Two recent articles about SGC and a 1952 Topps Mantle

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p><a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/collector_sues_for_return_of_5.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/collector_sues_for_return_of_5.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080206/UPDATES01/80206015/-1/rss" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080206/UPDATES01/80206015/-1/rss</a><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>hmmmm.... since when is SGC "a Parsippany baseball card rating and <b>restoration</b> company"<br /><br />"Haas in mid-2007 contracted with Forman to correct slight imperfections in the Mantle card in hopes its grading could be elevated from a 9 to a perfect 10."<br /><br />Methinks a reporter didn't' check all the facts here..

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>&lt;&lt;Methinks a reporter didn't' check all the facts here..&gt;&gt;<br /><br />We will find out at the conclusion of the court case, it appears.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Brian - I'm pretty sure we know already that SGC isn't a "restoration" company. Also, SGC doesn't use 9s and 10s to grade their cards. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>The reporter is reporting the allegation. It is a fact that the allegation exists.<br /><br />If the allegation is true or not will be determine in court.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>an SGC 96 is indicated by SGC as a 9 on the front of the card, and an SGC 98 GEM MINT is indicated as a 10

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff W.</b><p>Matt<br /><br />Speaking hypothetically, what if SGC did perform a restoration service. The owner of the card doesn't necessarily have to submit it to SGC. He could send it to PSA for a review.<br /><br />Jeff W.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>A few rumors to think about.<br /><br />1. SGC has never been a restoration company. This could be a problem for a reporter that reports they are. <br />2. Rumor has it that this card has resided in a GAI 10 holder before as well as a PSA 9 holder.<br />3. Rumor has it that SGC won't grade it a 10....not now, not ever. Might that be a bone of contention?<br />4. Rumor has it that Haas has either been owner or part owner of GAI and might still be?<br />5. Rumor has it that there is far more to this story than meets the eye. <br /><br />SGC is still far and away the best grading company in the business....to me that is not rumor. It will be interesting to see where this goes. My guess, and this is only a guess is, it will never go to trial. I don't believe the thing tomorrow is actually a trial (I could be wrong)....maybe more of a formal judicial investigation.... ALL OF these things are just my opinion and things I have heard through 2nd hand sources....<br />best regards<br /><br /><br />edited typo

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Everything you posted Leon doesn't really address the central point.<br /><br />Either Forman has Haas' card and will not give it back; or he doesn't.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Brian - "The reporter is reporting the allegation. It is a fact that the allegation exists."<br /><br />I don't think that is entirely accurate - when a reporter says that SGC is a "restoration company", he is not reporting an allegation that SGC is a restoration company, he is reporting, as a matter of fact, what SGC's business is. We can all agree, SGCs stated business is not a "restoration company."<br /><br />That does not preclude, however incredible it may seem, the owner of SGC agreeing to restore a card, which is what is alleged.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>The allegation is that a card is not being returned to its owner.<br /><br /><br /><br />The rest is wallpaper. You are correct that SGC's name doesn't include the word restoration, and I have never seen them offer that service. Good catch, I am sure that will be corrected. <br /><br />To my knowledge, its also not up to the court to rule if restoring a card is good or bad. <br /><br />Its irrelevant what SGC's company name is or why Forman had the card. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>The article does not say the card was submitted to SGC. Says Haas contracted with Forman. From what I know Haas has/had an interest in GAI. The card did start off in a PSA 9 and was likely crossed to a GAI 10. I am not shocked if the card would not regrade by PSA as even a 9, right now. <br /><br />I am not going to touch on the rest of this but I am pretty sure I know what is and has taken place and the reasoning behind it all.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Brian - I didn't claim SGC did or didn't do what was alleged in the article. I claimed the reporter got some facts wrong which I think you now agree he did, so we are in agreement.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>There was no allegation against SGC in the article. The article could have been written without mentioning SGC.<br /><br /><br />Matt, you are pointing out that the reporter got SGC's name wrong. I agree with you. <br /><br />My point is that your point is not relevant to the allegation (definition: an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>I never claimed my point was relevant to the allegation. <br /><br />I will say that once I see a reporter making factual mistakes I tend to view the rest of the report with a questionable eye. If he couldn't get the name/business of the company right, what else has he messed up?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul S</b><p>The headline of the first article declares, erroneously, that it is Mantle's "rookie" card. I heard it described the same way on a news radio station on the way home today. Tsk tsk.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>I realize the reporters' are drama queens. So What's Forman's beef? Return the darn thing

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Red</b><p>I think one big company owns them all, but along with SGC there's also NGC which is the grading company for coins, and NCS which is Numismatic Conservation Service. The conservation work is only for coins.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>All the facts are not in, but this raises questions about the integrity of SGC's owner and casts a shadow on his company as well. What was he doing with the card? Why won't he return it? Does he even still have it? It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.<br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>December was the month to address GAI's integrity and January was reserved for discussions about PSA's integrity. Guess what that makes February?<br /><br />Well at the end of the day the hobby as a whole has a very short memory. <br /><br />Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>I think one big company owns them all, but along with SGC there's also NGC which is the grading company for coins, and NCS which is Numismatic Conservation Service. The conservation work is only for coins.<br /><br /><br />Actually they are all idependent of one another. They are an umbrella of services owned and operated independently.<br /><br />CGC.......comics / which does do restoration work<br /><br />SGC.........Cards<br /><br />NGC..........Coins<br /><br />NCS...........Restoration of coins.<br /><br /><br /><br />Steve<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>James Gallo</b><p>Steve<br /><br />I have never heard of CGC doing restoration. They will grade restored comics, and list it on the label, but I have never ever heard anything about they actually doing any type of restoration.<br /><br />I believe everything else you stated is correct.<br /><br />James G<br><br>Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>rand</b><p>this will be an interesting situation. i hope in the end Forman has done nothing wrong, but so far it just doesn't look good. what was this guy looking to do with a psa 9 card? is was probably at the top of the market being in a psa holder. the whole thing seems questionable. it would be a huge blow to sgc after making such huge gains over the last 2 years. fingers crossed its a misunderstanding and no harm no foul.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>James<br /><br />You are correct they only define restoration not do restoration, also I see now that SGC may not be within the umbrella any longer. <br /><br /><br />I also forgot to mention PMG which grade paper money.<br /><br />Were you aware that SGC may no longer be under the umbrella?<br /><br /><br />Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>Steve, <br /><br />SGC has not been affiliated with NGC or CGC for some time now.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>Back in late October, when GAI was struggling, somebody posted on the CU boards that GAI (Baker) needed money and they gave Dave a PSA 9 Mantle as collateral for a $100,000 loan. If this is true, then I seriously doubt GAI (Baker) has been able to acquire the $100,000 in capital to get their card out of hock. <br /><br />If James O. Haas has a stake in GAI, then maybe he also has a stake in the Mantle card that GAI gave Dave as capital for the loan. If GAI gave Dave back the $100,000, then they probably have a legitimate complaint, depending on the terms of the loan i.e. timeframe etc. If they have not paid back the loan, then maybe they are trying to conviently forget. <br /><br />If Haas was unaware of the "loan" and has a complaint, as an officer of the company, Mike Baker may need to explain to him authority levels for officers. <br /><br />From a journalistic standpoint, the article scares me as an American. I read many articles on topics I know of very little, but are of general interest. When you read an article about a topic that one has more intimite knowledge with and there are glaring errors (restoration company, shows picture of PSA 8 card as actual, but notes PSA 9 card) it does question the content of the entire article and all articles for that matter. <br /><br />Disclosure: I have absolutely no knowledge of anything outside of this thread and the CU post from December.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Interesting post Mike. Thanks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark Evans</b><p>This story is almost as good as "The Card." <br /><br />Several unanswered questions. Mike's post about the CU thread is enlightening, but the CU thread appears in conflict with Haas's allegations as reflected in the newspaper story. Haas alleges that Dave Forman agreed to "restore" the card so that it might receive an upgrade. [If true, a real disappointment to the hobby in my view. But, seems kind of foolish -- wouldn't high-end Mantle collectors, being aware of all "perfect" '52 Topps cards, become suspicious of a new PSA 10 or SGC 98?] The CU thread, on the other hand, implies Haas unaware of a loan from Forman to GAI/Baker. Can these stories be reconciled? Is it possible that Haas initially unaware of the loan but, upon learning, then enters into an agreement with Forman to "restore" the card? Sure hope all facts see the light of day. Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>From a true legal standpoint, the restoration discussion has no merit. From a business and integrity standpoint, it has a great deal of merit. Everyone in the world has a certain percentage of evil within them. However, I can not fathom real legitimacy to the restoration claim. Sean and Dave (& others) have worked way too hard to jeopardize the trust they have built. <br /><br />SGC has never graded a Mint 52T Mantle. I know if I owned SGC, I would be chomping at the bit to get one in an SGC holder. From the above article and CU post, Holy Grail Jr. potential and dire financial need seemed to cross paths. I can only guess the agreement included contingencies of an evaluation of the card i.e. potential grade bump up. This makes some sense if it was a tweener between a PSA 9 and a GAI 10. Sounds like a combination of sour grapes with deformation of character due to financial ruin, as the card was not able to be bumped up and the loan may not have been able to be paid to this point. <br /><br />Very interested to hear the true details. Will hold my tar and feathers at bay, until full disclosure is known. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Some context as to the "incident." <br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/UPDATES01/80207020" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/UPDATES01/80207020</a><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe S.</b><p>Haas is currently 62 but graduated from West Point in 1963. He would have been 17. Is that possible, i.e., admission to West Point at age 14?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>James O. Haas 1967 Manasquan NJ

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>To me, one of the most interesting points of this story is that the part owner of GAI can't decide whether his high end Mantle should be encapsulated by PSA or SGC. <br /><br />Maybe GAI was closed that Monday.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Alan U</b><p>What I don't understand is why wouldn't SGC just agree to grade the card like any other card and then if the owner isn't satisfied he could do whatever he decides. <br /><br />Something seems really strange that the card was just sitting in a safe deposit box all these months and that it involves 2 principals in 2 different grading companies.<br /><br />-Alan

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>"Graber told the judge that comments popping up over the Internet that Sportscard may have intended to alter the card are considered defamatory by the company."<br /><br />Ohh, the irony - Peggy Wright, author of the above statement, coincidentally, was also the person who erroneously reported in a previous article that SGC was a restoration company, thereby sparking the aforementioned "internet comments." <br /><br />And the beauty is that she probably has no idea that she was reporting on herself.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>Maybe she assumed it was a restoration company?<br /><br /><br /><br />//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////<br /> <br /><br /><br />Company agrees to return Mickey Mantle card<br />BY PEGGY WRIGHT<br />DAILY RECORD<br />Thursday, February 7, 2008<br /><br /> <br />A Parsippany-based sports card grading company agreed today to return a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle baseball card to its owner, who sued over the firm’s alleged refusal to give it back.<br /><br />The Mickey Mantle rookie card, estimated to be worth at least $280,000, is owned by Sea Girt resident James O. Haas. Haas was in Superior Court, Morristown, this morning with attorney Judith Rosenthal to demand that Sportscard Guaranty Co. LLC return the card he gave it in July for the purposes of correcting some “slight imperfections” so its worth could be enhanced.<br /><br />After consultation with attorney Gordon Graber, Sportscard President David Forman agreed to retrieve the card from a safety deposit box in Staten Island and have it moved, by the end of the business day Friday, to a bank in Morristown. The card will be examined and re-authenticated over the next month, attorneys for both sides have agreed.<br /><br />Haas, 62, said he tried for months to get the card back but Forman stopped taking his calls and wouldn’t provide an explanation why he wouldn’t release the card. Graber, on behalf of Forman, told Superior Court Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis that Forman had examined the card, believed its condition could not be graded above a 9 — just below a perfect 10 — but wouldn’t return it unless Haas provided him with a release that the card was in the same condition as it was when he gave it to Sportscard.<br /><br />Graber told the judge that comments popping up over the Internet that Sportscard may have intended to alter the card are considered defamatory by the company.<br /><br />Haas, a majority shareholder in another baseball card grading company called Global Authentication, said he’ll be content when he has his card back.<br /><br />“I’m a low, under-the-radar guy. I don’t want trouble. This was trouble,” said Haas, a 1963 West Point graduate.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>Never believe the "facts" in a newspaper article or news report. More often than not they are at least partially incorrect. My niece was involved in a very serious auto accident about five blocks from our house a few years ago (she is OK now)that made the news and was also popping up on the Web when it happened (it was a surreal moment to go to a website and see a helicopter shot of my niece's wrecked car by the way). They ran a 2 paragraph article about it in our local paper (Newsday, a top 10 circulation paper in the US) and we counted 11 factual errors within. Every day I see stories in the paper with errors; don't even get me going on the alleged news on TV which is even worse. The state of mainstream journalism in this country is a joke.<br /><br />There's also the added intrigue of GAI vs SGC in this case. The real story, which may never be revealed, is likely too complicated for the average reporter to bother sorting out. There are some fine journalists in this country still but their ranks diminish yearly.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>It's safe deposit box not "safety" deposit box. I would think most journalists should know this.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Todd</b><p>Jim VB,<br /><br />The grading of the card by another company isn't so strange when you look at N54 over the last couple weeks. How much grief were we heaping on Beckett for selling the Wagner they had just graded? I'd imagine there'd be much the same ruckus raised if GAI graded a card like this that was owned by one of their principals.<br /><br />Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p> I agree with Dave Hornisch, I have seen many examples too.<br /><br />However, usually where there is smoke there is also some fire.<br /><br /><br />Sorry to hear about your niece, gald she is ok.<br /><br />Steve<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p><I>".....Forman had examined the card, believed its condition could not be graded above a 9 — just below a perfect 10 — but wouldn’t return it unless Haas provided him with a release that the card was in the same condition as it was when he gave it to Sportscard."</I><br /><br />And if it wasn't in the same condition, then what would have happened??<br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>How could anyone sign such a release w/o having the card in hand?<br /><br />Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>My question is why would the owner of an already Mint card tell a newspaper reporter that he sent it in to be restored, when public knowledge that a card has been restored or otherwise tampered with will only serve to plummet the value? Even if he intended to have it restored to get a higher grade, why would he want that information published in a newspaper? Is this a case where the reporter got things mixed up? For example, perhaps she thought regrade or resubmit was the same as restore. Because, to me at least, it makes no sense that a owner would tell a newspaper reporter he was having a Mint '52 Topps Mantle restored to a higher grade, knowing well that public knowledge that a card has been restored kills its value. Most collectors wouldn't even want someone to make an idle joke about their Mint '52T Mantle being restored. Again this is only my idle opinion based on limited information, but common sense would point to the more likely of two scenarios being that the reporter simply got her terminology wrong (Duly note that I'm not suggesting, implying or promoting that these are the only two possible scenarios. This was simply an rhetorical exercise in comparison.).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Larry</b><p>Hi David Cycle back-<br /><br />I think the matter is "public", not "pubic" but your word of choice is much more fitting for the matter...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Larry - you mean David needs a record eighth edit?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>If Haas really wanted to destroy the value of his card he'd have mentioned to the newspapers that he was getting the Mantle slabbed by his company, GAI, instead of having it restored. But I guess he couldn't send the Mantle in to his company until Monday so he had to use SGC. By the way, this is good advertising for GAI: <br /><br />"Hi, I own a 200K Mantle 1952 Topps and I feel so stronly about my company, GAI, that I'm having it slabbed by SGC!"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>but knowing he was a majority holder in the company would make a buyer think that maybe it was over graded because of his position? so that is why he sent it to sgc?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>"Hi, I own a 200K Mantle 1952 Topps and I feel so stronly about my company, GAI, that I'm having it slabbed by SGC!"<br /><br /><br />LMAO Jeff you do come up with a good one now and again.<br /><br /><br /> Steve<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Neal Kane</b><p>how long would this thread be at this very moment if this was a PSA thing?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Sounds to me like this whole this was a non-issue. Just some very bad reporting.<br />jimB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>No need to get personal E93 is allowed his opinion.<br /><br />I think the reporting was bad but reporting is only as good as the info it gets too. In this case I would assume Haas spoke to the reporter and or she got her info from the courts. It is though an issue.<br /><br /><br />Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Edited to delete my comments since the post that prompted them were deleted.<br />JimB<br /><br />P.S. Thanks for deleting the thread by "FedUp". <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>Forget the reporter. These shenanigans with one company's owner trying to get another company's owner to grade his card have got to stop. Why is this card residing in a ".... a safe deposit box in Staten Island"?? I thought SGC was in NJ. <br><br>Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I deleted fed up's post. He must put his full name and a valid email address with his post if he wants to comment in this thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I appreciate that. I agree there can't be any anonymous posts in this thread. If you aren't well known you need to have a valid email address with your name....<br />regards<br />