Your opinions on PSA/DNA quick opinion?
 

Ive never used the service, but this one came back as "likely genuine" to the seller on the bay.

To me, this doesnt look good. Has anyone else got opinions on how reliable a quick opinion is from PSA overall? thanks.

http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-BABE-RUTH-S...item563ace9178

varies
 

My only direct experience was with a Jackie Robison signed cut I was selling. The buyer who won got his quick opinion ("not likely genuine") back right after he had paid for the auction. I refunded his money, but knew the history of the item and that it was good. About 3 months later, I was at the Philly show in Fort Washington. I negotiated to sell it to a dealer. He walked it over to PSA's table to get approval while I waited. Of course it passed.

I think sometimes we all forget that all of these authenticators only offer opinions, not guarantees. The quick opinion service is convienent but not fool proof, especially since they can't examine the paper, depression of the pen, and other variables. I definitely would ask him, before purchasing, would he accept a return if a full exam by PSA, etc came back as negative.

With marginal examples that I felt could go either way, I have always received back the reply of "Likely Not Genuine". I have found PSA to be very stringent, given my limited experiences using them.

As for the Ruth in question, I do think it's a genuine example of his rather hurried autograph. Not a stellar example of a Ruth, but I have seen many just like this one in the past on Team Balls and in PSA Holders.

As stated above, it's not foolproof, but rather a quick opinion, based on the "circumstantial" evidence (and lack of detail) that a computer screen is able to provide. I think it's a pretty good service that has cumulatively saved people a ton of money.

PSA must make a killing off of these. No doubt they receive multiple requests for the same auction.

One grader looks at the first submission, determines he's not certain 100%. Then all subsequent inquiries are forwarded the "Opinion" by the switchboard operator. Brilliant

I believe that auction will be yanked if anyone complains---a Seller is prohibited from putting a "Quick Opinion" reply in their auctions.

It stops the process of EBay & PSA from making money from prospective bidders who might use the service after viewing the listing--no need to if everyone could put the result in their listing!.

Fred,
I can't find a rule anywhere on ebay's site prohibiting posting of a quick opinion result. Where did you see this?
Given that PSA is an accepted authenticator for ebay, it seems perfectly reasonable for a seller to post their opinion result.
I think posting the whole note helps make sure people are clear that the PSA statement is only the quick version and not a full eval.
Best
Mark

In general, I am no fan of the authentication services. But the good thing about "quick opinion" is just that. It's an opinion, and it's called "an opinion." Which, of course is all their "full authentications" are. But somehow, many have forgotten that.

FWIW, the Ruth signature in question is, IMHO, good.

Who would complain?

I have seen an increase . . .
 

.

in the number of eBay Autograph listings that incorporate (added) a PSA/DNA quick opinion to the listing description, in place of a full authentication LOA.

In my opinion, inclusion of the second party "opinion" is possibly a shrewd marketing strategy inorder to create a sense of assurance in potential bidders.
And for the seller, the cost of a quick opinion is certainly much lower than a full blown authentication.

Your opinions on PSA/DNA quick opinion
 

agree with the above

Just has it says, the process is just an opinion, but at least it gives collectors a peace of mind to make a decision. In person is always the best, but we voice are opinions here on this site, so what is really the difference. I really think it’s just another way to make some money for PSA which was a smart move, because they are making money. I have used it a few times myself and feel the system is okay. There is always room for error as with everything

Jimmy

I have used their quick opinion a few times and I've found it to be useful. I wouldn't take the sellers results of a quick opinion, you never know if they just put in their listing as a scam. I'd get it done myself and then proceed.

Mark & all---
 

It's been an EBay rule for years! It's right in the PSA/DNA list of rules #6:

6.QuickOpinion opinions are non-transferable, and Customer agrees to the following with respect to dissemination of any opinion Customer receives from QuickOpinion with respect to any item: (a) not to disclose QuickOpinion's opinion to any third party; (b) that QuickOpinion's opinions are confidential and may not be reproduced or distributed without PSA's express permission; (c) that eBay is authorized to remove any unauthorized disclosure of a QuickOpinion opinion from eBay's site.

That's why you hardly ever see it in a Sellers listing---A competitor will report it to EBay & your auction will be removed.

Plus, if you could put it in your listing, look at all the revenue EBay would lose from all the prospective Buyers

I had one experience. I had a Dr. Mike Marshall signed baseball I won in a Leland's auction-- a rare signature by modern standards. I did the Quick Opinion and PSA/DNA gave the thumbs up. Lelands and Quick Opinion agreed.

Despite this rule, I see Quick Opinion used in many ebay listings. I think it is an ebay/PSA rule that is overlooked.

One aspect of authentication often overlooked pertains to the genuiness of the comps on which the opinion is based. If those comps are forgeries themselves, then any opinion based on them is worthless. Many valuable signatures/documents are valuable because of their scarcity. This therefore should raise a legitimate concern about how the authenticator (be it PSA/DNA or anyone else) knows the comps are authentic. It is one thing to respect the ability of the authenticator to undertake handwriting analysis. It is quite another to feel they have expertise in baseball history or forensic analysis, tools that are crucial in judging the worth of the comps.

This concern is hardly theoretical. Some great frauds were perpetrated by the forger first creating the comps, then from that point forward having those comps used as the means of comparison.

So for my nickel at least, if someone is looking to sell me a document with scare penmanship, I would need more than a piece of paper from a recognized authentication service saying the signature/handwriting is consistent with other examples. I would also require a detailed description of the comps used and their provenance. And if that is not possible to obtain, then I would make my purchase contingent on my ability to provide the comps.

The Quick Opinion is just that, a quick opinion. It isn't intended to be a LOA, but a look for a bidder who is considering bidding on eBay and wants a quick second opinion. My opinion is that, all things considered (they are just looking at an eBay image, etc), their quick opinions are generally reliable.

One other thing, when I did the Quick Opinion on the Dr. Mike Marshall ball, I was given an email confirmation plus the opinion was posted on an online web page at PSA/DNA's site-- listing the eBay auction #. I don't know how long the page lasted, but, for the then near future at least, the opinion could be confirmed by others. It was a while ago I did this, but I think there was a serial number you had to type in to view it. So, if you have question, ask if you can view the web page confirmation.

Added to say, I think Quick Opinion confirmation may include the serial code. So if someone gives you a print out copy of the email, you might be able to confirm.