PSA-A Cautionary Tale!

[slidekellyslide]

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]

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]

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]

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

Snicker......

[vintagetoppsguy]

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

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Snicker......

Snicker? That was a LOL!

[slidekellyslide]

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]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

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.

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.

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

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.

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.

[glchen]

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]

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.

[midwaylandscaping]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

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.

[ScottFandango]

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!

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

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.

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

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)

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.

[glchen]

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by glchen

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.

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.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

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.

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.