1933 Goudey Ruth- Questionable Authenticity? Not really...
 

This is the issue with the ?AUT grading...

Not sure who couldn't tell them it was a reprint/fake but I would be happy to.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-GOUDEY-...oAAOSw4A5Yzwop

.

I've always assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the reason they say questionable authenticity rather than "bloody awful fake" was for legal reasons. If they did make a mistake and called one a fake that was real, they would be open to a lawsuit. This way they can say - we never said it was a fake. We just said we couldn't tell, so it's on you for selling it too cheaply and not figuring out if it is real.

Granted, that is a weak way to conduct business. (Hint: you're supposed to stand behind your work and take the consequences.) But in their shoes it is safer.

Cheers,
Patrick Prickett

Ps - If PSA starts assigning a BAF ("Bloody Awful fake") grade, I want royalties. Or at least a few free gradings. ;-)

There are dozens of ways they could render a decision without using a derivative of "authentic".

Here are a few:

No Decision
Undetermined
N4

Actually, the flip should say COU for Counterfeit....and leave it at that. It is what it is. On another situation, I sent in the W575-1s I picked up recently, to SGC. They said they have to put "Hand Cut" on the flips even though they admit they aren't hand cut. Makes sense to me.... not.

On a facebook group (which does have some vintage users but tend towards modern) there was card recently pictured with the same auth? determination from PSA. The poster was asking what it meant. Most people were correct in saying it was a fake, but a few others tried arguing that it wasn't certain. They insisted that the question mark meant that PSA didn't know if it was authentic and that PSA just couldn't determine authenticity.

It is because of those few that people still sell these items this way.

Last year, maybe the year before, someone won one of my auctions for two Mantles: Post Cereal and the Life magazine insert. The condition was low end so I'm not sure why he'd pay to have them graded (PSA) but that's his business, not mine. Anyway, they came back "? AUTHTCT". He didn't want a refund, but was sincerely disappointed and bummed out, therefore I am too. Now, I know both cards have been counterfeited in the past, except I had them since the Sixties before the shenanigans started. If they can't render an opinion, shouldn't they be refunding fees, if any, or at least shipping?

That would be correct, but I was showing how questionably authentic still has some ways that can be addressed IF their concern is with the legality of it.

I understand and appreciate the desire for certainty, but that is not what PSA is paid to do. The QA response is the equivalent of "not guilty"; it isn't an affirmative assertion of "innocent", it is a representation that the evidence didn't prove guilt. The TPG isn't asked to determine if an item is "counterfeit", it is asked to determine if an item is authentic and if so, what condition it is in. The QA statement means that the TPG couldn't state it was authentic, not that the item is counterfeit. It is certainly motivated by legal considerations; if you want the TPGs to issue a damning "counterfeit" designation on items, i.e., to take an affirmative position and render a conclusive opinion that will cost the owners real money, you need to be prepared to pay more for grading services to cover the risks of errors and the damages that may be awarded to an injured party. We aren't going to get that for $7.

Adam is correct, but it is also true that the term they use is needlessly strange and ambiguous. They could use the label of "not graded or holdered" or something like that.

Questionable Authenticity fits the bill just fine. A lot of devious people try to play havoc with the wording though just to pass their fakes off as real.

This post should kill this thread.:D

This is really how simple it is. Both card pictured are counterfeit. The one sent to PSA got a 8 NM-MT grade. The one sent to SGC came back with a flip that says NO and with a card with COUNTERFEIT checked. Any questions?;):)

but Ben...that's not possible?!?!?!? PSA is the 2nd coming and SGC sucks. right????

Reality sucks sometimes.:eek::D

The sellers name is: thankforthescrewjob (1524 )
That's all I need to know.

What's it say on the bat knob?

this silly question mark crap is preying on the ineptitude of the masses and one of my biggest peeves with them.

Kudos to SGC for a clear NO.

I would like to suggest they send it back with this on the flip going forward...

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...FjaFoiAu0iyHqA

I think the reason for the "?" is simply their way of saving space. There isn't enough line items to write out "questionable authenticity". Both of those words are pretty lengthy. So they simply put "? AUTH". Most seasoned collectors knows what that means. However, I can see how the novices could fall for that crap.

Anyone who pays money for a card that has a third party determination of questionable authenticity deserves to lose their money.

These QA cards aren't being sold by innocent buyers, but by con artists who think they can put lipstick on the pig and sell it to someone else. Probably another scammer who hopes to rip someone else off. Hopefully they can't.

Adam, I thought everyone knew this one, even a non-baseball card collector like me. It says F**k Face.

I don't see why they have to issue this decision on a flip that looks the exact same as for graded cards. Just return the card in the holder it was submitted in with a letter or something that says could not verify authenticity. The flip with "auth?" creates a sense of ambiguity that sellers such as this are taking advantage of.

It could be argued that this is the most overpriced card in the hobby:
If the T206 Wagner had been produced in the same quantity as other cards, a Wagner PSA 1 would be worth something near a Cobb red, say $500. By being under produced, it's worth $400,000. That's an increase of 800x.
A common Fleer is worth 1 cent. The Billy Ripken cost me $25, an increase of 2500x. :eek:

The F Face Billy Ripken was not produced in the same quantity as other Fleer cards. The error was caught and pulled. I don't know the exact print run numbers, though.

On the topic of this thread, PSA is literally leaving the door open for con-artists and scammers to rip someone off. Instead of nipping it in the arse with a NO like SGC, they leave it as a grey area "questionable authenticity". I struggle with PSA for multiple reasons, and this adds to my struggle.

The general guess is Fleer printed around 100,000 of the F Face cards. The high end counterfeit shown in the PSA slab and raw has around 15 known copies.

If SGC can straight up call it counterfeit there is no reason PSA can't step up and do the same thing.