GAI original flips

[Peter_Spaeth]

They kept that flip for many years as I recall, well into the period they became less reliable. I wouldn't go by the flip.

[irv]

My only one that I purchased last year. At that time I had heard about GAI but someone on here, (forget now?) told me this was also an older flip and with the player and value, I likely had nothing to worry about.

Imo, it is a decent looking card for the grade. (lower left, Wally Westlake.)

[DeanH3]

The back of the label tells a lot as well. I believe the early labels are slightly different on the back.

[DeanH3]

Here's what the back of an early label looks like.

[CurtisFlood]

The Chicago National previous to the Atlantic City National some guy came up to a company that was taking consignments for an auction with a GAI 10 Pete Rose RC that he had bought at the show. He seemed confused when the folks from the auction house told him the card was counterfeit and that he should take it back to the person who sold it to him for a refund. Something seemed a bit fishy about the way he acted.

Wonder if some of their flips made it out of the factory in an altered state after the company closed down. Much monkey business involved in card grading and altering. Beware anyone who sells you a graded 10 Pete Rose, especially from a company who just went out of business and the price is $1000.

[DeanH3]

Overall I think early GAI cards are fine in regards to counterfeits and alterations. Baker knew how to spot counterfeits and alterations. The only caveat would be how "his" type of grading standards holds up today. He, like PSA and SGC have different ares of focus. I know baker wasn't as harsh on surface wrinkles. He once told be personally if he couldn't see it with his naked eye it didn't concern him as much. SGC is tougher on surface wrinkles and back damage. Whereas PSA is tougher on corners.

Also, I would wager that most cards still left in GAI holders have been attempted at a cross over to PSA/SGC but have failed. Not because they are badly graded, but because of a difference in standards.

Early on I got caught up in the GAI hype and had a bunch of PSA cards crossed over. I then had great success at getting those GAI cards into SGC holders at equal grades. One card, a T206 dark cap Matty PSA 5 to GAI 5, would not cross to an SGC 60 due to a small very hard to see surface wrinkle. SGC was harder on surface wrinkles than Baker.

Never tried to cross the GAI cards back to PSA because after hearing the experience of other collectors, I felt PSA HATED GAI and therefore would never cross a GAI card. You'd have to bust the card out and resubmit (Sound familiar?) and didn't want to go that route.

Anyway, my 2 cents of rambling.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by DeanH3

Early on I got caught up in the GAI hype and had a bunch of PSA cards crossed over. I then had great success at getting those GAI cards into SGC holders at equal grades. One card, a T206 dark cap Matty PSA 5 to GAI 5, would not cross to an SGC 60 due to a small very hard to see surface wrinkle. SGC was harder on surface wrinkles than Baker.

I also got caught up in the GAI hype approximately 12-13 years ago but stopped within a month or two. I ended up with 15-20 key cards from my sets in these holders. Over time I have upgraded/replaced about half of these GAI cards and subsequently sold them off. Surprisingly, some of them sold for as much as similar conditioned BGS cards. IMO, this was because the GAI flips I had were some of their very early flips.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Say what you will about PSA, they have withstood some potentially significant competitive threats like their president and head grader defecting, and never really been hurt.