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.

[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.

[steve B]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Frank A

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

no, but they are so bad at it or corrupt that they should. Very piss poor company.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[JohnP0621]

Originally Posted by Frank A

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

Check out the other thread that's going on about
SGC crossing over PSA cards and bumping them a few grades and than tell me how clean they are (Cracker Jack Joe Jackson from PSA 2 to SGC 5 after altering )T206 Cobb etc. Just Saying !

John P

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by JohnP0621

Check out the other thread that's going on about
SGC crossing over PSA cards and bumping them a few grades and than tell me how clean they are (Cracker Jack Joe Jackson from PSA 2 to SGC 5 after altering )T206 Cobb etc. Just Saying !

John P

So what is the PSA to SGC ratio on bad cards about 2000 to 1?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

So what is the PSA to SGC ratio on bad cards about 2000 to 1?

Probably the same ratio in which they were submitted.

[JohnP0621]

Originally Posted by bnorth

So what is the PSA to SGC ratio on bad cards about 2000 to 1?

Don't know the Ratio but SGC is not So Clean in all of this mess.Also the Ratio of fake autos that SGC Authenticated is pretty high.
I was only responded to the poster that said SGC was Clean.i Believe they are not .

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by steve B

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

Sgc has been called out for their auto debacle. F


When I inquired with Tyler about a refund of an obvious forgery, with before and after photos, he wrote "since forgery Is a federal offense, you would need to seek restitution from the FBI" to paraphrase the rest; While you are at it, crack the card out and send us the flip, we will reimburse the grading fee.

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by 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.

+1

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk