|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Shannon</b><p>Im with Joe, its all about the investment aspect. I dont think people who are pro SGC go out of there way to find PSA errors, they just kinda jump out at you because they are so obvious. Ray Charles could have done a better job grading the D304.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>What other people think or do on the subject of third party grading does not bother me or anger me, no. As for your quest to bring down PSA, good luck.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...on a trimmed PSA Plank. A criminal (yes, fraud is a crime) got very rich off of PSA's gross mistake. I feel sorry for the buyer, mad at the trimmer and mad at PSA, which enabled this transaction to take place.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p><<...on a trimmed PSA Plank. A criminal (yes, fraud is a crime) got very rich off of PSA's gross mistake. I feel sorry for the buyer, mad at the trimmer and mad at PSA, which enabled this transaction to take place.>><br /><br />Doesn't fraud somehow mean "intent to deceive". If that is the case - who specifically is the criminal in this scenario?
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...you are suggesting that the trim job did not improve the condition of the corners, so there was no intent to deceive? I think that would be a problem in a fraud trial. But, the individual who used PSA to have this card graded and then did not disclose what is an obvious flaw is definitely borderline fraudulent, in my book anyway.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>some very knowledgeable collectors (I dare say, maybe even more knowledgeable than you) bid more than $35,000 for this card. Clearly they don't think it's trimmed otherwise they wouldn't have bid.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Can't Believe You Wrote That</b><p>Dear Sir:<br />Before Mr. Ali's medical problems.<br />Aside from being a man of strong convictions, he possessed one of the quickest astute minds on this planet.<br />He was a champion in every respect of the word, and that included class.<br /><br />Class, is something that is lacking in your thoughtless comment of the "chicken scratch".<br /><br />Ali, in his current state, is several times taller than you are.<br /><br />What was your point?
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>I believe the point is that you cannot authenticate Ali's signature in its current state.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>DJ</b><p>We clearly are a dysfunctional family. Seeing this large thread in such a short time is kind of like everyone shouting at each other at a Holiday gathering. I enjoy seeing the mistakes that PSA (or any grading card company) makes, but does it always have to end this way folks? <br /><br />This a STUPID, STUPID mistake on PSA's behalf and it should be viewed as that. If SCG made such a huge error, I would enjoy to see that as well. <br /><br />As far as the Ali comment above goes, what are you talking about? Is anyone "ragging" on Ali? The scan clearly questions how a company can authenticate a scribble like that.<br /><br />DJ
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>I think it would be very hard to prove fraud on the Plank sale. One, whether it is trimmed is a matter of opinion, not fact. Two, the seller did not represent the card was not trimmed, he represented that PSA had graded it a 3, which it had. Three, whoever bought it is likely a sophisticated purchaser who was not relying on the seller's opinion. If I were a plaintiff's lawyer (god forbid lol) I think my best case might be that the seller omitted to disclose a material fact, namely that Hunt's had sold the card as probably trimmed (or whatever they said), but that said I don't think it would be a particularly strong claim.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p><<<I believe the point is that you cannot authenticate Ali's signature in its current state>><br /><br />why not? If it was an on site authentication, and he did indeed sign it, why can't it be authenticated as such? Any notary would.<br /> It's certainly not the nicest signature, but it is his. As sad is it is seeing the decline of such it great person, it would be worse to heap an indignity on him by refusing to recognize that he did indeed sign it when it was done right in front of an authenticator. <br /> Doesn't mean someone is going to pay as much for that sig as one done before his tragic decline, but it was still signed by him.<br /><br /> PSA has replaced Spence with Mike Gutierrez. I don't collect autographs, but for some who do that might be considered an upgrade.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>JudgeDred (Fred)</b><p>I think this board is an equal opportunity grading company "basher". People don't discriminate here, I've seen SGC, GAI and other companies get their due. Perhaps PSA seems to get more of it because proportionally they grade more. It'd be interesting to see an actual ratio on the grade bashing threads.... <br /><br />
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>I absolutely was not trying to criticize Mr. Ali's signature, given Parkinson's disease. I can see how my statement could be misinterpreted that way, and for that I apologize. The man is an American hero and deservedly so. <br /><br />I was, however, only trying to point out that I could not believe PSA could authenticate what amounts to chicken scratch, whether or not it is Mr. Ali's.<br /><br />
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>DJ</b><p>"If it was an on site authentication"<br /><br />How do you know that it was "on-site" since Ali hasn't done a public signing in like four years?<br /><br />DJ
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>I will tread lightly, because the Plank purchaser has purchased one or two of my cards in the past. But I was at a show once where this purchaser explained to a dealer and a few bystanders (myself included) that he will not be outbid on an ebay auction that he really wants because of his mountains of wealth. I may envy this man's wealth and his collection, but I would strain to say that his buying decisions were rational.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>Oh, and I profess a relatively limited knowledge of vintage baseball cards other than T206, where I think I might be somewhat of an expert, though, again, not more of an expert than many who belong to this board.<br />
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Can't Believe You Wrote That</b><p>Are you also advocating the sacrifice of Ali and class just to try to make a point?<br /><br />Is the point THAT important?
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>When I wrote that post I honestly had 0% of a belief that Mr. Ali actually signed that picture. Given the possibility of an in-person signing/authentication, I'd say that it has risen by some percentage that might make my previous post potentially classless, if not, generally irresponsible.<br /><br />I would also add that if Mr. Ali did actually sign that photo, and PSA/DNA witnessed it, then it should be authenticated by PSA/DNA as such. I just wonder what the source of your information about this in-person signing is.<br /><br />Finally, with respect to "sacrifice," I would never sacrifice a person to make a point -- I don't think I did that here under any scenario -- but I might sacrifice a little bit of my own class to make a point about how little class PSA has.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Im sorry, I just dont interpret the post as an attack on Ali. It is clearly an attack on PSA for authenticating the unauthenticatable (not sure that is really a word, but it sounds good). As for the in person angle - certainly that would provide a reasonable basis for authentication, but there is no evidence of that being the case.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>John J. Grillo</b><p>Enough, enough, enough!! PSA, SGC, GAI, etc, etc,...........let it go for crying out loud! It works both ways...graded collectors want to protect the value of their graded cards and raw collectors do not want graded collections to be worth more than theirs simply because they are labeled and encapsulated in plastic slabs. I see no wrong or right here, just a bunch of people throwing rocks at each from across the street. <br /><br />I, like Adam love vintage boxing, in fact, I've learned a lot about boxing by reading Adam's post and reading his price guides which I have purchased. I have a few mislabeled PSA vintage boxing slabs and the customer service dept at PSA is kind enough to let me know simply to send in the slabs and have them labeled correctly...but the continual bashing really gets old. Saying people should be fired, etc, etc, etc,....grow up, it's just a bunch of old fat men, one very nice lady, and a smart 15-year kid collecting cardboard. Seller's should identify their auctions correctly, and buyers should educate themselves before buying a card, especially a vintage card that's expensive.<br /><br />Quit throwing stones at each other. Graded vs. raw is like politics (dems vs reps), no one is going to convince the other of what their collections should look like.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>T206 Collector,<br />Comparing PSA to PRO is absolutely ridiculous. To fail to recognize that surely reveals a mediocre understanding of grading at best. You may have your complaints or arguments, but let's not exaggerate.<br />JimB
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>There's something about middle/upper-class men arguing about graded baseball cards which makes life sooo interesting. I mean, in comparative terms this is a very significant topic in life.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>JudgeDred (Fred)</b><p>What, no Rodney King quotes?<br /><br />Ok, that was a joke - if anyone took personal offense to it I sincerely apologize...
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Can't we all just get along?<br />JimB
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Did anyone consider just sending the "N172" Sullivan back to PSA, point out the error, and ask for a new label? I make mistakes, and the only recourse I have is to correct them. What is infinitely more troubling is the trimmed T206 Plank. The N172 label is a careless error that will harm nobody. The person who bought the Plank will ultimately be out many thousands of dollars. I don't think these two mistakes are any way in the same category.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>John_B_California</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />I never said the board itself was tiresome. I primarily collect post war, but down the road I'd like to get into the pre war era. This is obviously the best pre war board on the internet with alot of very intelligent and passionate collectors. There are alot of great threads and great insights on here.<br /><br />The PSA bashing and thrashing is what get's tiresome to read. It becomes implied with all of these threads that PSA is a gigantic screwup across the board (thus bringing up the total number of cards graded by the two companies). If you own even 1 PSA graded card and you see a thread titled….”another one for the PSA idiot files”, how are you suppose to react?<br /><br />They make some ridiculous mistakes (WIWAG, labeling errors, David Hall’s grades potentially being inflated, conflicts of interest). We all know the laundry list. But they’ve still got enormous marketshare, they’ve graded some of the most important cards in the hobby, their cards sell for record amounts.....somebody believes in these cards.<br /><br />It’s just cardboards guys. No sense in getting your blood pressure up. I’m just looking for some balance. <br /><br />John<br />
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Why send the card back and have it re-labeled? It's so much more fun to trot it out each time (every month or so) you need to demonize a publicly traded company that doesn't know that you exist.<br /><br />Paul, nice to see that you are now pontificating on what is and what is not a criminal fraud. Why not leave that up to the experts, say, like me, who acutally is a criminal lawyer? Ok, thanks for the offer. Uh, the chances of getting a criminal conviction against the seller for fraud here is about, let's say, zero percent. My advice? Stick to your day job. <br /><br />
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p><<Comparing PSA to PRO is absolutely ridiculous. To fail to recognize that surely reveals a mediocre understanding of grading at best. You may have your complaints or arguments, but let's not exaggerate.>><br /><br />I was not comparing PSA to PRO. I was trying to give an example of a baseball card scenario involving 3rd party grading that might get a disinterested party mad. It was a comparison in that if PRO can get you mad, PSA can get me mad. It's not that much of a stretch. I was not saying PRO is anywhere in the same league as PSA. <br /><br /><<Demonize a publicly traded company that doesn't know that you exist.>><br /><br />Like, um, say Enron or MCI WorldComm?<br /><br /><<Paul, nice to see that you are now pontificating on what is and what is not a criminal fraud. Why not leave that up to the experts, say, like me, who acutally is a criminal lawyer?>><br /><br />While I am not a criminal lawyer and will admit that my weakest classes in law school were criminal law and criminal procedure, I would not say sticking to my day job is entirely inconsistent with pointing out a garden variety fraud. I was not placing wagers on the chances of a criminal conviction or what the jury might say. <br /><br />As one lawyer to another, can we agree that Black's Law Dictionary is not a bad place to start for legal definitions?<br /><br />fraud, n. 1. A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her injury. <br /><br />Here that is misrepresenting that the card is not trimmed in order to induce another to purchase the card for more than it is worth.<br /><br />That is fraud plain and simple. <br /><br />If you really want to play technical, tell me what state you practice in and I'll find you the definition of fraud in the criminal practice statutes of your state and I will bet you that this falls into that definition too. Again, would you get a conviction, who knows -- but if your jury was a group of SGC collectors, you just might.<br /><br /><br />
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Paul, why not do a google search on me and I'll do one on you? When you're done, let me know if you still want to lecture me on the law.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...lawyers telling other people to stick to their day jobs is one of the reasons that lawyers get such a bad name.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>....and lawyers spewing forth drivel about things they know nothing about...is also a reason people hate lawyers.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...who's got the biggest lawyer d*ck? Or are you inviting me to show you the definition of fraud in the CPLR?
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>WP</b><p>The day will come whn there is truely an objective study on the accuracy and consistancy of grading services. I can't wait to see the results.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...so people only hated me for what I was saying. I didn't bring the whole legal profession into it!
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>You work like right next to me! We should have lunch and discuss baseball cards.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Jesus, Paul, are you that guy in the office next to me who's always snoring?
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...not that close. I actually used to work at 1585 Broadway, but when I went in-house I moved across town.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Um, I worked at 1585 Broadway from 1994 through 1999.....
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>Gawd, I really hated this thread about bashing the grading services, but now that the lawyers are going to swap spit I really feel like I need to take a shower!
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...when we could have traded baseball cards on the 27th floor.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>"old fat men, one very nice lady, and a smart 15-year kid collecting cardboard"<br /><br />Now that's funny! <br /><br />Honestly, my take is that PSA grades substantially more cards than GAI and SGC combined. At one point, PSA had as few as 7 graders to deal with a HUGE influx of cards to grade. As any successful manager knows, the more your team tires, the number of mistakes grow proportionately. I can understand how PSA may have shortcutted or mislabeled some cards. It's not an excuse and certainly PSA should be standing behind their mistakes. But, it's much easier for a grading company to manage it's workload when they're dealing with substantially smaller numbers of submissions. <br /><br />I agree that PSA probably needs to retool it's model and possibly expand their grading staff with Prewar-savy employees. They may have fallen suit to what most corporations are doing.....stretching their workforce by "rightsizing" (downsizing) and expecting 3 or 4 peoples' production out of a single employee. An operations management consultant could really help out there.<br /><br />
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I'm curious (and this may go a long way to understanding why there are mistakes): how much does a grader at PSA, SGC, etc. get paid?
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>If you're going to lawyer-bash, be my guest. But don't assume we're all like a lot of the ones on this Board, fair enough?
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>"Here that is misrepresenting that the card is not trimmed in order to induce another to purchase the card for more than it is worth."<br /><br />Uh, where is that misrepresentation? The seller represents that it was graded 3 by PSA and it was. <br />
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>"Gawd, I really hated this thread about bashing the grading services, but now that the lawyers are going to swap spit I really feel like I need to take a shower!"<br /><br />Sounds to me like you needed one anyway.<br />
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>Great come back Peter, somebody write that for you?
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Nah, I am sure if I had assigned the task to someone more creative they would have come up with a far wittier response, although I doubt even they could have matched the brilliance of your own line.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>Just because PSA was blind enough to certify the card as untrimmed, if you knowingly sold a trimmed card as untrimmed (PSA graded or not) that would still be a misrepresentation. That's all I was saying.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Paul I might agree with you if you (not you personally of course just by way of example) had trimmed the card yourself, but if you bought a card out of a third party auction, submitted it to PSA, and they determined it was not trimmed in their opinion, then that strikes me as a very different case. Are you suggesting the seller trimmed the card? If you are I missed that. My understanding was that the card is in the same condition it was purchased from Hunt's.
|
Another one for the PSA idiot files
Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>This thread is heading for the lowest turd in the toilet.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:41 PM. |