Heritage Platinum Night

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I don't understand what banning anyone accomplishes, but I'm not privy to details - if the banned also caused problems after purchasing that resulted in issues for consignors, and it looked like they would continue to do so, then it makes sense. But bitching and griping and complaining is not a good reason.

Regarding the Robinson item, perhaps PSA is just at judging something to be bad, as they are the other way around. In other words, it makes no difference whether or not they liked the item.

My comment about the Robinson ball was meant to question whether or not Heritage was acting in an open manner. Every autograph item they sold had two certs. except this ball. And then when PSA was allegedly asked about the ball they deemed it probably not authentic. One auction house was totally open about this when it happened to them. If it did happen to Heritage, why were they not open about it? They try to create the impression that two TPA's examine their items, which is apparently what does happen. But when one TPA might have deemed it to be not authentic, they still went with the item.
And what if their buyer sends the ball to PSA and it is deemed not authentic. What would have happened then?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

My comment about the Robinson ball was meant to question whether or not Heritage was acting in an open manner. Every autograph item they sold had two certs. except this ball. And then when PSA was allegedly asked about the ball they deemed it probably not authentic. One auction house was totally open about this when it happened to them. If it did happen to Heritage, why were they not open about it? They try to create the impression that two TPA's examine their items, which is apparently what does happen. But when one TPA might have deemed it to be not authentic, they still went with the item.
And what if their buyer sends the ball to PSA and it is deemed not authentic. What would have happened then?

I think for potential bidders, the missing PSA approval sticks out like a sore thumb. Maybe this is part of why they use 'pre-approvals' - a 'pre-approval' means it looks okay but hasn't been checked thoroughly, just as 'not pre-approving' means it might be okay but they need to check further.

Just playing 'devils advocate', which is unusual for me. As I said, it sticks out like a sore thumb, so it isn't doing them any good to not mention it.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I think for potential bidders, the missing PSA approval sticks out like a sore thumb. Maybe this is part of why they use 'pre-approvals' - a 'pre-approval' means it looks okay but hasn't been checked thoroughly, just as 'not pre-approving' means it might be okay but they need to check further.

Just playing 'devils advocate', which is unusual for me. As I said, it sticks out like a sore thumb, so it isn't doing them any good to not mention it.

All of the items in the current auction were Full LOA from PSA/DNA and Full LOA from James Spence, according to the individual listings. Except for the Jackie Robinson baseball.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

All of the items in the current auction were Full LOA from PSA/DNA and Full LOA from James Spence, according to the individual listings. Except for the Jackie Robinson baseball.

Richard, I know there are guys like you and Jim who are authorities on autographs and have a great deal of confidence, but as a novice, I have yet to see a single-signed ball that I would feel comfortable buying. Once they start looking great, the fact that they look 'great' even becomes worrying.