Something else to make you go hmmm...
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Read the guy's story about his autographed Ruth ball<BR><BR><a href="http://members.ebay.com/ws2/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=greenmonster" target=_new>http://members.ebay.com/ws2/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=greenmonster</a><BR><BR>Jay

Something else to make you go hmmm...
 

Posted By: <b>slacks</b><p>To me, this illustrates one of the most troubling aspects of card grading: the allegations of preferential treatment based upon whom the submitter is.<BR><BR>In this case it is conceivable (but not probable) that greenmonster did not impart the same information to PSA/DNA as he/she did to the auction company, and the auction company was able to provide more information to PSADNA to show provenance and gain an authentication the second time around.<BR><BR>Too often, though, we hear about auction owners advising potential consigners to be the ones to submit cards so as to maximize the grade, and I often wonder how many of the overgraded cards I see are mistakes and how many represent favoritism to the large dealer that first submitted it. <BR><BR>The reason it concerns me more than grading/authenticating of altered cards is that 1) it’s so difficult to prove and 2) it’s natural to assume that the grading companies want to take care of their big dealers. To be fair, PSA seems to be the company most rumored to practice this, but can we be sure that any company clawing for market share won’t submit to this temptation to stay in business? <BR><BR>It’s easy to say “buy the card, it the holder,” but in truth many of us rely at least a little on the grading company to provide a little guidance when we have only a scan to make a judgment on.

Something else to make you go hmmm...
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>How can the auction house provide better info and provenance then the owner? Is this auction house making things up? I doubt it. And the owner is savvy enough to have provided more than enough info. I'd love to give PSA the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence just keeps piling up against them.<BR><BR>Jay

Something else to make you go hmmm...
 

Posted By: <b>slacks</b><p>Jay: My point (and again, this is improbable) was that the auction house required the owner to provide more information -- information that he/she did not provide to PSA/DNA initially. Providing more documentation might help you get an autograph authenticated.<BR><BR>Don't get me wrong: this looks bad for PSA/DNA. And, as my post says, there is NO possible explanation (except the preferential treatment one) for grading condition differently based upon who submits it. And this is mentioned so often that it's my opinion there is something to it.<BR><BR>It's troubling, and that's my point. Relax. I'm agreeing with you, and just expanding on a point you made.

Something else to make you go hmmm...
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>I have been personally involved in two similar situations with a major autograph authentication company and have spoken to other collectors who have been similarly victimized. Does anyone have an idea where the Babe Ruth baseball ended up? I know that Mike Williams has a lot of old auction catalogs that he browses through each morning. Perhaps he can help out here.