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 !

I am following the thread Bobby, but don't have anything else to add. I said before in my second follow-up post that I don't mind any negativity directed at me. That's what makes America such a great place, we can all have an opinion, and aren't forced to agree with each other. I've enjoyed reading this thread and seeing what everyone has to say.

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

I don't think Joe was with PSA when this occurred...was he? Although either way I'm sure he knows what happened.

Someone asked to see a scan of the PSA 7. The right and Left corners on top of the card is where the damage occurred.

Edit to add: Its tough to see the left corner damage in this scan, but that's the worse off of the two corners.

http://www.collectorfocus.com/images...ps-aaron-psa-7

If the president of a company wants to give a good customer a break on a price why is that a problem? Sounds like good business to me. Now, if Joe O said I can help you get a better grade, that's a whole different story (and I am sure Joe wouldn't do that). But as far as a discount on pricing, or a free submission, that doesn't matter to me at all. Almost Anyone in business has given a discount to a good customer.

Matt, you've got some spectacular cards in your collection.

+1, beautiful cards man.

Leon - I would agree on the price break. That said, do you think the president of PSA should be having his buddies send submissions to his attention? Also, if PSA will crack and review shouldn't this service be open to all submitters?

I'm not even a PSA hater - I'm actively putting together a mid grade hockey HOF registry set and buying graded cards like a mad man - but IMO there is too much money involved for the process to be so loose. Seems mickey mouse to me. I sell a financial product and we are completely isolated from our credit group, I'd suggest PSA isolate Joe from the grading process.

I don't believe fraud is occurring but if I was a stakeholder at PSA it would be pretty clear in a process audit that fraud, at some point, is likely to occur.

The sentiment amongst those in the PSA inner circle seems to be..."I don't care if there's fraud going on...as long as I'm a beneficiary of it!"

If the President of a grading company wants a customer to send a card to his attention I don't have a problem with that. I am not sure it's the best use of his time but that is not for me to say. It's a favor and an exception. So what? As long as when I send my card in, it gets fair and impartial treatment, and I get the service I paid for, I don't care. Unless there is fraud going on, as a business person, I just don't have an issue with it. I am far from an apologist and think some things could be different, but overall, I think PSA does a good job. I think the hobby is much better with them than without them.

I should add that I don't think the President of a grading company should have a say in a grade, so I do agree there needs to be some separation in that respect.

I agree PSA is overall good for the hobby but the President being involved in the grading process of submitter's he knows is a huge conflict of interest when you consider the amount of money involved and the small differences between grades.

Personally I'm not impacted as I don't chase the super high end. As someone that builds process for sales organizations I can tell you it is a huge liability for PSA.