Industry participants' response to scandal so far -- report card

[JohnP0621]

Originally Posted by Frank A

For what reason? Or are you just pissed because they are clean.

Didn't they Authenticate a whole bunch of fake autos on T206 .
Not so clean.

JohnP

[Frank A]

Originally Posted by JohnP0621

Didn't they Authenticate a whole bunch of fake autos on T206 .
Not so clean.

JohnP

But when they found out, they stopped authenticating auto's. Do you thin PSA will stop authenticating Cards?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Frank A

But when they found out, they stopped authenticating auto's. Do you thin PSA will stop authenticating Cards?

We can only hope.

[BLongley]

Originally Posted by Frank A

But when they found out, they stopped authenticating auto's. Do you thin PSA will stop authenticating Cards?

SGC also bumped some of Gary’s biggest profits with the 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson’s... they definitely have a lower quantity discovered thus far, but they aren’t really any better.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by BLongley

SGC also bumped some of Gary’s biggest profits with the 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson’s... they definitely have a lower quantity discovered thus far, but they aren’t really any better.

I mean, they can't be exactly equally bad, but it's not definitive from the absolute numbers of grading errors revealed to date that PSAs batting average with the doctored cards is worse than SGCs. I would guess it is, but it wouldn't surprise me either way. Certainly PSA has had vastly more plate appearances. That could be because Moser/Brent knew the cards had a better chance of getting through there, but PSA would also give them a better ROI even if they figured the cards had the same chance of getting through with SGC as with PSA.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by BLongley

SGC also bumped some of Gary’s biggest profits with the 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson’s... they definitely have a lower quantity discovered thus far, but they aren’t really any better.

65k bump on a 1914 Joe Jackson just posted as well

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

65k bump on a 1914 Joe Jackson just posted as well

Given the price disparity in the holders, I am wondering if they go to SGC only for cards PSA has actually caught and rejected?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Given the price disparity in the holders, I am wondering if they go to SGC only for cards PSA has actually caught and rejected?

I have to think so. But then again, they bought cards from their OWN auctions, altered them, and resold through their OWN auctions. Guess they thought people wouldn't catch on

[661fish]

So should we ALL go back to the old days when we graded our own cards?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I have to think so. But then again, they bought cards from their OWN auctions, altered them, and resold through their OWN auctions. Guess they thought people wouldn't catch on

People like this sometimes have a misplaced sense of their own invulnerability.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I have to think so. But then again, they bought cards from their OWN auctions, altered them, and resold through their OWN auctions. Guess they thought people wouldn't catch on

and no lawsuits..... because evidently everyone is waiting for the PSA review process or are being paid off and happy

Also nobody submits to PSA anymore or will wait in line due to all of these major problems..

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Frank A

But when they found out, they stopped authenticating auto's. Do you thin PSA will stop authenticating Cards?

no, but they are so bad at it or corrupt that they should. Very piss poor company.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by JohnP0621

Didn't they Authenticate a whole bunch of fake autos on T206 .
Not so clean.

JohnP

Not fair to include the autograph authentication with the card grading (SGC).

Do we include PSA/DNA with PSA's incompetence?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Not fair to include the autograph authentication with the card grading (SGC).

Do we include PSA/DNA with PSA's incompetence?

If we are paying for a service that isn't being accurately provided why wouldn't we hold them accountable? If PSA, SGC, or anyone else can't tell the difference between a real or forged signature that's just as bad as being unable to distinguish between an altered or unaltered card.

[Frank A]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

If we are paying for a service that isn't being accurately provided why wouldn't we hold them accountable? If PSA, SGC, or anyone else can't tell the difference between a real or forged signature that's just as bad as being unable to distinguish between an altered or unaltered card.

First of all I find all autograph authenticators worthless. Many years ago I sent in some auto's to what was supposed to be the top authenticator. They came back as fake. Yet when I sent these same auto's to an auction house the same guys authenticated them as good. They are a total joke.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Frank A

First of all I find all autograph authenticators worthless. Many years ago I sent in some auto's to what was supposed to be the top authenticator. They came back as fake. Yet when I sent these same auto's to an auction house the same guys authenticated them as good. They are a total joke.

+1

[jhs5120]

Unless there are reports that PSA and PWCC haven’t been refunding clients, I don’t believe F and D respectively is appropriate. I could be wrong though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Unless there are reports that PSA and PWCC haven’t been refunding clients, I don’t believe F and D respectively is appropriate. I could be wrong though.

Sloan specifically said contact the seller, not us. Why should I assume PSA is refunding people? The burden is on them not us at this point. Has anyone indicated PSA refunded them? Has PSA accepted responsibility for ANYTHING? Please.

And how many people have said PWCC refunded them? One guy maybe, or two? Again, with all the nonsense they've pulled off for years, the burden is on them to show their good faith in my eyes. And it wouldn't even be good faith, really, more like desperation.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Frank A

First of all I find all autograph authenticators worthless. Many years ago I sent in some auto's to what was supposed to be the top authenticator. They came back as fake. Yet when I sent these same auto's to an auction house the same guys authenticated them as good. They are a total joke.

My favorite story is the one I read of a guy who got an auto at a card show, walked over to an authenticator to get it slabbed, and was told it was fake.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

My favorite story is the one I read of a guy who got an auto at a card show, walked over to an authenticator to get it slabbed, and was told it was fake.

Funny but on a serious note on the flip side of the altered card stuff there are lots of those sorts of errors in grading as well, that is, perfectly fine cards that get rejected. The consequences are not as serious, but it can be bad news for people trying to earn money selling cards.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Funny but on a serious note on the flip side of the altered card stuff there are lots of those sorts of errors in grading as well, that is, perfectly fine cards that get rejected. The consequences are not as serious, but it can be bad news for people trying to earn money selling cards.

True. I've had PSA reject a card I had just pulled from a cello pack.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

If we are paying for a service that isn't being accurately provided why wouldn't we hold them accountable? If PSA, SGC, or anyone else can't tell the difference between a real or forged signature that's just as bad as being unable to distinguish between an altered or unaltered card.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held accountable. Of course they should. I'm saying they're two separate issues. We're talking card doctoring, not autograph authentication.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held accountable. Of course they should. I'm saying they're two separate issues. We're talking card doctoring, not autograph authentication.

I don't really think we disagree, although I do think it's fair to include incompetence in one area with another. Both issues are relevant and important.