Industry participants' response to scandal so far -- report card

[Peter_Spaeth]

Just for kicks. My opinion, let's see what others think.

PSA -- only thing I have seen is the Sloan letter, which I would grade an F.
Beckett -- is there a grade lower than F?
PWCC -- last thing I have seen is the piece about slandering cards. If they're
making serious restitution behind the scenes then good, but as to their public response, D. (At least they indicated an intent to cut off card doctors, although the jury is out.)
LOTG -- A+. Thanks to Al for taking a stand.
Scott R -- A+ for speaking out and condemning the fraud.
Other AH's and dealers (and sorry if I have missed any who have spoken out) -- radio silence. Very encouraging that you're all stepping up to the plate and offering your perspective and guidance to the collectors on whom you depend. F.
SGC -- N/A as they haven't really been tagged, yet.
Gary -- told NYT he didn't alter cards, only bumped them. F.

[ullmandds]

I would add to your list that Lee of Sterling auctions has posted on facebook to raise awareness of the issues at hand.

[steve B]

I'm not quite Nostradamus, but I predict SGC will also get an F.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I would add to your list that Lee of Sterling auctions has posted on facebook to raise awareness of the issues at hand.

I did not know that, thanks for pointing that out.

[Frank A]

Originally Posted by steve B

I'm not quite Nostradamus, but I predict SGC will also get an F.

For what reason? Or are you just pissed because they are clean.

[dabbuu]

Why does everyone wish bad upon SGC? They have been pretty clean so far. Wouldn't it be nice if one company was actually relatively good at spotting doctored cards?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

They're not really clean they're just significantly less dirty at this point. Maybe a small wax stain which can be removed?

My big regret is that my behind the scenes efforts appear to have gone for naught. It's not 100% yet so I still won't go into detail. But I did work hard at making a difference, which a couple board members can attest to.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

They're not really clean they're just significantly less dirty at this point. Maybe a small wax stain which can be removed?

My big regret is that my behind the scenes efforts appear to have gone for naught. It's not 100% yet so I still won't go into detail. But I did work hard at making a difference, which a couple board members can attest to.

Scott that effort may not have paid off but there is another one that may still be viable.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Scott that effort may not have paid off but there is another one that may still be viable.

Can't imagine how I could help, but you know I'm here if I can be useful.

[JohnP0621]

Originally Posted by Frank A

For what reason? Or are you just pissed because they are clean.

Didn't they Authenticate a whole bunch of fake autos on T206 .
Not so clean.

JohnP

[Frank A]

Originally Posted by JohnP0621

Didn't they Authenticate a whole bunch of fake autos on T206 .
Not so clean.

JohnP

But when they found out, they stopped authenticating auto's. Do you thin PSA will stop authenticating Cards?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Frank A

But when they found out, they stopped authenticating auto's. Do you thin PSA will stop authenticating Cards?

We can only hope.

[BLongley]

Originally Posted by Frank A

But when they found out, they stopped authenticating auto's. Do you thin PSA will stop authenticating Cards?

SGC also bumped some of Gary’s biggest profits with the 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson’s... they definitely have a lower quantity discovered thus far, but they aren’t really any better.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by JohnP0621

Didn't they Authenticate a whole bunch of fake autos on T206 .
Not so clean.

JohnP

Not fair to include the autograph authentication with the card grading (SGC).

Do we include PSA/DNA with PSA's incompetence?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BLongley

SGC also bumped some of Gary’s biggest profits with the 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson’s... they definitely have a lower quantity discovered thus far, but they aren’t really any better.

I mean, they can't be exactly equally bad, but it's not definitive from the absolute numbers of grading errors revealed to date that PSAs batting average with the doctored cards is worse than SGCs. I would guess it is, but it wouldn't surprise me either way. Certainly PSA has had vastly more plate appearances. That could be because Moser/Brent knew the cards had a better chance of getting through there, but PSA would also give them a better ROI even if they figured the cards had the same chance of getting through with SGC as with PSA.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Not fair to include the autograph authentication with the card grading (SGC).

Do we include PSA/DNA with PSA's incompetence?

If we are paying for a service that isn't being accurately provided why wouldn't we hold them accountable? If PSA, SGC, or anyone else can't tell the difference between a real or forged signature that's just as bad as being unable to distinguish between an altered or unaltered card.

[Frank A]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

If we are paying for a service that isn't being accurately provided why wouldn't we hold them accountable? If PSA, SGC, or anyone else can't tell the difference between a real or forged signature that's just as bad as being unable to distinguish between an altered or unaltered card.

First of all I find all autograph authenticators worthless. Many years ago I sent in some auto's to what was supposed to be the top authenticator. They came back as fake. Yet when I sent these same auto's to an auction house the same guys authenticated them as good. They are a total joke.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

If we are paying for a service that isn't being accurately provided why wouldn't we hold them accountable? If PSA, SGC, or anyone else can't tell the difference between a real or forged signature that's just as bad as being unable to distinguish between an altered or unaltered card.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held accountable. Of course they should. I'm saying they're two separate issues. We're talking card doctoring, not autograph authentication.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Frank A

First of all I find all autograph authenticators worthless. Many years ago I sent in some auto's to what was supposed to be the top authenticator. They came back as fake. Yet when I sent these same auto's to an auction house the same guys authenticated them as good. They are a total joke.

+1

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held accountable. Of course they should. I'm saying they're two separate issues. We're talking card doctoring, not autograph authentication.

I don't really think we disagree, although I do think it's fair to include incompetence in one area with another. Both issues are relevant and important.

[jhs5120]

Unless there are reports that PSA and PWCC haven’t been refunding clients, I don’t believe F and D respectively is appropriate. I could be wrong though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Unless there are reports that PSA and PWCC haven’t been refunding clients, I don’t believe F and D respectively is appropriate. I could be wrong though.

Sloan specifically said contact the seller, not us. Why should I assume PSA is refunding people? The burden is on them not us at this point. Has anyone indicated PSA refunded them? Has PSA accepted responsibility for ANYTHING? Please.

And how many people have said PWCC refunded them? One guy maybe, or two? Again, with all the nonsense they've pulled off for years, the burden is on them to show their good faith in my eyes. And it wouldn't even be good faith, really, more like desperation.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sloan specifically said contact the seller, not us. Why should I assume PSA is refunding people? The burden is on them not us at this point. Has anyone indicated PSA refunded them? Has PSA accepted responsibility for ANYTHING? Please.

And how many people have said PWCC refunded them? One guy maybe, or two? Again, with all the nonsense they've pulled off for years, the burden is on them to show their good faith in my eyes. And it wouldn't even be in good faith, really, more like desperation.

I have yet to hear anyone vent about not receiving a refund. If PSA was being difficult with victims (many are on this board), I'd imagine we would hear something. Again, I could be wrong, but I'd imagine PSA and/or PWCC are requesting victims sign NDAs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I have yet to hear anyone vent about not receiving a refund. If PSA was being difficult with victims (many are on this board), I'd imagine we would hear something. Again, I could be wrong, but I'd imagine PSA and/or PWCC are requesting victims sign NDAs.

No, a guy just posted yesterday about a PWCC refund, he did not mention an NDA. Why you would give these people the benefit of the doubt at this point, given all that has transpired, after years of fraud and incompetence and coverups, is beyond me, but whatever we all have our perspectives.

[RedsFan1941]

peter do “other auction houses and dealers” know they are to report to you what they have and haven’t been doing? does pwcc know it’s supposed to keep you posted on refunds it has made? I would assume if you are grading all of these businesses, you have requested they keep you informed so you can make accurate assessments and not ones that are just based on what you’ve heard or read in an auction house’s blog post. otherwise you appear to be trying too hard to stay relevant in this mess.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No, a guy just posted yesterday about a PWCC refund, he did not mention an NDA. Why you would give these people the benefit of the doubt at this point, given all that has transpired, after years of fraud and incompetence and coverups, is beyond me, but whatever we all have our perspectives.

I saw this quote in someones signature line and I think it fits perfectly.
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

[drcy]

I should be on that list, saying "They're a bunch of bloody wankers."

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No, a guy just posted yesterday about a PWCC refund, he did not mention an NDA. Why you would give these people the benefit of the doubt at this point, given all that has transpired, after years of fraud and incompetence and coverups, is beyond me, but whatever we all have our perspectives.

I look around and see no one complaining about refunds, it's not so much a "benefit of the doubt" as a reasonable guess that people are receiving refunds.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

peter do “other auction houses and dealers” know they are to report to you what they have and haven’t been doing? does pwcc know it’s supposed to keep you posted on refunds it has made? I would assume if you are grading all of these businesses, you have requested they keep you informed so you can make accurate assessments and not ones that are just based on what you’ve heard or read in an auction house’s blog post. otherwise you appear to be trying too hard to stay relevant in this mess.

Misunderstood your post intiially, sorry. But leaving aside your stupid ad hominem remark, yes I think these hobby leaders (the other AHs and dealers) should be coming forward like a few have done and giving us their perspective. They're not shy about reaching out when they want to promote their auctions, how about reaching out when there is great uncertainty and people don't know what to make of the situation? As for PWCC, they massively breached the public trust to the tune of 70 percent of this forum not dealing with them. The way to try to restore confidence would be by telling the public what they are doing to restore that trust, not secret payments with an NDA.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Frank A

For what reason? Or are you just pissed because they are clean.

Bad stuff gets by them too, and they also won't do anything except fall back on "we were right" when they very obviously weren't.

If that's "clean" I guess we define things differently.

[oldjudge]

With all due respect to the smaller auction houses, the only statements I'd like to hear are from the Heritages and REAs of the world. The others are not significant in the general scheme of things.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by dabbuu

Why does everyone wish bad upon SGC? They have been pretty clean so far. Wouldn't it be nice if one company was actually relatively good at spotting doctored cards?

I don't wish bad on them, they may be marginally better at spotting alterations, or simply more cautious about things. But as far as I know they dodge responsibility with the best of them.

And of course, PSA is so bad almost anyone could be relatively good in comparison.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

I don't wish bad on them, they may be marginally better at spotting alterations, or simply more cautious about things. But as far as I know they dodge responsibility with the best of them.

And of course, PSA is so bad almost anyone could be relatively good in comparison.

Not Beckett, apparently.

[sb1]

I can go on record saying that Gary Moser, nor any of the other named card doctors have ever consigned to my auction.

I did not know I needed to weigh-in, if there was no issue with my consignors. Apparently judgement has already been passed.


Scott

Brockelman Auctions

[RedsFan1941]

i am experiencing great uncertainty and don’t know what to make of the situation. please help.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

i am experiencing great uncertainty and don’t know what to make of the situation. please help.

I will do what I can for you. If you have any Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens, Ted Williams, or Eddie Mathews cards/memorabilia sell it to me know really cheap before it becomes completely worthless. Hope this helps.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not Beckett, apparently.

Nice.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Frank A

First of all I find all autograph authenticators worthless. Many years ago I sent in some auto's to what was supposed to be the top authenticator. They came back as fake. Yet when I sent these same auto's to an auction house the same guys authenticated them as good. They are a total joke.

My favorite story is the one I read of a guy who got an auto at a card show, walked over to an authenticator to get it slabbed, and was told it was fake.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

My favorite story is the one I read of a guy who got an auto at a card show, walked over to an authenticator to get it slabbed, and was told it was fake.

Funny but on a serious note on the flip side of the altered card stuff there are lots of those sorts of errors in grading as well, that is, perfectly fine cards that get rejected. The consequences are not as serious, but it can be bad news for people trying to earn money selling cards.

[topcat61]

Originally Posted by dabbuu

Why does everyone wish bad upon SGC? They have been pretty clean so far. Wouldn't it be nice if one company was actually relatively good at spotting doctored cards?

They are not clean. They've authenticated forged autographs and that one is still being investigated by the FBI.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by sb1

I can go on record saying that Gary Moser, nor any of the other named card doctors have ever consigned to my auction.

I did not know I needed to weigh-in, if there was no issue with my consignors. Apparently judgement has already been passed.


Scott

Brockelman Auctions

I would upgrade Brockelman to an A for this response.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I would upgrade Brockelman to an A for this response.

Yes I agree, I am sure most of us except Ronnie who is self-sufficient appreciate the response by Scott.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Funny but on a serious note on the flip side of the altered card stuff there are lots of those sorts of errors in grading as well, that is, perfectly fine cards that get rejected. The consequences are not as serious, but it can be bad news for people trying to earn money selling cards.

True. I've had PSA reject a card I had just pulled from a cello pack.

[RedsFan1941]

good quote peter. hopefully for your sake it makes it into print somewhere.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

good quote peter. hopefully for your sake it makes it into print somewhere.

I enjoy the snide remarks, please do keep them coming, and thank you for your contributions.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Misunderstood your post intiially, sorry. But leaving aside your stupid ad hominem remark, yes I think these hobby leaders (the other AHs and dealers) should be coming forward like a few have done and giving us their perspective. They're not shy about reaching out when they want to promote their auctions, how about reaching out when there is great uncertainty and people don't know what to make of the situation? As for PWCC, they massively breached the public trust to the tune of 70 percent of this forum not dealing with them. The way to try to restore confidence would be by telling the public what they are doing to restore that trust, not secret payments with an NDA.

PWCC and PSA are making secret payments and securing NDAs? What’s the source for that? And what’s a secret payment?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by topcat61

They are not clean. They've authenticated forged autographs and that one is still being investigated by the FBI.

SGC is being investigated by the FBI? Are they aware of this?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

PWCC and PSA are making secret payments and securing NDAs? What’s the source for that? And what’s a secret payment?

That was Jason's theory. You have to read his post.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...8&postcount=23

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That was Jason's theory. You have to read his post.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...8&postcount=23

But admittedly based on his imagination and nothing concrete. You understand that it makes no sense for PWCC or PSA to insist upon an NDA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

But admittedly based on his imagination and nothing concrete. You understand that it makes no sense for PWCC or PSA to insist upon an NDA.

That's been my point, as I have posted several times.