Did PSA get a free pass on The American Greed show?

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

My assumption on the lack of PSA coverage, is fear of legal repercussions. PSA offers an opinion of quality of a card, and opinions are only that, nothing more. As far as I know, they are not embroiled in any criminal case. No basis for the show to sling mud on them.

Mark Medlin

They are only opinions, you are correct, but the mud slinging is well justified.

Hypothetical conversation in the office of people who get paid for their opinions :

Person 1 - "this card looks trimmed"
Person 2 - "well then we need another card to be the first card we grade"
Person 3 - "Doesn't look trimmed to me, looks like an 8"

Whether person 1 is lower than person 2 who is lower than person 3 in the pecking order in this hypothetical conversation is unknown to me.

Doug

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

They are only opinions, you are correct, but the mud slinging is well justified.

Hypothetical conversation in the office of people who get paid for their opinions :

Person 1 - "this card looks trimmed"
Person 2 - "well then we need another card to be the first card we grade"
Person 3 - "Doesn't look trimmed to me, looks like an 8"

Whether person 1 is lower than person 2 who is lower than person 3 in the pecking order in this hypothetical conversation is unknown to me.

Doug

Read The Card. If memory serves, the guy who graded it, Bill Hughes, said he and everyone else present at the creation knew it was trimmed.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

They are only opinions, you are correct, but the mud slinging is well justified.

Hypothetical conversation in the office of people who get paid for their opinions :

Person 1 - "this card looks trimmed"
Person 2 - "well then we need another card to be the first card we grade"
Person 3 - "Doesn't look trimmed to me, looks like an 8"

Whether person 1 is lower than person 2 who is lower than person 3 in the pecking order in this hypothetical conversation is unknown to me.

Doug

Doug,

I am not defending psa at all. But I doubt that any person or entity would make accusations or claims against an opinion based company unless it had PROOF of fraud. If they do so without proof, psa would own them.

Mark

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

Doug,

I am not defending psa at all. But I doubt that any person or entity would make accusations or claims against an opinion based company unless it had PROOF of fraud. If they do so without proof, psa would own them.

Mark

Right, and that's what they hide behind, because you can't "prove" what the opinion of another person is.

All they have to do is lie about what their own opinion is, which serves the triple purpose of saving their asses from legal issues, making a boatload of money / business for their company, and ruining the fun of the hobby.

How great is it for the entire business of paying people for their opinions that the first paid opinion was a lie, we know it's a lie, and it's still ignored as a lie.

Barry's comment about "close enough" is aiming in the right direction, but the more to the point - they lie because it makes them money.

Doug

[oldjudge]

Too many powerful people have too much money tied up in the PSA registry; in my opinion they are essentially bullet proof.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Too many powerful people have too much money tied up in the PSA registry; in my opinion they are essentially bullet proof.

Yep

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Too many powerful people have too much money tied up in the PSA registry; in my opinion they are essentially bullet proof.

Sort of like our banks, too big to fail? There is some truth to that, even if a major scandal broke, most guys would find a way to justify going on as usual, and the damage would be controlled.

[Dpeck100]

I saw the PDF file of the names involved. There was a Peter Spaeth on it. Not the most common name. Peter is that you or another Peter Spaeth?

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, last year when the list came out I posted a detailed description of the transaction in question and my perspective on it, and answered questions. A number of board members whose names appeared (in some cases multiple times) chose to remain silent. Which was the better course, who knows, but in any event I really am not inclined to go another round, so I refer you to the prior thread.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sort of like our banks, too big to fail? There is some truth to that, even if a major scandal broke, most guys would find a way to justify going on as usual, and the damage would be controlled.

Everybody (who uses the people who get paid for their opinions) already finds a way to justify it, remember that part about the first card being a lie?

Doug