Question for Jodi re: PSA/DNA Stickers, etc

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Jodi - quick question for you... I have a few baseballs that have PSA/DNA, GAI and/or JSA stickers on them. While the stickers are on side panels, I'm not quite sure I like them. If I decide to remove them, are you aware of any damage they will cause or is there a proper way to remove them?

I also have a very nice letter that was written to me by Gerald Ford when I was in school. Years ago, I had both PSA/DNA and GAI cert the letter and both companies placed a sticker on the bottom back. Recently, I had a full LOA done for it so no longer need the stickers - again, any safe way to remove them? If not, the stickers being on the bottom back of the letter do not invade the letter at all and can always be matted out.

Thanks for the advice.

======================================
For the premier online souce of information on baseball-related cigarette packs, visit http://www.baseballandtobacco.com>

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Jon,

Leave these stickers alone. They were specifically designed to cause damage if tampered with. In the future, either have full LOAs done or go the route of slabbing if you wish to avoid items being stickered. Trust me, I feel the same way about sticker application. There was nothing I loathed more than applying a sticker to a vintage piece of autographed memorabilia, but it was part of my job. It is unavoidable when a customer does not care to spend the extra $15 for a full LOA. Obviously, the stickering of a nice (but low-valued) vintage piece is usually a decision made by a dealer as opposed to a collector in an effort to cut costs. If there was a more cost-efficient way of going about this, I'm sure it would have already been thought of. These decisions were made prior to my involvement in that part of the industry. I spent some time trying to "build a better mousetrap", but could not. I hope something can be conjured up in time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

I thought that the DNA portion of PSA/DNA was for an invisible strip of DNA that was placed on the item which could be seen under black light or something to ensure authentication and was part of the authenticating fee. If this was the technology out there as advertised at the beginning, why did they go to a sticker?

Whoever came up with the sticker idea should be charged with destruction of property. In all seriousness though, I think if the average consumer knew all the facts ahead of time, very few would have consented to the stickers. I think most people felt they could be removed if desired and that the sticker would crack and be destroyed (like a slab) and would be unable to be re-applied to another item to deceive. I really dont think very many people knew ahead of time that the item would be destroyed. I know for a fact that when I submitted 50-100 items that received stickers from the various companies it was never explained to me that the item would be destroyed if the sticker was tampered with.

As an attorney, I am pretty sure that some type of waiver or consent form should have to be signed before they apply anything to your property without express consent to do so and from experience, I have never seen or heard of an authenticator explain the potential loss of value to an item due to the sticker, they just put them on and appearantly say after the fact "you should have upgraded to a full LOA". Pretty sad and probably leaves them open to a lawsuit if the dollar amount ever got high enough.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Such things are explained in the fine print of the submission form. There are times at shows (most of the time, actually) where authenticators are flooded with submissions and badgered with a litany of other questions so that there is not sufficient time in the day to satisfy everybody. Everything is explained on the submission form. The companies do their best to answer any questions. It has to be up to the consumer to do at least a little bit of homework before deciding which path to take. If the tables were turned, I certainly wouldn't dive head-first into such an undertaking in total or partial blindness. So, no, a customer could not sucessfully sue the authentication company after he/she has signed their submission form.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Jodi, people who are supposed to be experts regarding the care and handling of original holographic material (as all of these companies advertise their employees to be) should know better than to ever attach anything, in any manner other than archivally (i.e., that cannot be removed without leaving a trace.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Beleive me, David, I agree. I've already spoken my piece in this regard and do not wish to be redundant.

I would like to add that there is as vast a difference between the National Archives and the National Convention as there is between Jake LaMotta and Button Gwinnett! The people who originated the sticker application process were not fully-accredited archivists! I don't know who exactly started stickering, but chances are the idea came from Upper Deck. Not exactly the J. Pierpont Morgan Library. Also, notice the different schools of motivation: profit versus preservation.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

I didn't mean you, Jodi. I have the utmost respect for your knowledge and expertise.

I find it quite telling, though, that no serious collector of autographs (I'll refrain from listing a number here) finds it necessary to employ an authentication service.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

I know what you mean by serious , but there actually are some "serious" collectors who do find the need to have every piece authenticated. By and large, these people collect different types of material than you or I (mostly shiny stuff), but they pursue their material with as much passion and fervor as we do. For the most part, though, your statement is correct.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

I bought one book that was authenticated by GAI--not mentioned in the auction. The non-removable sticker ruined the book from a collector's perspective. Absolutely insane, especially for a Phil Esposito signature (ok, I admit it--I'm Canadian )

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

Jodi

Where is it stated in the fine print of the submission form or the fee schedule that they will place a sticker which is irremovable directly on your item and it will cause damage to the item if ever removed? I went to the JSA website and downloaded a submission form and no mention of a sticker is anywhere that I saw let alone the damage it can cause or a place where you consent to it with a signature, or on their fee schedule. I did not see any other section for legalese or a reference to finer print. Did I miss it?

I am not hammering you personally since you dont own any of these companies and you were just doing your job which is totally fine. But, unless they have a spot where they inform you of the potential damage and have you sign something or click on something online in which you agree to this potential damage, they ARE open to a lawsuit. I would not call myself an expert in the law but 3 years of Law School does make you a lawyer and make your opinion of it a little higher than someone who has not such as yourself and unless I missed it in the ultra fine print or completely missed it on the submission form, you are incorrect about opening themselves up for a lawsuit. If a person does not consent to this potential damage or a reasonable person would not know of the potential damage to their item there are serious problems with the stickers and potential for harm which would absolutely be actionable under the law.

If it is on the submission form somewhere where you sign and I missed it somehow, than I apologize, but I did not see it and please do not take it as a personal attack on you as stated above.

[Archive]

Posted By: William

If memory serves, I seem to recall there being a box on the PSA/DNA submission form where you could request that no stickers be placed on your item. The last time I considered their services was around 2003 though, so my memory could be off. I never sent in any of my items, mainly due to the mere potential of someone missing that note, and a sticker being placed on my item.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Well, just to follow up on my initial post regarding my items in question... First, my items were not that "high value." The Ford item I have is neat since I was doing a report in high school on the Kennedy assassination and I wrote to former President Ford asking him questions relating to the Warren Commission. He wrote me a very nice letter back regarding the findings. Both the authentication stickers were placed on the back of the letter toward the bottom and although they do show through the front of a letter (in shadow form I guess), they are not on the front. I have chosen to have the letter matted so I will matte out the bottom so the "show-though" cannot be seen. Also, I'm sure if I wanted to, I could have a document restorer remove the stickers but the letter isn't worth the money it would cost me to have the stickers removed.

Now, some interesting news. I tried, ever so lightly, to pick away at the stickers. To my surprise, the GAI sticker began to flake away without any damage to the letter. In a sense, it did what it was supposed to do - break apart upon me using my nail to pick at the corners. I did not remove the sticker completely but could have if I worked on it. The PSA/DNA sticker, however, did not flake away at all.

======================================
For the premier online souce of information on baseball-related cigarette packs, visit http://www.baseballandtobacco.com>

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

As far as signed photos, posters and art prints go, I rarely mind a sticker on the back. Can live without them being put on the front. So placement would be the key for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

The stickers are designed in such a manner as to prevent tampering. This was thought out in advance by their various creators. Stickers were meant to serve as a permanent record to attest to an item's legitimacy. Feel free to reference my prior posts for any of my other comments. I could go on about this ad infinitum , but I'd rather direct you to the companies who are responsible for what you find so reprehensible. I ask that you heretofore direct such questions to PSA, JSA and GAI as opposed to me. May they fight their own battles.

Please keep in mind that, although I am no longer associated with JSA, some comments directed my way can be taken a touch personally. Either way, I don't envision any PSA or JSA stickers being placed on this, so that's a good thing. A veritable needle in the haystack of questionable matierial I've been following for many years:

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

I understand where you are coming from Jodi and had I been employed by JSA I would have stuck the stickers on there too because that would have been my job so I was in no way trying to make reference to you personally and if you took it that way I do apologize.

As a side note, I do think that JSA is the best out there and they are ABSOLUTELY the best at determining things like clubhouse signatures etc and the sticker thing is a minor deal in the big scheme of things. I only used JSA as an example because I figured you might have some insight, not as a personal attack on the company because I think they do a good job.

I actually have no problems with the stickers if they had been designed in a way as Jon was stating so that they could be removed but the authenticity would be compromised by the sticker not being on there etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Jodi, what (if anything) is being implied by the last part of your last comment? Please explain.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

If you remove a sticker, there will be some customers who will wonder why there is no sticker as there normally would be on such an item. If you didn't want the sticker on the signed object, I recall PSA would instead put it on the LOA. They often did this with a group lot LOA. With a removed sticker, there would be no sticker on anything where there normally would be. Obviously, this would be more the situation with generic COAs than full LOAs that picture the signature.

It's fine and acceptable to remove a sticker, but realize that if you have a Willie Mays signed baseball with PSA/DNA COA, some collectors will say, "Isn't there usually a PSA/DNA sticker on the ball too?"

I don't know, but it's also possible the authenticating company will consider removing of tags as voiding the LOA or at lest being problematic. Presumably, tags are used for their own identification and cataloging purposes, and perhaps they would say the LOA would have to be redone and signed object reserial numbered (at charge of course) if the tag is gone and someone desires the LOA to still be officially recognized-- even if this is only a paperwork thing.