F--- off. :D:eek:

I don't blame Joe for not posting anything on the board about this: it's his call. PSA gets bashed everyday here and if he doesn't want to put his finger into one of the nine holes in the dike, it's his choice. He also surely knows that whatever he writes out here will be dissected for days to come.

The OP seems like a reasonable guy and isn't bashing Joe all that much -- he's obviously pissed, for reasons that are PSA's fault and not his. I think PSA handled it mostly well (I'm discounting anything that Joe is alleged to have said on the phone). My only problem is that if Joe is so hot to talk to anyone on the board about what occurred, why would he ban the OP on the CU boards? No discussion there but plenty of discussion on the phone? How many businesses are bashed publicly without any censorship? Hell, if you buy a camera on the Canon website they allow their customers to blast the hell out of a product for everyone to see. So do many other companies. Why is Joe so damned thin-skinned that he would immediately shut down any opposing public viewpoint? It smacks of paranoia and lends credence to the claim that PSA has something to hide. PSA made a mistake -- it happens. Not the end of the world.

Half the people bashing PSA on these boards came over here to do it because they can no longer post on the PSA boards. Trying to silence the complaints with banishment isn't working for them.

Guilty feelings to cover-up the whatever wrong doing might've been.

We all "know" or have been "told" how much more super high grade and super under graded PSA cards sell for. So I'm always shocked how often they have to be bumped for price reductions via the BST.

lol

When a price reduction is really not necessary at all. Just consign it and watch it set a world record high price.

Who puts their finger in a dike anyways

Here is my take on this: The grading services started with the mission to grade and authenticate baseball cards. That's a good thing. But a whole other cottage industry has evolved, and that's what most of us call the grading game. There is such an incredible amount of money to be made by simply getting a half grade bump on high grade cards, that there are any number of people whose entire business model is simply looking for cards that are ever so slightly undergrded, since the half grade bump will put perhaps thousands of dollars in their pocket. And since we all agree the difference between say an 8.5 and 9 is virtually imperceptible and entirely arbirtrary, there is a feeling among many that these bumps may be given gratis to their best customers who are simply willing to play the game. It's a system clearly stacked in favor of the big guys, and as many have said TPG are in the business of minting money. This is a really bad sign for the future of this hobby, and with all the attention paid to auction house shilling, I think there is another very big issue that the hobby will soon have to come to terms with. The grading game comes with some serious repercussions.

Better that than a business model based on looking for ex and exmt centered cards that can be improved.

Let me put it in perspective Peter: If you had a 52 Topps Mantle graded 8.5, and you had an opportunity to have it bumped to a 9, that label change would put your kid through four years of college. Isn't that a bit of scary thought? Wouldn't you begin to wonder what really might be going on behind the scenes?

If it deserved a 9 and is not altered, no. I am much more concerned about people buying 5s and 6s and manufacturing 8s and 9s.

This thread is hilarious.

"Joe Orlando needs to answer my questions!"
"I just spoke to him, he'd like you to call him.. Here's his number."
"I'd rather just complain!"

If you have questions, call the guy. Matt obviously doesn't have a problem with making this issue public, so I don't see a reason for Joe not to discuss this issue over the phone.

"Joe needs to come on the forum and tell his side of the story!"
"Joe would love to discuss this with anyone who calls"
"Does anyone else think it's horrible Joe will discuss a private matter with anyone?"

Hilarious.

Excellent analysis Barry. The best (or worst) example was the 1973 Topps Art Shell card going from an 8 to a 10.

In keeping with the topic at hand, I also see serious repercussions when a company president continues to alienate his customer base. It is inevitable that those collectors will sell off their collections which adds to the supply on the open market which will drive the values of the cards downward which in turn devalues other hobbyist's collections. If I had a lot of money tied up in PSA cards - which I did at one time, but don't anymore - I would be demanding changes in Collector Universe's management.

No doubt Peter that is a very serious problem too. I was just focusing on one issue that came to mind as I was slogging through this thread. The TPG will have some major issues to deal with down the road.

True. Plus it's apparent that Joe loves his significant other very much.

Peter- just to add, if it deserved a 9 then why wasn't it a 9? Where is the accuracy with so much money at stake?

Another dike:D

Great points Jeff! In my mind Joe's response or reply whether written or verbal at this point in time matters not at all, not to me personally. In the vast world of the consumer market, how many other companies would go so far out of their way to not only cut all ties with a consumer, lose future business and beyond all that try to censor that consumer, over what amounts to a conversation and exchange that occurred over the phone?

These actions by PSA, regardless of what Matt may have said to Joe (short of personal threats or threats of violence which Matt obviously did not make) should be unacceptable for ANY company.

That's not how it went down at all. You're putting your words in quotations as if that's what was actually said. Until Kevin mentioned it in post #80 ("I still would like to hear Joe's side of this"), no one even suggested that Joe come here and give his side of the story. It was Kevin that suggested that.

I could care less about Joe's side of the story. Sure, if he wants to come here and tell it, I will certainly listen with an open mind, but I'm darn sure not going to ask him to come here and I don't read in this thread where anybody else asked him to either. So what are you talking about?

Kevin supposedly called him, but can't tell us what he said?!? Come on, isn't that behaving like a third grader playing the 'I know something you don't know' game? Funny, but I think everybody pretty much feels that Joe's side of the story is irrelevant, otherwise somebody would have called him other than Kevin (supposedly).

As we know, accuracy in grading is a false precision. I bet I would not grade 100 cards perfectly consistently and neither would you.

Exactly Peter. We agree on that. Then why are cards graded using a scale that suggests precision? If you can't tell a 7 from a 7.5, or an 8.5 from a 9 without any discernable objective criteria, then why feign precision? Why not use an adjectival system instead. You wouldn't walk through a museum and say, I give this Picasso a 92 but the Renoir only an 85. That makes absolutely no sense. But given the very subjective system used for grading baseball cards, we have this silly numerical scale. Why?

Because that's what people want. Market economy. Simple as that.

You're wasting your time. In every thread which deals with fraud or criticism of a sacred cow in the hobby, there are a bunch of posters who will do all that they can to derail the thread or stop the criticism for reasons which have nothing to do with the truth -- usually it's financial motive. It happened with Mastro, it happened with Memory Lane, it happened with PWCC and it's happened with PSA.

Let us now praise sacred cows...

Agreed.

Ironic this comes out now?

The Importance of Grading Context - by Joe Orlando

And his closing, right above his signature!

Most importantly...NEVER GET CHEATED!!!

Where can I order one of these? Do you accept paypal gift?

Make that 2, I wear an XL. :D

"Never get cheated....except by us. Then it's ok and expected and if you don't like it we'll ban you from our boards."

Yeah but that's tougher to fit in a sig line Jeff. :)

I like the new Wagner flip.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...s/small/55.jpg

Love the T-Shirt!

Now that's a t-shirt I'd buy...with the slogan on the back..."Never get cheated....except by us. Then it's ok and expected and if you don't like it we'll ban you from our boards" ...and thr monkees on the front!!!!!

FML that is funny.

Those are not just monkeys, those are their graders. :D

Great thread
Would read again
5 stars
:D

David, here was your quote from earlier in this thread:

Now you're clarifying that with:

So basically, now most people are saying that they really don't care what Joe's side of the story is, but this thread just gives everybody another opportunity to trash PSA, which many posters, of course, are more than happy to do.

With what we know about PSA they deserve some trashing, and it's understandable that it happens on this board because dissension is not allowed on their own forum.

Gary,

I really don't understand what you're saying and why the two quotes. Are you inferring that I contradicted myself? If so, show me where? If not, what is your point? Please clarify.

David

What Dan said...Joe doesn't seem to care about resolving issues in a suitable manner...so as a result of his past behavior...I DON't care what his response is/would be...as I'm guessing it'd be similar to Mastro's response...and other guilty parties responses...a bunch of fluffy BS.

Did anybody catch this part? :D

"There can be trouble, however, when hobbyists don't understand how context comes into play. For example, you could have 10 different cards and they may all be graded PSA NM-MT 8, but each one of them is different. Some have better corners, while others have better centering. Some have better color, while others have whiter borders and yet others may be well known as trimmed totally. Therefore, there are variances within every grade. You gotta watch those variances, here at PSA it's all about the variances."

This thread deserves an 80's "Pistol Finger" Joe O IMO.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...large/joeo.jpg

OK, I just wanted to confirm that. While I certainly don't condone PSA banning Matt and poofing threads way too much in general, it's their own board. It's not like they're denying Americans the right to free speech.

Snicker......:p

"It's not like they're denying Americans the right to free speech."

Snicker? That was a LOL! :D

They can do whatever they like on their own board...if they allowed free discussion on their own board we wouldn't see nearly the amount of PSA bashing here on Net54.

David, in the first quote from you, you seem to say that if Joe just did a better job of customer service, then Matt would never have opened this thread. In this second quote, you're basically saying you don't really care what Joe said or what led him to say the things he said.

Again, I've respected a lot of Matt's posts in the past, but usually in every situation, you want to hear both sides of the story. You can say that Joe should just post his story on the board, but as Jeff said, if Joe did that, it would quickly go off topic. If Joe posted, I'd say within 5 minutes, someone would post asking Joe about the Wagner card.

Dan, I don't disagree with this statement, and I agree that it wasn't a very good idea by PSA what they did. However, there still was a substantial amount of PSA bashing on Net54 even before that happened.

I will say I don’t hate grading or TPG’s. I will say that the entire system is flawed for all TPG’s not just PSA. The entire point of TPG’s in the first place was to bring a level of conformity to a hobby ripe with fraud and as Joe likes to point out many variances.

This is a great concept as a whole. With that said when you have the hobby’s cornerstone card trimmed and floating around in an 8 holder as the poster child for an entire business model. The whole thing sort of loses creditability becomes laughable and a bit hard to take too seriously.

Well said. Totally agree.

Yes, I did say it. Matt followed up my comment by saying the same thing (see post #46)

I said, "I could care less about Joe's side of the story." You took that out of context. In Jason's post, he made it sound as if we demanded Joe to come on here and give his side of the story. I could care less if the gives his side of the story or not. In other words, I'm certainly not going to ask him to. That's what I meant by "I could care less about Joe's side of the story." As I also stated in that same quote, if he were to come on here and give his side of the story, I would listed with an open mind.

I just don't see your parallel between the two quotes.

OK, I won't quibble on this anymore. I think Kevin (I assume it's a typo when you said Jason) didn't demand to hear Joe's side of the story. My interpretation was that Kevin just thought there was more to the story than what Matt had said, and he just wanted to hear what Joe had to say about the situation and why it disintegrated like it did. As I said, it's usually common sense to want to hear both sides of the story. After Kevin heard the story from Joe, he thought that if someone who strongly disagreed with how Joe handled this situation called Joe, that person might see the situation in a different light. Obviously, as I confirmed earlier, nobody cares about this anymore. They just want to bash PSA.

Wow...

OP: sorry that happened to you but at least they paid you off. Treated you shabbily but didn't make you go to court for it.

Leon and other registry haters [;)]: good points re the registry. The bumping game is the dot-com of collecting--freakish spontaneous wealth if you are successful. I also can understand some saying it isn't about the money; the competition PSA has successfully set up sometimes makes it more about rich guys comparing pee-pees than about the cost [no offense to rich guys; I'm sure you are all terribly misunderstood and victimized every day by a system that is just designed to be unfair to you. I acknowledge your pain and oppression, brothers]. Thing of it is, even with obscene sums of money you still can't buy a 1 of 1 card if the seller is unknown or won't sell it. That makes it fun in some ways, Gordon Gekko-ish in others ["It's not a question of enough, pal; it's a zero sum game. Somebody wins, somebody loses."].

The PSA police state/censorship is one big odious reason I use other TPGs as my go-to graders. Shitty service and a bad attitude are others. I had a recent issue with SGC; no biggie, just a careless mislabeling that I caught when the grades popped but that they weren't able to pull from shipping. They were professional, apologetic and covered my expense and inconvenience for returning the card with some grading vouchers. Left me with a good feeling about their service, yet again. Belitting a customer complaint is ridiculous and cutting him off from the in-house forum without his having made a post there...yech.

All that said, I can understand some of the PSA reaction, as a businessman. I had a recent situation that was very similar except for the [lack of] professional demeanor involved. I retained an title company to help me investigate a real estate title issue before accusing a broker of a very serious fraud. I got the report and it appeared to confirm the client's worst fears. I called the expert and asked her to double-check because I was going to use her report as the basis for accusing the broker of defrauding my client. She checked again and verified her conclusions. Based on that I drafted a very nasty and threatening demand letter to the broker. His lawyer's response included a document in the chain of title that my expert missed and that completely negated the accusation. My client got ticked and I had to write off not just the expert's fees but my own as well. When I told the expert, she took the matter to her bosses, and they agreed to pay for my lost time. They also told me that they would not do any more similar work for me because they felt it was too much of a risk. Not to defend that plastic-faced bozo, but Joe O. seems to have taken a similar attitude with you; not worth the risk. Unprofessional as hell the way he did it, but understandable.

No, I meant Jason. The part you quoted was in my response to Jason's post #173. Jason made it sound as if we demanded Joe come to the board and give his side of the story. That just wasn't the case. No one, other than Kevin, ever asked Joe to come give his side of the story.

I'm sorry if you took my joke as a verbatim attack, I was making light of a silly back-and-forth you had with Kevin. If you would like an actual quote refer to post #83:

"Joe will handle this problem like they do all their other problems - just sweep it under the rug and hope it goes away."

It's clear to me Joe isn't sweeping this under the rug. In fact, Joe is sending you an invitation to call him so he can provide you a personal explanation. I don't know what more you can expect from the President of a public company. If a man threatened to sue my company I would damn well make sure he and I never did business again.

"You are probably right Pete, I'm sure Joe has better things to do than worry about this forum.... "

Yeah, and he probably has better things to do than have everyone call him asking the same question, yet that is what you offer? Classic.

Psa
 

I still don't know why I got banned from PSA boards...they do it quite often and without even knowing you got banned or why!

the Board Moderator is on a MAJOR POWER KICK apparently....

I RUN THESE BOARDS AND YOU LITTLE PEON ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!

Hey, Jason. I apologize if I mistook the intent of your post. However, I feel that Joe did try to sweep the problem under the rug by banning Matt from the CU boards and telling him that he was no longer welcome to do business with PSA. That's what sweeping a problem under the rug means - making it go away.

It would have been different if Matt posted there what he posted here. It is their board and they can control the content of what it said, like it or not. And as far as threatening to sue the company, you can not say that as if it were a fact because you (or I) don't know that.

I just think banning him from the CU boards was very childish. If Matt were trashing the company on their boards I could understand it, but that wasn't the case. I've seen Leon get into some pretty heated exchanges on these boards, but he never banned anybody that disagreed with him (at least that I know of).

It's okay to disagree. Do so and move on. But to try to silence those that disagree with you is sweeping the problem under the rug. I guess you don't see it like that, but I (and I think many others too) do.

David, if you read Matt's initial post in this thread, Matt himself said he did tell Joe that he was going to talk to a lawyer about this.

Talking to a lawyer and threatening to sue are two different things. And just to clarify, here's what Matt actually wrote:

This is not a business to me, its a hobby and I collect high end cards that I can't go out and just replace. Send me back my cards immediately, and after I speak with my council, I will give you a number on the Hank Aaron card.

I knew exactly what I was saying when I made the comment to Joe about speaking with my council, and I also knew exactly how he would take my comment. Never was I intending to contact my lawyer over a baseball card. I really just wanted to speak with a couple people I know in the hobby that I trust, one of which was my buddy that had the same thing happen to.

I took Matt's comment as if his council were the couple of people that he knew in the hobby that had a similar experience. If he said legal council, then that would be different.

Hey Joe,,, how bout that Wagner card, huh?

Any business owner would take "Send me back my cards immediately, and after I speak with my council, I will give you a number on the Hank Aaron card." as a threat. You know this. Whether the word "council" was meant to refer to his lawyer or group of friends is irrelevant. If a customer said this to me I would have acted exactly the same. Granted, I never would have let it get to this point, but that is also irrelevant.

But, wait a minute, what are we arguing again?

I think Joe acted like a man protecting his business and I think Matt acted like a man who just had his irreplaceable collectable destroyed. The whole situation is a shame.

Actually, whether Matt intended or not, he chose the correct word in saying he wanted to speak with his council, i.e. a group of people, rather than his counsel, i.e. his attorney. Inasmuch as this was a phone conversation, however, I doubt the enunciation was so distinguishable.

Generally, I won't ban someone for calling me a name or calling me out on something. I am as fair game as anyone. I will even let it go on for a while. However, if ALL someone wants to do is antagonize me or any other board member, then no, that won't be tolerated. I get into arguments with people and it would be crazy to ban them, generally speaking. They can call me names (per the open rules) and I can tell them to F-off.....but I will not constantly hound someone. It does seem a few people like to antagonize but so be it.

Agree completely. Third party grading in concept is a good thing. Objectively grading cards, and identifying altered ones, is a great service to the hobby.

But from these lofty ideals came a very flawed system that needs work. I hope someday these problems are fixed.

LOL comeon. Joe's "business" is part of a public company. Do you think its board of directors or shareholders wouldn't be pissed as to how he handled the situation? I have empathy for the guy here to a point and I have no doubt he tires of being abused for PSA's mistakes but that's kind of the cost of doing business and having his job. Less paranoia, less crazy behavior, more transparency. I think Joe would be surprised that people would be more understanding with PSA if such occurred. And it doesn't hep his company's credibility by the way when it comes out in the press that they slabbed an altered Wagner and claimed publicly for years that it never occurred.

I have never understood why collectors rely on TPG for anything other than an objective opinion from a source other than a dealer who likes to upgrade his cards in the description.

He is offering you his phone number and a personal conversation, how much more transparent do you need?

Personally, I think the board of directors could care less whether or not Matt was banned from the CU forum.

They should...it appears he spends a lot of money on high end PSA cards. Or at least he used to.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to -- that the board of directors would be worried about Matt, not how he handles customers who were damaged by PSA and the resultant negative publicity.

i see alot of sour grapes, only after they're banned over there do they come here to bash PSA. i mean what more does the OP want? he's tight enough with joe o. that not only does he get a free shot at 6x-ing his 2k card (on a $250 max value voucher), but on top of that PSA doing him an extra solid of cracking his card out for a better look. PSA is practically bending over backward on this deal. only under the most unfortunate circumstance did this story come to light. if the card came back a PSA 9 the OP would be sending a christmas gift to joe with the profit he made.

While this is a situation that I am torn between, I would like to offer an apology for anything that was said by me deemed offensive. I do think, however, some of the comments I made were very much appropriate, and I do think some of the things said to me were out of line. As long as I have been a member here, there has been a tremendous amount of support for SGC, and a miniscule amount for PSA. I have never understood that, nor will I ever. I know Joe Orlando well and his business model, but obviously, it is shared by an extremely low percentage of Net54 members... It's unfortunate, but sometimes in the heat of the battle, people say things to people that they regret. Maybe it's even people that they have done alot of business with, regardless, I apologize.....Please, after this post, limit the witch hunts and take it for what it is.....

Matt,
welcome to the boards!,
very good analogy exactly what happened! money customer gets favorable
treatment that went bad, and that could expose kind of shady behavior by the head guy and doesn't want the public to find out, so he acts in his normal
totalitarian way, in an attempt of damage control.

didn't see japhi's post before...agree with him completely. maybe this will teach joe to do any more favors.

Where has Matt been since the original post?? Has anyone noticed that he has been eerily quiet since the opening statement?? I'm guessing he is reading this thread still?

Edit, misread

He's been taking some shots here that he probably feels isn't warranted. For example, I don't think there is anything wrong w/ submitting a card for review and it's obviously not his fault that PSA messed up, and dinged his card. However, some posters have been implying that he's greedy for trying to get that PSA 9 rather than be content w/ his 8.5. I personally don't think that's fair. If I had a card that was strong for its grade, I would submit it for review. If someone wants to pay 5X for that PSA9, that's that person's decision. It may be chump change for that buyer, who may prefer to spend his money on cardboard rather than buying a yacht.

Gary...I don't think that is it. A true review for a card worth that much costs around $65. NOT allowable under the 'free' submission grading/service, due to the price/value involved. I think a lot of people have a problem with a personal relationship with the president of a company that allows others to bypass rules that apply to everyone else.

yeah , when will we hear anything from Orlando regarding the Wagner card !