Who's the real hobby villian -- Joe Orlando OR Dave Forman ?

[WarHoundR69]

A bit vague on this, but about a year or so ago, Dave Forman got sued because he refused to return a GAI9 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card to the person who submitted it for crossover.

Not sure about the details but I know it happened. I'm sure the cyber experts out there can dig up all the details.

[WarHoundR69]

Just wondering - What exactly did Joe Orlando do that was so wrong?

[Wite3]

Mr. Mint!

[Anthony S.]

Ever read the book, "The Card?"

[WarHoundR69]

Dave Hall was involved in that - long before Joe Orlando's time.

Plus Bill Mastro former owner of an auction house who somehow can not pay their consigners on a timely basis.

[WarHoundR69]

All I've seen is allegations of what PSA did when it first started.

Current events at SGC are much more disturbing IMHO.

Actually the events described in the book "THE CARD" are a bigger indictment against Bill Mastro & whatever the current shenaginains of the newest Auction House incarnation of those not quite ethical principals then PSA.

No new allegations against PSA

So in the beginning PSA graded one card wrong (MAYBE).

I would rather see that then what Dave Forman is doing.

So what exactly has Joe Orlando done wrong?

[Jewish-collector]

Joe Orlando organizes a nice luncheon at the National. Perhaps they could have some different selection of vegetables, but other than that nothing wrong

[ScottFandango]

lets not turn this into a PSA thing..for once they are not involved....

this is a SGC thing and more answers would be nice...

[danmckee]

Warhoundr69, you may want to read the PSA Nodgrass thread on the old board. That will explain some odd ties between Joe Orlando and the old Mastro House. Dan.

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by WarHoundR69

A bit vague on this, but about a year or so ago, Dave Forman got sued because he refused to return a GAI9 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card to the person who submitted it for crossover.

Not sure about the details but I know it happened. I'm sure the cyber experts out there can dig up all the details.

Try not to throw mud if you don't know the details.

I forget all the fine points of the suit, but part of the issue was the the card was owned by one of the higher ups at PSA or GAI I believe and they wanted it crossed. SGC said it would not cross. I forget why it get even messier but I do recall the SGC had every right to hold the card IMO as the owner was being a complete ass and wanted a bump SGC didn't feel the card deserved. If anything this would just go to show how honest SGC is.

This was in one of the NY papers probably post of newsday.

As far as what PSA has down wrong, well the complete and total messing up of labeling cards correctly, total lack of customer support and the fact that the card they based thier whole business on is a trimmed card would be starters.

I am sure in the long run we will get more details on Dave.

As for many of the other comments regarding SGC policies they were answered in the other thread.
No employee of SGC can have cards graded and this was something they started roughly a year or two ago. The comments are further detailed in the previous thread so go read through the 5 pages.

James G

[Peter_Spaeth]

James you say don't throw mud and then proceed to throw it at PSA. At least you have now revealed your anti-PSA bias.

I don't understand your take on the Haas lawsuit. He wanted it bumped and was being an ass about it and therefore SGC had the right to keep the card? Could you explain? Thanks.

[tbob]

James- are you somehow defending Forman for keeping the Mantle card because the owner was demanding a bump and SGC didn't feel it deserved one? Why not just say "no" and send the card back?

[drc]

In my opinion, neither is a 'real hobby villain,' only in part because no one is required to use either of their company's services. I'm not aware that either company is overall deficient in their services anyway.

I think Mastro made a poor decision concerning giving credit and in particular concerning shipping before payment, and it's reasonable to have questions about SGC's owner for investing and using SGC for his own grading (If the latter is the case, as I don't know if that's the case. There's a difference between the owner buying cards already graded and submitting cards to be graded.). As far as the $400,000 dispute, I don't know the details of the case so it's premature to comment on that. I just don't see the tag 'real hobby villain' being tagged to anyone with the info that I know. I understand the consignors who haven't been paid and see their items being sold elsewhere are none too happy, and I would be too. If it were my $$ and items in limbo, I'm sure I would be less charitable than I am in this post.

[mybuddyinc]

"Bases on balls, you idiot, bases an balls is the cause of all of this." -- Geo. Stallings

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Try not to throw mud if you don't know the details.

I forget all the fine points of the suit, but part of the issue was the the card was owned by one of the higher ups at PSA or GAI I believe and they wanted it crossed. SGC said it would not cross. I forget why it get even messier but I do recall the SGC had every right to hold the card IMO as the owner was being a complete ass and wanted a bump SGC didn't feel the card deserved. If anything this would just go to show how honest SGC is.

Can anybody really take this guy seriously?

[Rob D.]

Mud-throwing aside, thanks for providing my laugh for the day. After starting off with "Try not to throw mud if you don't know the details," we get (in order):

• "I forget all the fine points of the suit ..."
  
• "I believe and they wanted it crossed ..."
  
• "I forget why it get even messier ..."
  
• "but I do recall ... "
  
• "This was in one of the NY papers probably post of newsday."

Upon further review, maybe those nasty details aren't so important after all.

[mightyq]

i agree with jamie, send them your 52 mantle get in the same situation then come on here and say how happy you are!! i think not, james your apologist stance is distorting any rational thinking....they had the right to keep the card???? that is funny! like i said send them your $100,000 mantle and when they dont return and refuse to, come back here and tell us how excited and happy you are..then and only then i will buy your jive.

comparing mis-labels and and lack of customer support to this is another joke.

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by mightyq

i agree with jamie, send them your 52 mantle get in the same situation then come on here and say how happy you are!! i think not, james your apologist stance is distorting any rational thinking....they had the right to keep the card???? that is funny! like i said send them your $100,000 mantle and when they dont return and refuse to, come back here and tell us how excited and happy you are..then and only then i will buy your jive.

comparing mis-labels and and lack of customer support to this is another joke.

Marty

Read the above post and the NY Post article. SGC wanted an release before they gave up the card which I don't think is unreasonable based on the details provided in the article.

The original posted asked what PSA has done and I just provided some details as to the problems they have had over the years and that there whole company is based on an altered Wagner that they still use as a cornerstone piece. I was not saying they were comparable.

oh and FYI I have plenty of PSA graded cards in my collection. I prefer SGC but I do use PSA and have plenty of PSA stuff.

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

James you say don't throw mud and then proceed to throw it at PSA. At least you have now revealed your anti-PSA bias.

I don't understand your take on the Haas lawsuit. He wanted it bumped and was being an ass about it and therefore SGC had the right to keep the card? Could you explain? Thanks.

Peter my reply was speciftic to WarHoundR69 who just said Dave held a card.

There was more involved and I didn't have time to look for the article.

Here it is

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02102008...ace_153368.htm

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Mud-throwing aside, thanks for providing my laugh for the day. After starting off with "Try not to throw mud if you don't know the details," we get (in order):

• "I forget all the fine points of the suit ..."
  
• "I believe and they wanted it crossed ..."
  
• "but I do recall ... "
  
• "This was in one of the NY papers probably post of newsday."

Upon further review, maybe those nasty details aren't so important after all.

Again see above.

There did want it crossed, and the owner was a part owner in GAI, oh and it WAS in the NEW YORK POST.

So I guess all my details were not so far off and that there was basis for Forman to hold the card as he wanted a release signed so that there could be no suit again SGC.

My points were pretty damn on and for those who laughed read the article.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02102008...ace_153368.htm

James G

[Rob D.]

I know I'm blushing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So someone should waive any claim a card was damaged as a condition of return of a submission? I see.

[slidekellyslide]

I remember that article now and really all it does is bring up more questions about SGC and Dave Forman. Why would a guy who owns a grading company send a card to SGC asking for it to be "fixed" so it will grade a 10? I hate to go all "Frank" on the forum, but IMO the grading companies all suck.