Questions for Doug Allen

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Doug,

I think I am running out of questions but one mor--why don't you use GAI and how would you compare GAI with SGC and PSA.

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

It absolutely boggles my mind some of the critisism Doug has received. What other person of his stature has ever publicly noted their acceptable policies on this board? Or shared a letter they planned to send to the two biggest players in the grading industry to confirm acceptable practices?

Several people have discussed a code of conduct or practices. One way to accelerate rate this process would be to boycott non-Mastro auctions, until their representatives post with the same sort of frankness in this thread as Doug has.

The call out list of mute bystanders in no particular order:

Rob Lifson
Lew Lipset
Joshua Leland Evans
David Kohler
Brian Drent
David Hunt
Bill Goodwin
Andy Madec
Chris Ivy
Bill Huggins
Memory Lane Staff Member

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I spoke with Dave Foreman (sp?) briefly today. He assured me that what we are arguing over is an issue but, in his words, "not even the tip of the iceberg". Trimming cards is far and away a more serious problem, according to him. Shaving millimeters and stretching etc....those are the real big issues. I think he also nailed it on the head as far as this wrinkle/crease situaion goes. His guarantee is fully standing for all cards in SGC slabs (for the time he has owned the company....don't want to comment on before he owned it). IF you buy an SGC88 card and then a wrinkle "reappears" then he will make it right. Whether that's buying it back or paying a difference or whatever. Unfortunately I am not sure of PSA or GAI's policy. So bottom line is that if you have a highly graded card in an SGC holder you are protected from what we are discussing. He is at a show today or we would have spoken longer....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

MikeU,

That is a terrific idea--I am continuing the process.I would be in favor of boycotting those that do not respond.

Leon,

More info from Dave on trimming and how difficult it is to detect would be extremely helpful. Perhaps he would agree to even come on this board.

I would also like to say that those of you who thought Leon would be reluctant to have comments on here that are at all critical of advertisers are being proven incorrect.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

Some thoughts:

Jim, thanks for starting this provocative thread.

Doug, thanks for your numerous responses and candor.

Saying that crease removal is infrequent offers me no comfort. In auctions with over a thousand cards, "infrequent" can mean dozens of cards and those posters who take solace that the practice is "rare" are only fooling themselves. I agree that Mastronet cannot provide this information on every card in their auction, but why do I not see a general statement in their auction introduction admitting that these practices are going on?

I look forward to any PSA or SGC response to Doug's letter. I cannot imagine they would ever condone crease removal. If they did, they would be invalidating their own standards, in effect saying: if you do it well and we don't catch it, then it's OK.

I have been a strong Mastronet customer over the years and I am very disappointed in the facts that have been presented here. I am asking myself whether I want to continue collecting and so far I am leaning towards a "no" answer.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I congratulate Doug for coming on here and being forthcoming. And like Corey said, while we may not all agree with his practices at least he had the balls to come on here and serve them up. I expect REA and the rest of the bunch to provide their positions on these issues as well. As for the shock that anyone would criticize Mastro or Doug, get real. This is America and this is a zillion dollar business. Tell me another business that does not provide transparency in the way they do things and I'll find you a company that will soon be out on its ass. Why should the large auction houses be any different? The lack of transparency in auction house practices - or any other business - has resulted in people going to prison (if you don't believe me ask Alfred Taubman).

Finally, disclosure is the only antidote to our concerns. Let Mastro do whatever they want to the cards they sell - as long as they disclose it. I'd like to see that day come but I strongly doubt it ever will.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Frank,

I would urge you to see this process through before making that decision. It is very discouraging however.

Mastro's current auction seems to me to be their biggest and best card auction ever. I wonder if part of this is long-time card collectors becoming disgusted with all the card altering and restoration and saying I should get out now while the getting is good.

Doug, I don't expect you to release the names of your sellers, although we can tell some of them from their position on the PSA Registry, but do you see a step up in long term collectors getting out of the hobby because of what is going on with trimming/alterating/restoration?

Jim Crandell

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jim, if you're getting any ideas let me know and I'll send a truck over to your house....

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Leon wrote: "Trimming cards is far and away a more serious problem, according to him. Shaving millimeters and stretching etc....those are the real big issues."

Leon, a question for you, did Dave say anything about how easy or difficult this is to detect? That for me is the interesting question, whether the grading services have the resources, know how, and time to detect this type of trimming. I infer if he says it is a serious issue that it must be difficult to detect, but don't want to jump to conclusions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Loewke

Barry Sloate response from November 24 2006, 10:10 AM

Jay- I have no problem disclosing this in future auction catalogs, but a question I throw out to the board is does anybody care? Would anyone place less of a bid on an item because I owned it vs. a consignor? I am curious how people feel, so I invite all to respond.

I am surprised that nobody else has a problem with this statement. I have bid, and fairly high also, on his material before, without knowing about this "practice". This should have been disclosed before the auction. I do not have any proof that he raised bids on his own items, be it to maximize profit or minimize loss on investment. But the absence of proof does not mean it did not happen. Regardless, this strikes me as a serious conflict of interest. There are no checks or balances in place to keep everything above board; how can we as bidders, be certain there is no "home shill bidding". If we are going to ask tough questions of Mastro and others, a regular poster like Barry should not be above reproach. Knowing this, I will think twice before bidding to win in his auctions.

For the record, I want to repeat, that I have absolutely no proof of any improprieties by Mr. Sloate. Just a fair amount of discomfort.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Obviously Barry did not disclose before because it is not the prevailing practice and noone ever suggested he should. The minute someone asked he was completely forthcoming. Any criticism of him is completely unjustified.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Loewke

It is very easy to see that it is a conflict of interest. Just because no one else inquired about it or the old cliche "everybody does it", doesn't make it right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

I would like to commend Doug on his decision to come here and post. I know that he is saying some things that many who read this board find unpalatable, at a minimum. And at this point, it should not come as a surprise to anyone here that most dealers not only endorse what Doug has described above as methods of maximizing grades, but also practice the procedures whenever possible.

These processes are not just restricted to 7’s, 8’s and 9’s, by the way—far from it. 5% of the dealers/sellers will admit to it and the other virtually 90% will lie about it. Face it, if you are buying cards from a source other than the original owner, you are buying cards which have likely undergone some form of prep before being submitted for grading and sold to the public. That which Doug has described is actually fairly mild from what I know to be performed on cards to improve their appearance.

The PSA Guidelines for the Altered Stock (posted by Peter Spaeth) is the same wording that appeared in the SMR over 10 years ago. Much has changed in the processes used and the results there of, with removing creases and wrinkles. When graders can DETECT (a very important qualification) a crease was attempted to be removed, the card will be rejected, hence the crease will not have been removed or it will have been removed leaving some type of collateral damage. If done properly, it is going to get past the graders. And in almost all cases, even if done improperly, the odds of a crease coming back are slim to none.

The process of grading a card is normally very brief. No grader is going to reject a card for something they can no longer see even if they are specifically told (not realistic) that a crease was removed. If the crease is truly removed, by virtue of the process, you have left no evidence and the card is going to grade as it appears. Unless you are sending in a card that is worth thousands of dollars and assuming the graders know the value of the card they are grading, how involved can you expect a grader to get with a card they are being paid $10 or $15 to grade?

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

If anything, there is just as much or more incentive to "run up" consignments to show people your auction has clout and to get them to consign to you in the future -- not to mention the buyer's premium directly benefits the seller too. Your post is truly much ado about nothing, and to criticize someone who gave the information the minute it was suggested anyone cared is really unfair.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Loewke

I made valid points without hystrionics or childish diatribes. As opinions go, they were fair statements backed up by reasons.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Greg,

I have heard you say things to this effect before.

I know you know a lot more and could be much more helpful in describing what is being done to cards should you choose to do so.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

To Jim Loewke- I have never been one to dodge direct questions and since you were an active bidder, I am happy to address your concerns in the best way I can. If anybody on the board doesn't like how I respond, feel free to speak your peace. First, I do know that there is a concern about auction houses putting their own material in with consignors. Here are a few thoughts: I'm not asking anyone to pass around the hat, but for a small time dealer like myself it is almost impossible to get consignments on a regular basis. I have made a business decision to buy whatever inventory I can, and when the opportunity arises that a couple of major consignments come my way, I can make sure I have enough material to put together at least a presentable sale. After all, the 84 lot auction I just conducted barely qualifies as an auction; it is small enough as it is. I have to compete with every multimillion dollar auction house out there, and to be perfectly frank, I don't know how much longer I will be doing this. I am kind of hanging on the edge of a cliff, and I suppose ebay will be the only way for me to go since I can sell one lot at a time without issue. If I didn't add my own material to round out an auction, I don't think I could put one together anymore.
That said, since I do buy material during the year, how do people feel I should sell it? Should I be giving it to another auction house and pay them a commission while I am struggling to get a presentable auction together myself?
Also, 90% of the items on ebay are probably owned by the seller. If one assumes that sellers are running up their own items, then why participate on ebay?
Finally, if I really were a scoundrel, couldn't I run up consignor's lots too? I will tell you there were several lots in my recent auction that underperformed and were at levels that I as a dealer gladly would have paid. Guess what- some conscientious bidders got some real good deals because they were paying attention.
If I left anything out, or if you disagree with anything I said, please feel free to keep those questions coming.

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

I still do not understand what the big deal is about taking out a light wrinkle. To me it is no different than taking off a wax stain or erasing a light pencil mark. After all, if something that was not on the card when it was manufactured is removed, and there is NO way to tell, then there is nothing that we can do about it. I have witnessed several times at shows dealers speaking out loud saying that this "5" will grade an "8" as soon as the light wrinkle is taken out. It is as if they are looking at the card as if the wrinkle does not even exist.

BUT, the thing that we should be more concerned with is not that Mastros is taking our a light wrinkle, but what about all of the cards that are consigned to ALL of the auction houses. From what dealers tell me, taking out a light wrinkle is extremely minor compared with what elso goes on out there by other dealers who actually own the cards.

Are any of the auction houses or dealers that condemn taking out a wrinkle going to guarantee that none of the graded cards in their auctions have not had the same thing done to them?

What about all of the cards that are already encapsulated that are being consigned to all of the auciton houses out there. I would bet that a light wrinkle removal is the least of the problems.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Harry- if a graded card were consigned to me and it had a crease removed at an earlier date and the work was undetectable and the consignor either didn't know or chose not to disclose it, how would I or any other auction house know?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Oh how I hate the new age thrust upon me by the generation of my children. The age of taking offense, particularly where none was intended.

Smack dab in the middle of this age, I run into something so offensive, that I almost feel offended by it - eventhough it has nothing to do with me:

"I do not have any proof that he raised bids on his own items, be it to maximize profit or minimize loss on investment. But the absence of proof does not mean it did not happen. Regardless, this strikes me as a serious conflict of interest. There are no checks or balances in place to keep everything above board; how can we as bidders, be certain there is no "home shill bidding".

Dear author of this, I ask you what proof do you have that Barry Sloate is not an extraterrestial? Do you find his planetary origin suspect simply because it is unproven (and until now unchallenged)?

Your convoluted thinking is astounding to me. We have come to know Barry through his posts and other sources during the past few years. To even infer that this man could be guilty of an act of impropriety in his auction, is a testament to your lack of skills in the assessment of individuals, personalities and related subjects.

Barry, please forgive them. For they are at a loss.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Gil- I appreciate the support but I do not feel I am above answering the same questions any other full time dealer would have to face and I do not take offense at Jim's inquiry. The fact that I post regularly does not offer me any special privileges. I'll take the heat like anyone else. But thanks again.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

I heartily second Gilbert's comments. How did Barry get involved in this? Let's get back on track here.

A question: Nowhere in the Mastro Auction Catalog do I see any statement advising bidders that certain items in the auction have been subject to crease and stain removal. How come?

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

"IF you buy an SGC88 card and then a wrinkle "reappears" then he will make it right. Whether that's buying it back or paying a difference or whatever. Unfortunately I am not sure of PSA or GAI's policy. So bottom line is that if you have a highly graded card in an SGC holder you are protected from what we are discussing."

Who was the person a few days back that bought a PSA card that was overgraded and wanted to crucify the dealer? When the buyer called PSA to discuss, they said that since he was not the submitter he was out of luck.

Whoever that guy was/is, take a look at the above statement from the majority owner of SGC!

Sorry about going OT a little bit. Wait it is not OT. A big part, if not a huge part, of this is the burden on 3rd party graders to stand by their product.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

One must only disclose material facts. According to Doug, that isn't material. QED.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The issue is not one of the "young-uns" going astray, it is a much older and more established concept called avoiding the appearance of impropriety. We trust the auctioneer not to shill bid us. Just like a judge, an auctioneer has to avoid the appearance that things are not above-board. The problem with in-house consignments is very straightforward and was well articulated in the post: If an auctioneer is selling its own stuff and is running the auction there is no way to verify that shilling is not taking place. Even if the auction is conducted 100% on the level, the potential for improper acts is there and will deter some people from participating. Don't you feel better knowing that an auctioneer prohibits consignors from bidding on their own items? I know I do. This is the same concept.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Adam- what is preventing any auctioneer from shilling in any context, when you really get down to it? I run a small auction out of my apartment- couldn't the entire auction be nothing but a shill, if that were my intent? If an auction house prevented a consignor from bidding, couldn't he just ask a friend to bid for him? Couldn't people sitting in the audience of a live auction be shilling for a consignor. There is no auction system ever devised that can prevent shilling. So what is the answer?

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

"Harry- if a graded card were consigned to me and it had a crease removed at an earlier date and the work was undetectable and the consignor either didn't know or chose not to disclose it, how would I or any other auction house know?"

If something is being done to a card (removing a wax stain, a light pencil mark or a light crease) an no one can tell, then what are we to do?

I have two hypothetical questions for the dealers out there.

If a card was consigned to you and you were told that a light crease has been taken out, but there is absolutely no evidence of it, what would you do?

What are your thoughts on removing a pencil mark on the back of a card. Again, if it is done and no one can tell. If you had an Old Judge Anson in near mint to mint condition and it had a pencil mark on the back. In order to get the most money for it, it would have to be graded. Would you remove the pencil mark first and get it graded or leave it on.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

As far as removing the pencil mark, I have done that myself and I think we are in general agreement that that is not altering a card. I believe even the grading services would accept that. As far as a consignor telling me that a crease was ironed out but it is no longer detectable, that's a trickier one as I have never confronted it. I think I would explain to the consignor that if he prefers I mention it, he will get significantly less for it. If he agreed, then I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by revealing that information. I suppose if he didn't want it known, he wouldn't volunteer it to me. If that's a long answer, the short one is yes, I would disclose it. But it's never happened before.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Loewke

Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong suit Gilbert. You can't learn something if you refuse to acknowledge the concept. If anything, your tortured argument about aliens only makes your postition look even more silly. I have read on this board many opinions ripping auction houses, about letting consignors bid on their own material. Well, when the auction house is the consignor, the same scepticism should exist and be rationally discussed. Apparently you and Peter did not get the memo about civil discourse. It is easy and phony to call out the big targets, monstrous cash cows like Mastro, but the rules should be applied the same when it is a small time auctioneer and/or friend like Sloate.

To your credit Barry, you have chosen to argue your point in a mature manner by providing, well thought out counterpoints; unlike the childish and baseless arguments submitted by others. I also presented arguments and opinions with reasons to back them up; it is a shame you were the only one who could do the same.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

I guess I just don't get some of this. If I'm selling a car, I must disclose any known defects but I'm sure going to wash and wax the car and make it as presentable as possible. Why wouldn't somebody do the same to make a card look better? Similarly, if I own a card that could be made more aesthetically pleasing for my own sake, why wouldn't I clean up any dirt, glue or minor wrinkles? As I've always said, collect for content not quality and you'll be much more satisfied.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Cleaning your car and rolling back the odometer? And that's similar how??

So, do you sell your car with mud on it?

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

regarding wrinkles/creases, and not dirt.
Clearly, every post thus far perhaps less Jay Behrens, has focused on the issue of wrinkles and or creases in cards that are purposely removed.
Thus, the analogy must run, as a card collects wrinkles and creases by being in an accident significant enough to paper/card to cause a break in the continuous flow of substrate, similarly in a car the only comparison is an accident that 'wrinkles' or 'creases' the sheet metal.
When a card is slabbed or presented as having no creases or wrinkles, the understanding is it has never had an encounter serious enough to cause that damage, and is vouched for as such. It's an extraordinary achievement for paper to survive that way, and is valued so in a multiplyer effect.
In the same way, a car that has 'never been in an accident' commands huge premiums amongst car collectors.
You don't have to collect that way, but it sets apart cards and cars for collectors in yet more tiers that acheive a 'selectivity' that people of wealth pay premiums for. You don't get to decide that they cannot collect that way, or have people be dishonest in such dealings, because otherwise someone is being defrauded to spend a premium under false pretext. If that is allowable because it is happening to the wealthy, be assured that such criminality knows no social boundaries and will visit you inside an SGC50 holder before you can say hobnob.
Yes, one can lie to maximise profits among collectors.
It's still lying.

daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

"To even infer that this man could be guilty of an act of impropriety in his auction, is a testament to your lack of skills in the assessment of individuals, personalities and related subjects."

Well said Gilbert. And for the record, Jim L., while you were patting yourself on the back for your excellence in civil discourse (is accusing Gil of having a problem with reading comprehension civil discourse, by the way?), you appear to have missed my reasoning, which I will point out again politely: to wit, in my opinion the identity of the seller is irrelevant because there is just as much incentive to run up an auction for a consignor as there is for oneself. I understand you may feel otherwise, and it is a good question to discuss, but in my view it would have been more "civil" to have discussed it in the abstract than to infer Barry Sloate was acting unethically.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

but I imagine until now, though this topic has been heavily canvassed FOR YEARS, no-one even GUESSED that a major auction house run by some of the absolute most respected people in the industry were 'fixing' cards, and the obvious angst and disgust it fills some collectors with is gushing through this fresh wound......so suspicion of dealers and auctioneers as a whole was a likely outcome. I don't know that what Jim said was all too far wrong, and Gil's comments were themselves pointedly rude and demeaning to any who would question someone he knows and respects, as though somehow Gil can answer for another man's business. It's not so simple, it would seem.
Still nonetheless, Barry has done nothing but show himself in excellent light and is obviously happy (as he mentions himself earlier) to face some fire in an effort to make our hobby a better place.
Super super commendable.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

No Peter, I believe that you are incorrect. There is much more incentive for the auction house to run up its own lots rather than those of a consignor. If it runs up its own lots every additional dollar generates between $1.10 and $1.20 in additional revenue(depending on the buyer's commission). Running up consignor's lots simply generates the seller's commission(generally low) plus the buyer's commisssion on this additional dollar. As to generating good publicity from these higher realizations, the auction house will typically feature their high realizing lots in their ads so they get virtually the same positive press whether the higher realization is on their lot or some outside consignors.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

what I find not right here is that some think that everything that is sent in to Mastros is scrutinized to see if EACH and every card can get a bump to a higher grade. Remember ,the guys that these cards are sent into ,are guys we talk to everyday.
GUYS THAT WE DO TRUST !!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

You raise an interesting point that perhaps Doug can address. Having never consigned I have no clue. Does a buyer have to raise the question with a Mastro representative of "maximizing" value, or does the Mastro representative offer the services to the consignor on a routine basis? EDITED TO ADD Or, I should say, when the representative feels there may be room for improvement?

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

<<< E, Daniel - No we do not inform grading companies because we do not believe what we do alters cards. Here is the analogy I will use. Do you disclose when you turn your car into the dealer that road tar got on the rear quarter panel and you cleaned it off, or you had a light scratch on the door not effecting the paint so you buffed it out....of course not. >>>

Worst analogy I've ever heard. Not disclosing a "pressed out" crease/wrinkle on a card is more akin to covering up engine or transmission problems with a car, not just cleaning or buffing out dirt and scratches on the car.

You seem like a good guy who is caught up in defending a bad policy. Why not do the right thing and change your policy about altering cards by attempting to remove card creases/wrinkles?



Looks like a few posters beat me to the car analogy criticism - dam I hate that

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Some had asked about PSA's guarantee...As reproduced from their recent Form 10-Q filing. For what it is worth. My vast experience with all grading companies has been that their guarantee looks great on paper but try actually getting them to buy something back you feel is altered or severely misgraded. It is going to have to be something incredibly significant and blatant to get them to write a check. After all, they are merely offering an opinion.

Grading Warranty Costs . We offer a limited warranty covering the coins, sportscards, stamps and currency that we authenticate and grade. Under the warranty, if any collectible that was previously authenticated and graded by us is later submitted to us for re-grading and either (i) receives a lower grade upon that resubmittal or (ii) is determined not to have been authentic, we will offer to purchase the collectible or pay the difference in value of the item at its original grade as compared with its lower grade. However, this warranty is voided if the collectible, upon resubmittal to us, is not in the same tamper resistant holder in which it was placed at the time we last graded it. We offer a similar limited warranty, of one year’s duration, on the diamonds we grade. We accrue for estimated warranty costs based on historical trends and related experience. To date our reserves have proved to be adequate. However, if warranty claims were to increase in relation to historical trends and experience, we would be required to increase our warranty reserves and incur additional charges that would adversely affect our results of operations in those periods during which the warranty reserve is increased.

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

Greg,

I remember about two years ago you mentioned that you had around 50 PSA slabs that were altered and Joe did not even want to talk to you about this. Did you ever get this resolved?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

One easy to way to look at what Doug has said is acceptable alterations is that these are alterations that are easy to do and are difficult for the slabbers to detect. I am glad to see that he is asking SGC/PSA how they feel able the wrinkle/crease removal.

Basically, what "accetable" boils down to is what can be done that slabbers won't be able to detect. For most people it's the simple things like spooning and erasing, but as the secrets to major alterations get out, more and more significant alterations will be conisdered "acceptable".

What needs to be done is the card collecting go the route of comic books. SGC is perfectly postioned to do what I am about to suggest:

The hobby needs to say, it's OK to restore cards. Be open about it and have it, but have two different grades. One for altered and one unaltered cards. Altered cards would have a not as to what had been done to the card. SGC's comic division already does this and this system works well for comic books.

I am sure people will be trying to pass off altered cards as unaltered, but it's a better system that what we currently have and would get rid of the AUTH grade along with it.

As to Doug saying that erasing and laying flat corners does not materially change card, that is flat out wrong. By laying a corner flat, you have taken a card with layer and made it so that it no longer does. That is a material change. Same for erasing. You have removed something from the card that was there, even though it may not have been palced there by the manufacturer.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Doug Allen

Jim,

I think you had two more questions....

#1 We don't currently use GAI for grading cards as much as SGC and PSA due to market acceptance. Steve Rocci and Mike Baker are good guys and friends of mine but we need to grade cards with services that have the most market acceptance and right now that is PSA and SGC.

#2 I don't believe individuals are getting out due to displeasure over card alteration. I think people buy and sell continually due to the fact that the market continues to get stronger and prices continue to rise. I would have never guessed 5 years ago when I started with Mastro that our $6 million events would become $12+ million events.

Take care,
Doug

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Thanks one more time Doug--you have exceeded all expectations with your forthrightness. We all look forward to your responses from Dave and Joe.

Jim Crandell

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Mike,

Sadly I have had very poor results with getting PSA to ever buy back cards. With respect to the group of cards you refer to, my relationship with Joe was already strained. I think Joe figured I was just trying to start more trouble and ignored my emails about the group of cards I had. This was not the first time I had presented executives at PSA with cards in holders that I felt were either misgraded or altered.

I don't want to slam PSA too hard here but I was the one who submitted most of the cards over a 3 or 4 month period during what I thought was a terrible time in the grading room. Most of the cards were not that significant, although there were a few that were. The cards were submitted to make a point, which I never got to make. I held the cards for a few months after the email to Joe, scanned all of them and broke them out of the holders. The cards were traded (as altered) to a dealer who sells lower graded material. I decided not to continue my crusade as I was inviting far more trouble in my life than it was worth.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeU

Greg,

Do you still submit to them? Is so, are they your primary submitter? You posted the PSA warranty noted in their annual report. This statement has remained the same since 2000, excluding the diamonds statement.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Mike,

I do submit to them and they are my primary grading service. I do not like their philosophy but to do otherwise would be fiscally irresponsible. I tried boycotting them for almost 2 years and it only hurt my business. If you can't beat em, join em.

As far as that disclosure in the financial statements, it is merely window dressing for the SEC and investors. At least that has been my experience and it was my experience long before they went public.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

1. Yes, very enlightening thread. But no matter how many times Doug says it, or no matter how many times he spins it, in my firm opinion trying to remove wrinkles without disclosure is flat out wrong! The policy should be changed (not the cards) - simple as that.

2. But what really should happen is not so much of a devaluation in a grade for something as "minor" as a little wrinkle. I mean come on now...let's evaluate the grading process in itself. I also have collected coins for a long time and of course card grading evolved from coin grading. This isn't a coin forum but suffice to say that a minor scratch on a proof coin devalues the coin enormously. But a "bag mark" on an uncirculated coin doesn't always result in a gross devaluation. In my view, a tiny surface wrinkle is like a bag mark on an uncirculated coin. Many times these surface wrinkles are inherent in the card producing process for a variety of reasons, so they are part of the card and shouldn't be tampered with. Tampering with a surface wrinkle is alteration. So PSA or SGC in my view should grade a card say "PSA 8, minor surface wrinkle" and let the marketplace decide the value of the card. Of course there might still be incentive for card doctors to alter cards for their profit, but at least in my opinion it wouldn't give reputable auction houses and reputable sellers the incentive to "press-out" a wrinkle at the risk of possibly making the card worse resulting in a major devaluation.

Stephen Katz

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I largely agree with Steve K. Removing wrinkles, etc should be disclosed. With two identical and visually mint cards, ninety nine percent of collectors will value as less the card that is known to have a wrinkle removed. Thus, it is unethical to not disclose known alterations.

I also agree that collectors should not get so uptight over a minor wrinkle, especially when it's the kind discovered under a loupe. If the presence of such a wrinkle saves me $1000, Hooray!