelling <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

11-15-2007, 01:27 PM

Posted By: JKMatt, The legal definition of libel is the same regardless of whether you "publish" the alleged defamatory statements on a website or in a newspaper. Do a search on the internet and you will find literally dozens of sites that provide a definition of libel/slander/etc.

Archive

11-15-2007, 01:36 PM

Posted By: SteveNot sure what 'assumption' you are reffering to. I do have first hand knowledge that they have 'lost' hi end items. As for the Ruth card someone from this board has stated he was called and asked to sell it amd the card nor the money was sent. I for one do not want any grading company selling cards. Exactly what are you implying? That it wasn't overgraded? with the way those guys act it would not surprise me. Steve Edited to add: the OP edited his remarks saying that both PSA and GAI (pregrade) i think graded it the same, still the sin i was mentioning was selling cards and calling submitters regarding them....no assumption there. Maybe I wasn't clear as to what i felt was the sin. I hope that i have now been more concise. Steve

Archive

11-15-2007, 01:44 PM

Posted By: davidcycleJust remember, you won't get sued for saying "Emily Dickenson is ugly," even though you're presenting as an absolute what is just your opinion. The idea is not to put "I think" before every sentence you post, but to be careful how your compose your opinions on legally touchy subjects like fraud and forgery. Besides, most English class writing, along with book and music reviews, are known to largely be expressions of opinion. Roger Ebert doesn't have to start with "In my opinion" for readers to know that a movie review is his personal take.

Archive

11-15-2007, 01:49 PM

Posted By: SteveOk..I'll clarify my statement that was nitpicked on. In my opinion it is possible that the Ruth card in question could have been overgraded. I mean how else could they satisfy everyone involved? Also they do use .5 system and IMO that could be the basis of the overgrading. I mean it wouldn't be the first time I saw a GAI card with the .5 bump. I mean lets be serious here grading is not an exact science. I could see the card and then claim it as fact )IMO) Steve

Archive

11-15-2007, 02:09 PM

Posted By: davidcycleI would say judging the grade of a card falls linguistically closer to a movie review that an expression that a company committed fraud by definition of such and such law. Graders themselves say grading isn't an exact science, so who would they be to say someone can't assign a different grade. Even when "I think" is omitted, saying "This card is overgraded" is understood to be one's personal take. Of course, just as a movie reviewer can use dubious logic and quote incorrect history, so can one's opinion on grade by based on dubious criteria. Presumably, fellow collectors are going to want your justification for your opinion, and will form their opinions if your justifications are valid. If your justification is that the image is faded, they might see that. If your justification is "Because I hate anything in a PSA holder," they likely will dismiss your grading opinions now and in the future. If you can offer up reasonable (even if not universally agreed upon) basis for saying "That card is overgraded," I don't see any legal problem. There was a fair basis behind your opinion. If PSA, for example, doesn't weight strongly a card's image contrast, that doesn't mean you can't use it as a basis.

Archive

11-15-2007, 08:37 PM

Posted By: JKDavid, Im not sure you understood my comment. I dont believe there is any problem with someone stating that a card is overgraded. As you point out, that is merely someone's opinion. What Steve said was "You can bet your last dollar that if they sold it it was overgraded." The implication being that if GAI was going to sell a card, they intentionally overgraded it so that they (GAI) could sell it for more and make a greater profit on the sale. In other words, they committed a fraudulent act. Considering there is no evidence of even a .5 bump and more importantly that the original owner of the card stated that the Ruth was pregraded by GAI the same exact grade that PSA gave it prior to its being cracked and submitted to GAI, I think that was a pretty bold assumption. Now, if it turns up later on the open market in a higher grade, then you would have some pretty good evidence to support the statement and it would be fair to assume that the bump was the result of a desire to make more money on the card.

Archive

11-15-2007, 09:07 PM

Posted By: E, DanielBeckett both grades and provides a managed market place on their web site to sell cards, for which I would assume they collect a piece of eight or two... Daniel

Archive

11-16-2007, 06:05 AM

Posted By: SteveJK When the original poster made his post he did not claim at the time that they were graded the same by PSA and Gai. He said that in an edit! You also have assumed alot here taking what i expressed as opinion and claimed it was fact. I did not say "You can bet your last dollar and this is fact that GAI over graded this card bla bla bla. Jump on another soapbox and get off my ass. It was opinion nothing more. You want to read into a statement and claim it as fact then that is your perrogative. And please stop assuming on what I was implying, you have no idea! Steve

Archive

11-16-2007, 06:38 AM

Posted By: Jason DuncanIs this the same person (winpirtcher) that tried to blast me awhile back on the CU boards? Jason

Archive

11-16-2007, 07:12 AM

Posted By: JKDont know, but anyone who comes on here and says that I should "stop assuming on [nice English by the way] what I was implying, you have no idea!" yet fails to state what he actually was implying is nothing more than someone who is FOS and covering his ass.

Archive

11-16-2007, 07:55 AM

Posted By: Dave HaasTo clarify the grading/sale of my Ruth card, the card at 1st and 2nd glance without a magnifier would certainly appear to be at a miniumum Near Mint. Corners are sharp and centering is very good. When I first had it graded at the National by PSA it came back a "3". I asked PSA why and was informed there was a 3/4" very, very minor surface crease on the front face. Even with a magnifier I had a tough time finding it. Thus the 3. Since PSA allows surface creases even at a 4 I cracked it and sent to GAI for pregrade only. The pregrade of 3 by GAI was posted on their website prior to the grader calling me and telling me that one of their clients was trying to complete a set and this was one of the cards they were looking for and asked if I was interested in selling. I told him how much I wanted, which is definitely more than a 3 would generate and he emailed a scan of the card to the buyer. The buyer agreed and that is how it evolved to where I'm waiting on the check or the card back. Dave

Archive

11-16-2007, 08:05 AM

Posted By: MattDave - so assuming you get the check, this is actually going to work out in your favor since you're getting more then you would have gotten had PSA/GAI actually graded the card! Nonetheless, I certainly agree that what they did was inexcusable.

Archive

11-16-2007, 09:07 AM

Posted By: Scott Mt. JoyI was just thinking, while we know the Ruth was pregraded a 3, we do you know what the real grade it ended up getting. What if after agreeing to a price the card was then given a 5-6 grade, darren or gai could have turned a tidy profit as we dont really know what the real buyer paid. Since you also dont know the buyer you have no way of really finding out what the card ended up as. I hope this wasnt the case but who knows with all this bs.

Archive

11-16-2007, 01:52 PM

Posted By: Brian<<was informed there was a 3/4" very, very minor surface crease on the front face.>> I wonder if that crease is still on the card....

Archive

11-16-2007, 02:02 PM

Posted By: Phil GarryI have submitted stuff to PSA at a show as recently as a month ago at the $30/$15 service level and no membership was required.

Archive

11-17-2007, 07:10 AM

Posted By: SteveJK or whoever you are (en english teacher as well as message bd lawyer} you do not know what was in my mind. Or are you also a mind reader too? Ok Ok maybe I could have worded it better. maybe I should have said it like this ( IMO it is possible that they (GAI) overgraded this card for reasons unknown to me simply because they have been known to do such things and furthermore i was under the impression that they were in the card grading business NOT the card selling business. And that such practises (IMO) are not in the best interests of the owner of the card. was possible that they overgraded that card I mean it wouldn't be the first time! Covering my ass from what? Message bd Lawyers like you? Hardly. As for jason Duncan you yourself acted like the fool over a CU you did not need my help. I was actually one of the few on your side until you acted like a real dope. Then the few of us that did side with you became neutral. Are you not the guy that left a negative after demanding the buyer give you a positive? yeah you are a real swell guy. Lastly from my own experiences with GAI cards and I have had more then few Everytime I cracked one out and tried to cross it over it either came back TRIMMED or a lower grade. please disect my grammar and use of the language in your spare time. Steve edited as I took out 1 sentence. Not like it mattered anyway.

Archive

11-17-2007, 07:18 AM

Posted By: Steve Dont know, but anyone who comes on here and says that I should "stop assuming on [nice English by the way] lol I see you have great spelling skills yourself. before you ever get critical of someone else make sure you can spell a simple word like Don't first. I'm done with this thread, arguing over semantics is not my idea of fun. We have no idea what they did with that card. It does not take a rocket scientist (or message bd. lawyer) for that matter to see that the whole episode reeks. Yes they claimed it graded a certain grade and the OP says it is the same as PSA's. However it still is not right for them to be brokering cards, maybe JK (GAI employee)? can explain that. Instead he chooses to deflect the real problem here and go after me claiming I libeled them. HA! Steve

Archive

11-17-2007, 07:32 AM

Posted By: JasonSteve (winpitcher) is a complete moron and you should ignore anything he rambles about. He likes to come to battle without being armed. I refuse to get into a debate or discussion with an unarmed opponent. Steve, go back and troll the CU boards where you belong! The more you post the more of your true light shines on this forum. Jason

Archive

11-17-2007, 07:35 AM

Posted By: Steve <eyeroll> Steve

Archive

11-17-2007, 07:39 AM

Posted By: leonThe little bit of bickering that is allowed on this board, per the rules, is about at it's limit....if you don't have anything else to add to the topic at hand lets get back to cards or take it to private emails....It doesn't look like we are going to have a love-fest in this thread. Back to topic.....Personally, I don't think the situation with the GAI website is good yet. When all crap breaks loose it's time to stay to the truth. Their website says something about upgrades and moving to accommodate customers better...I think they should have said they did a re-organization....kept the best things about the old GAI (the 3 guys always mentioned) and are improving daily. Only the truth and an extreme makeover in the PR dept is going to help them now (though I realize it could be too late).....and I do wish them good luck....

Archive

11-17-2007, 07:41 AM

Posted By: JKSteve, All I can say is you are living, breathing proof that an education is a good thing. By the way - leaving the apostrophe out of the word "don't" does not make the word misspelled - it makes it grammatically incorrect. I am glad you mentioned it though. I'd say you had a point except that I routinely leave off apostrophes when posting on this board - just a habit. Not a good one, but at least it doesn't make my thoughts unintelligible. Nevertheless, I've tried to avoid any such errors in this post just for you. Regarding my original post: Just to be clear, I was not claiming that you defamed anyone (and I do not work for GAI) - I was merely giving you some advice since others (GAI perhaps) might claim that you were doing so. I know of at least one other board member who only a few weeks ago was threatened with a legal suit for something he wrote on this board. Finally, I only aspire to be a message board lawyer. Unfortunately my job as a real lawyer takes up too much of my time to allow it.

Archive

11-17-2007, 07:42 AM

Posted By: SteveThanks Leon I agree with you. I am sorry i had to defend myself here and i appreciate those that understood what i meant and agreed with me. Steve

Archive

11-17-2007, 07:45 AM

Posted By: Steve All I can say is you are living, breathing proof that an education is a good thing. Fine JK I'll allow you the last slap seeing that if I don't you will just come back with more. I appreciate your advice. Thanks Steve

Archive

11-17-2007, 08:20 AM

Posted By: pasAnyone know if GAI made it to the Chicago show?

Archive

11-17-2007, 08:31 AM

Posted By: JonThanks for getting this thread back on track. I only use GAI now for rack packs. I have a submission with them dating back to mid September. The due date WAS November 1st. Please keep us updated!!

Archive

11-17-2007, 12:49 PM

Posted By: JonSeems their phones are back up - they were able to check on my submission. Said the website should be fully back in a week or 2.

Archive

11-17-2007, 02:11 PM

Posted By: G. MainesThis lawyer crap which we have been seeing a lot more of lately, for exAmple: "I dont believe there is any problem with someone stating that a card is overgraded. As you point out, that is merely someone's opinion. What Steve said was "You can bet your last dollar that if they sold it it was overgraded." The implication being that if GAI was going to sell a card, they intentionally overgraded it so that they (GAI) could sell it for more and make a greater profit on the sale. In other words, they committed a fraudulent act". Is for our own darn good, and being the ignoramus (is it es or '?) which we are, we should appreciate their insight and caring. Not assault them for their help. Thank you, lawyers and everyone else who has shared their expertise on this forum without even a hint of a charge for these services. Gil

Archive

11-17-2007, 02:26 PM

Posted By: PaulPeter Unsubstantiated reports from the floor state that they are a no-show. Stay tuned for further developments as news come in.

Archive

11-17-2007, 02:49 PM

Posted By: Frank EvanovThey'll be at the Chicago show on Monday! Frank

Archive

11-17-2007, 04:49 PM

Posted By: boxingcardmanBut we gotta give them a break. After all, they've just spent the last two weeks living under the 5 Freeway burning old silver flips to stay warm.

Archive

11-17-2007, 05:05 PM

Posted By: JKThanks Gil.

Archive

11-17-2007, 05:16 PM

Posted By: Denny WalshWith all this said, i will pray for GAI.... i have been hoping for the Best for them since their start. It's not ever easy to begin any business & the more accreditable grading companies there are, the better it is for the hobby. Amen <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Life's Grand, Denny Walsh

Archive

11-17-2007, 05:42 PM

Posted By: Frank Evanov"accreditable grading companies" Sadly, GAI is not one of those. Frank

Archive

11-17-2007, 05:51 PM

Posted By: Bobby BinderI thought they where suppose to be open for biz again yesterday..has there phone number changed or the same? Can anyone verify it?

Archive

11-17-2007, 06:17 PM

Posted By: Ed IveyI have one GAI only. A departure from vintage baseball. Near mint 8, unopened Partridge Family 1971 wax pack. It will stay in its holder, as much as I want that gum I see.

Archive

11-17-2007, 06:32 PM

Posted By: JonI called the -9500 number (same as I've used in the past) and it finally worked today. I don't have the entire number in front of me right now....

Archive

11-18-2007, 02:40 PM

Posted By: Denny Walsh"Sadly, GAI is not one of those." i knew someone would just have to disagree.... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> We all have our times when life doesn't seem to... You Know!... "Go Our way", i think thats the saying?... Anyways, I hope to deal with others the same way i would like to be dealt with. If you deside to bring or have alway sent your business elsewhere, than thats your gig. You still have the right to change your mind in the future. & i will be the last one to bring up anyone's past decisions. i hope the best for you all! Life Is So Grand, Denny Walsh