Who Buys These Things???

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

At one time, we were able to save these schmucks from themselves... To increase profits, ebaY killed the end run.

Now that's a funny flip!! I have always thought they should put FAKE!! on the flip of these. I wonder if there is some legal liability in doing so? This isn't the first, second or third time this has happened or been discussed. Has anyone asked PSA to change their wording, I wonder?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Leon

Now that's a funny flip!! I have always thought they should put FAKE!! on the flip of these. I wonder if there is some legal liability in doing so? This isn't the first, second or third time this has happened or been discussed. Has anyone asked PSA to change their wording, I wonder?

I was always under the impression, that they were just legally covering their a$$e$ by using that terminology. Because, if that isn't the case, then I'd say their choice of wording is just plain negligent...

[steve B]

Stamp certificates will state things like that with no problems. such as-

"US # 163P4 fraudlently perforated to appear as #163 it is genuine"

I actually own that exact item, but have not sent it in for a certificate. If I did, that's pretty much exactly what the cert would say. They also list faults like short perforations, minor creases etc. The stamp IS a genuine 163P4, and is collectable as a proof.

163P4 is a plate proof on india paper, Catalog value $20 #163 is the issued stamp catalog value $2750.

Outright forgeries are identified as such on the certs too.
Only on rare cases do you see a cert stating something like "we render no opinion at this time" Meaning 3 or more experts in that specialty have all seen it and either can't agree or aren't certain as to just what the item is.
(And those items can be VERY exciting. A bit of research to prove what it is can turn a bit of junk into a lot of money) ....Someday, someday.....

Steve B

Originally Posted by Leon

Now that's a funny flip!! I have always thought they should put FAKE!! on the flip of these. I wonder if there is some legal liability in doing so? This isn't the first, second or third time this has happened or been discussed. Has anyone asked PSA to change their wording, I wonder?

[glchen]

Exactly. To win a SNAD case, you have to be laser focused on "Item is not as described." I purchased a 1920 Heading Home Babe Ruth that was not holdered and the seller had pictured a PSA flip that said "Authentic / Altered" which is very similar to the "Questionable Authenticity" flip in the ebay auction from the OP. So I purchased the card figuring the seller just didn't put "Please holder Authentic cards" on the submission form. So I sent the card to PSA figuring they'd encapsulate the card with Authentic/Altered. The card came back "Questionable Authenticity." I looked on this forum, and saw that the card was 100% reprint. I emailed PSA and basically asked them if they ever graded a card authentic one time, but didn't holder it, and then later on, gave questionable authenticity, and explained this case before. Of course, PSA said, no, we never do that. The seller must have switched the card with the flip. Internally, I figured PSA screwed up because basically if they don't holder the card, they can put anything they dang well please on the flip on why the card wasn't holdered. So, I messaged the seller asking for a return. Of course, it was refused. I accused them on switching the card like PSA said. They said they didn't do it. I filed a SNAD case, and just completely stuck to the story that the seller switched cards with the flip pictured, and won the case.