Small Traditions Scam of 1990 Topps USA1 George Bush

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I am sure we all get it. The problem is that this kind of stuff is just common now and sadly no one cares anymore.

It is common, but that doesn't mean no one cares. I wont bid with them anymore, thanks for the information.

We all should care, I do not like taking it in the ass...

S Suckow

[Peter_Spaeth]

If ink was removed, should PSA only have slabbed it authentic?

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If ink was removed, should PSA only have slabbed it authentic?

Yup. But they cannot tell the difference, nor have they been able to tell the difference and will continue to not be able to tell the difference. Its not a matter of honestly IMO, its b/c PSA lacks the ability to detect that. Consumers need to be smart enough to realize that PSA can be wrong and seem to do it a consistent basis.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I sent Joe an email advising him of the thread.

[swarmee]

Those cards had a heavy layer of gloss coating, I believe. So it would be relatively easy to remove a felt tip signature without leaving a trace, I would guess. That may be why the signature got an authentic from PSA rather than a number grade, though.

How it got back into their possession after the auction, I would guess they would explain the same way that Brent did, that their buyer is their new consignee. So they brokered the auction, and are now being hired to broker the sale.

[filmmaker]

Update 11:31 AM

Small Traditions wrote me back via eBay

"Thanks for writing. We authenticated the cards with PSA/DNA on behalf of our winning bidder. The inscriptions were written on thin plastic on top of the cards in the display, which you can plainly see in the original listing, and which had originally appeared to me as the glossy coating on top of the cards themselves. We have listed this card on eBay with an astronomical BIN price in order to promote it, as we always do. I fully understand the conflict this might present to some bidders like yourself, but I have no problem doing this on behalf of our winning bidder, and I will present the facts when the card goes up for auction exactly as they unfolded, and people can judge for themselves. The only issue here is that the cards did not grade any higher, as they both appear at least NM or better, but PSA knows very well the magnitude of the cards, and I can assure you they were scrutinized as closely as a pack-fresh 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle would have been. Thanks again for writing, and feel free to call or write again with any further questions, Dave at STs"

Had Small Traditions stated that the autograph was on a "THIN PLASTIC", I would have went higher. But lets just be honest, Its not written on a thin plastic. Its on the card. What a shame. Even advertised sketchy. And the person who bought them was "in" on it too.

[Ronnie73]

Originally Posted by filmmaker

Update 11:31 AM

Small Traditions wrote me back via eBay

"Thanks for writing. We authenticated the cards with PSA/DNA on behalf of our winning bidder. The inscriptions were written on thin plastic on top of the cards in the display, which you can plainly see in the original listing, and which had originally appeared to me as the glossy coating on top of the cards themselves. We have listed this card on eBay with an astronomical BIN price in order to promote it, as we always do. I fully understand the conflict this might present to some bidders like yourself, but I have no problem doing this on behalf of our winning bidder, and I will present the facts when the card goes up for auction exactly as they unfolded, and people can judge for themselves. The only issue here is that the cards did not grade any higher, as they both appear at least NM or better, but PSA knows very well the magnitude of the cards, and I can assure you they were scrutinized as closely as a pack-fresh 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle would have been. Thanks again for writing, and feel free to call or write again with any further questions, Dave at STs"

Had Small Traditions stated that the autograph was on a "THIN PLASTIC", I would have went higher. But lets just be honest, Its not written on a thin plastic. Its on the card. What a shame. Even advertised sketchy. And the person who bought them was "in" on it too.

It's interesting that they mention their original listing because in their original listing they state that they had to remove the cards from the frame to verify what they were. I would think they would have noticed an inscription on plastic at that time especially when checking if the cards were the glossy or non-glossy versions.

Quote from their page:
The pair of ungraded examples presented here are both the scarcer White House Glossy versions, and they appear to be in strong Near Mint to Mint condition. Each bears an inscription in a fine-point black marker and is signed by President Bush with a noticeably thicker marker. They came to Small Traditions in the framed display with a signed letter from Florida Governor Jeb Bush pictured below. The display was very tightly glued shut, however, and had to be destroyed to free the cards in order to confirm that they were what we had hoped they were, two of the treasured 100 White House versions gifted directly by Topps to Jeb's father, President George H. W. Bush.

[conor912]

Why are the personalizations in a different pen and seemingly different handwriting? Did Bush just sign a stack and then one of his aides do the personalizing?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So their position is that someone affixed plastic to the cards before writing the inscription? Why on earth would anyone do that, this isn't Upper Deck attaching stickered autographs.

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So their position is that someone affixed plastic to the cards before writing the inscription? Why on earth would anyone do that, this isn't Upper Deck attaching stickered autographs.

Because if you're framing a piece, you don't want to affix the card to adhesive or tape it order to set it into place. It may be in a Cardsaver, which qualifies as "thin plastic", which can then be affixed in the frame so the cards display properly and don't move around or get damage. Why someone would sign a cardsaver, I'm not really sure.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Because if you're framing a piece, you don't want to affix the card to adhesive or tape it order to set it into place. It may be in a Cardsaver, which qualifies as "thin plastic", which can then be affixed in the frame so the cards display properly and don't move around or get damage. Why someone would sign a cardsaver, I'm not really sure.

So put the signed card including inscription in a cardsaver to frame it. I am not following your logic. What does signing it have to do with how you ultimately frame it?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

We all should care, I do not like taking it in the ass...

S Suckow

Spoilsport

[Republicaninmass]

I'm guessing this a vague attempt to say it was signed on the "Glossy laminate" on the card?