![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
it's good to read that lotg once again acted responsibly in response to selling a bad card. last week we read that rea was preemptively issuing refunds. has anyone had experience with hunt and clean sweep as far as being made whole?
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I recently saved a random recently signed 52 Topps card just to see if I could find it unsigned somewhere prior but when I went into Worthpoint, there were 23 pgs of this players card so I went no further as I viewed it as a daunting task and without having any dog in the fight myself, a huge time killer. I have also wondered, since joining this site, even if a signed card was purchased 20, 30, 40 years ago, how does one know, without provenance, if that signature is real? I have also always wondered, if the player had passed on prior to those years, what do TPAs use as their basis for comparison? In my opinion, if the TPA's don't have/own something that acts as a certified template with undeniable provenance, then how can they 100% guarantee the sig is legit? I think the only way of going forward from now on, and only if the test can be 100% guaranteed, carbon dating or something similar will now have to be used in order to bring some trust back into the hobby? Just my thoughts anyway. EDIT: To add further to my thoughts above. Being as thousands and thousands of players have played, say, in just over the last century in all kinds of sports such as baseball, hockey, football and basketball, to name just 4, and you're out at a flea market, for example, and you come across a common, unheard of, forgotten about player's signed card. You purchase said signed card and you send it in to be authenticated. Please tell me what TPAs would use to authenticate the sig is 100% legit? Thinking further, even if we had carbon dating and it was proved the ink was of at least as old as the card, who's to say the sig wasn't signed back then by some kid or adult that was just goofing around playing with their card? I agree 100%! Without pain there can be no gain, and if this situation isn't torn down to the very bottom, then there will always be doubt within the hobby and that side of the hobby, imo, will be forever scarred.
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 Last edited by irv; 12-07-2018 at 08:48 AM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As I posted earlier, if you are only comfortable with 100% certainty, you should not collect ANYTHING. There is fraud in every single collectible market.
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress). https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy Other interests/sets/collectibles. https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums My for sale or trade photobucket album https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
"EDIT: To add further to my thoughts above. Being as thousands and thousands of players have played, say, in just over the last century in all kinds of sports such as baseball, hockey, football and basketball, to name just 4, and you're out at a flea market, for example, and you come across a common, unheard of, forgotten about player's signed card. You purchase said signed card and you send it in to be authenticated. Please tell me what TPAs would use to authenticate the sig is 100% legit? Thinking further, even if we had carbon dating and it was proved the ink was of at least as old as the card, who's to say the sig wasn't signed back then by some kid or adult that was just goofing around playing with their card?" I understand what you are saying but I honestly didn't realize there was so much blind faith/hope in the hobby, especially when large amounts of money are being laid down for said cards. But like me and my sole purchase of a signed 52 Topps card, seeing it in a certified slab was enough for me. This whole thread/situation has definitely been an eye opener for me even though I don't collect signed cards. Like I have said numerous times since I joined this site back in 2016, I had no idea, gave it no thought whatsoever, that fraud would be so prevalent in this hobby or that it even existed. Oh, how I have quickly learned! ![]()
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Oh the irony of this SGC article.
__________________
http://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/schneids |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
When I used to set up at shows with (my friend) Kevin Keating, the well-known TPAs would frequently bring items over to solicit his opinion of them, and conversely on occasion he would want to know what they thought about pieces. If memory serves correctly, when the autograph side of PSA was first organized 20 years ago, it was a team effort whereby a number of their authenticators would "vote" on submissions to determine whether they got a pass or not. The fact that different authenticators might have different opinions about some autographs shouldn't be surprising to anyone. And it seems to me the fact that the current team at PSA would have the honesty and institutional freedom to reverse a prior authentication of their company should be applauded. What more could you ask of them? As for such divergent opnions on resubmitted items calling into question all opinions rendered by the prior authenticators, anyone is free to resubmit items they think might get a different opinion today.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A TPG renders an opinion. I don't think you can fault someone for their opinion on a given day when they assessed the authenticity of an item. It's the hobby that tries to twist TPG opinions into fact. I don't think the companies owe anyone anything if something they authenticated is later determined to be forged. It's the seller and AH that need to make things right. The TPG didn't benefit from the sale and they gave the submitter exactly what they paid for: an opinion.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
What having a TPA did was make cards and autos commodities that required no expertise to buy and sell. In the old days, G-VG-Ex-ExMt-Mt could mean widely different things to people. Having a TPA was supposed to make all cards graded a 5 be in roughly the same condition. The likelihood is that card commerce on the internet has been greatly helped by the fact that people don't feel the need to inspect cards as closely before sale when they are slabbed as X grade. We know this does not always work and that is why so many people keep repeating the saying "buy the card, not the holder." IMO, If all anyone ever looks at, is the slab or cert, it increases the likelihood they can be fooled based on that slab or cert. If you use the TPA opinion as one of MULTIPLE pieces of evidence, this would then have the possibility of increasing your safety margin. More data = opportunity to make a better decision. Now, we still might make an incorrect evaluation, but having more data points allows for higher probability of getting it right.
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress). https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy Other interests/sets/collectibles. https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums My for sale or trade photobucket album https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I will agree regretably that it seems like far too many collectors today do trust TPG's like PSA almost as the word of God. It's only when something really obvious like this comes out which is immediately controversial that some actually stop and think about the nature of a grade being an "opinion" and nothing beyond that. I will also agree that for me personally, reputable TPG's are useful services for buying cards online / that I cannot physically inspect in my hands as if I were in a shop or at a show first. But beyond that - say what you will about collecting a few decades back. Even as kids - we were taught how to grade, what the subtle differences in condition were - why X card was NM and Y card was only EX...etc. etc. Now who today is really more of an expert - the graders at PSA who we cannot seem to get any information on in terms of their qualifications? Or hobbyists who have collected for decades on end and in some cases have literally had their hands on hundreds of thousands of cards? I digress a bit as I don't collect autos and I'm sure there is another whole realm of TPA controversy over the evolution of the practice there...
__________________
Postwar stars & HOF'ers. Currently working on 1956, '63 and '72 Topps complete sets. Last edited by jchcollins; 12-07-2018 at 01:59 PM. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
TPAs are useful independent opinions (It's wrong to say they're useless), but they are only one piece in the puzzle. Sellers and collectors should be using them as second opinions, not as the only opinions. I think most people on Net54 know and do this, but clearly not everyone in and all segments of the hobby do. Last edited by drcy; 12-07-2018 at 04:15 PM. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
T206 Fred Parent Backrun Complete With a Couple Extra's | insccollectibles | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 02-21-2016 03:56 PM |
WTB Fred Parent | ins02 | T206 cards B/S/T | 5 | 10-17-2014 10:42 AM |
FS: Fred Parent T206 SGC 30 SOLD | AndyG09 | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 1 | 06-28-2011 12:12 PM |
T206 Hindu Fred Parent | usernamealreadytaken | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 06-24-2010 11:45 AM |
For Sale: Beautiful T206 Fred Parent SGC 50....SOLD.. | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 03-05-2007 04:37 AM |