PSA-A Cautionary Tale!

Peter_Spaeth · #1 10-30-2013, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

jhs5120 · #2 10-30-2013, 08:18 AM

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.

calvindog · #3 10-30-2013, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhs5120

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.

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

vintagetoppsguy · #4 10-30-2013, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhs5120

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.

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).

calvindog · #5 10-30-2013, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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).

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.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 10-30-2013, 09:46 AM

Let us now praise sacred cows...

markf31 · #7 10-30-2013, 09:53 AM

Ironic this comes out now?

The Importance of Grading Context - by Joe Orlando

Quote:

The Importance of Grading Context

When it comes to the grading of a collectible, the ability to understand the grade in context is of serious importance. While many collectors seem to understand this concept, it has been difficult to get others to comprehend the same thing. Sometimes, there is so much focus on the assigned grade - the number - that hobbyists can lose sight of what that number actually means.

One of the benefits of third-party grading is the contribution to better standardization, of both quality and value. In other words, while no two collectibles are identical, if both items are graded with the same number, there is a better understanding of the general quality of the item. As a result, there is a better understanding of the value once the grade is assigned.

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 EX-MT 6, 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. Therefore, there are variances within every grade.

There are some cards that barely made the assigned grade and others that barely missed the next grade higher. The result is pretty simple. Some cards will sell for a premium within the same grade based on that strength in quality, while others may fall a little short of the going rate for the grade because they are perceived as a weaker example. All of this is part of the process, a product of grade interpretation and the imperfect nature of grading itself.

The good news is that this is understood by most collectors and simply a part of the human-based system. It only becomes a problem when the variance is so enormous that Mint cards look like EX-MT cards or vice versa. Services that show that kind of grading inconsistency usually don't last long in the hobby, which is one major reason so many services have come and gone over the last 20 years.

Another grading issue, one which relates to context, is one that deals with items that are known as the finest example. While the grade of an item does affect the value, they are two mutually exclusive concepts. This is an issue that some collectors struggle with. They seemingly cannot separate the difference between grade AND value when appropriate.

For example, you may come across a bat, an autograph or a card where the finest known example is a 7. Even though the grading scale for all of PSA's services goes as high as 10, that doesn't mean that a 10 exists for that category. There are many instances, in a variety of collectible fields, where the best example known might "only" grade in the mid-range.

Some collectors feel that if the item is the best one of its kind, the scale should adjust based on that fact. I couldn't disagree more. If you adjust the scale based on scarcity, then the meaning of the grade is lost. It's alright if the best example in the world is a PSA 6 or a PSA 4. The market will often adjust and consider the scarcity when determining value. It happens all the time.

So, the moral of the story is that the grade is usually of extreme importance, but make sure you understand the grade in context. It will often help answer many questions you might have as a buyer or a seller.

Never get cheated,
Joe Orlando

Joe Orlando
Editor In Chief

And his closing, right above his signature!

ullmandds · #8 10-30-2013, 09:57 AM

Most importantly...NEVER GET CHEATED!!!

glchen · #9 10-30-2013, 11:17 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I agree that Matt shouldn't have expected more than an offer to pay for the card but, in reading his story, I think what really put a bad taste in his mouth was Joe's attitude. When he told Joe he was sick about it, Joe basically told him it's just a bb card and to get over it. A good CSR would have been more empathetic. Had Joe been more understanding about it, I don't believe Matt would have ever posted this story and kept the situation to himself.

Now you're clarifying that with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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).

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.

slidekellyslide · #10 10-30-2013, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glchen

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.

ullmandds · #11 10-30-2013, 11:26 AM

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.

glchen · #12 10-30-2013, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

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.

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.

bobbyw8469 · #13 10-30-2013, 11:33 AM

Quote:

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

Snicker......

slidekellyslide · #14 10-30-2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glchen

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.

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.

glchen · #15 10-30-2013, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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

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.

wonkaticket · #16 10-30-2013, 11:42 AM

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.

vintagetoppsguy · #17 10-30-2013, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glchen

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by glchen

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.

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.

vintagetoppsguy · #18 10-30-2013, 11:25 AM

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

Exhibitman · #19 10-30-2013, 12:19 PM

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.

wonkaticket · #20 10-30-2013, 11:29 AM

Did anybody catch this part?

"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.

barrysloate · #21 10-30-2013, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

barrysloate · #22 10-30-2013, 08:42 AM

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?

Peter_Spaeth · #23 10-30-2013, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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?

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

barrysloate · #24 10-30-2013, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

Peter_Spaeth · #25 10-30-2013, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrysloate

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.

barrysloate · #26 10-30-2013, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Agreed.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A tale of two lords...	t206hound	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	06-21-2013 01:14 PM
A tale of two REA Joe's....Doyle that is	tedzan	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	05-03-2009 10:42 PM
OT: The Sad Tale Of The Champ	Archive	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	9	06-28-2007 12:51 PM
ironic tale	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	2	01-17-2006 04:44 PM
tale of two rarities	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	10-11-2004 09:15 PM