SGC's official response to '52 Mantle debacle

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

The following is SGC's official response to the unfortunate events the past few days. If anyone has any questions, please feel fee to post them here or contact me directly at sskeffington@sgccard.com We thank you for your patience and understanding concerning this matter.

At some point in 2007, Jim Haas submitted a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card to SGC for grading. The card had been graded a "10 Pristine" by Global Authentication. At SGC's request, a representative from Global removed the card from its holder so that it could be properly examined by SGC.

After reviewing the card, in accordance with its normal standards, SGC awarded the card the grade of "96 - Mint 9", due to two minor imperfections on the surface. Mr. Haas asked SGC to review the card a second time. After reviewing the card a second time, it was determined once again to be a "96 - Mint 9."

At no point did any representative of SGC perform - or agree to perform - any "restoration" on the card to improve its condition. SGC does not restore cards. SGC is a grading company, and its role is simply to assess the condition of trading cards. Mr. Haas seemed unhappy with the result.

When Mr. Haas requested return of the card, on the advice of counsel Mr. Forman requested a release protecting Mr. Forman from any allegation that SGC damaged the card, diminishing its value. Mr. Haas was provided with the identity of SGC's legal counsel. Until this week, SGC's counsel never received a call from either Mr. Haas or Mr. Haas' attorney. While waiting for Mr. Haas to contact SGC's counsel, the card remained safely in SGC's custody. Today, the parties entered into a consent order transferring the card to a third party for inspection prior to its return to Mr. Haas.

We feel that it is important to note that a number of inaccuracies about how this story has been reported - largely due to unfamiliarity with our industry - have cast SGC in a negative light. Hopefully this statement will explain that SGC is a "grading and authentication" company and not a "rating and restoration" company, and that our business remains to assess the authenticity and condition of trading cards. We categorically deny any allegation that SGC or Dave Forman agreed to restore the card for Mr. Haas, and hope that this episode can now be put to rest so that we may continue on our mission to remain the highest quality grading company in our industry.

Sean Skeffington
Vice President

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I'd be pretty upset with the reporter (and in this circumstance, I use that term very loosely) if I was SGC.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

The reporter is protected under the constitution, I would be more inclined to be mad at the person that fed her that information. Reporters usually do not make stuff up. They are told things and report them.


To blame her is really not fair.

No mention of the 'loan' in that release.


IMO the issue is now dead.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I agree it's a non issue at this point. I disagree it's not the reporters fault. That's a bunch of BS in my book. She should be absolutely responsible for what she says in an article. She is probably protected somehow but that doesn't excuse her gross misinterpretations/misrepresentations in my book.....take care

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

The reporter IS the one to blame here. Simply going to SGC's website she could see they are not a "Restoration" company. The onus is on her to get it right, not to just take what anyone says to her as fact. Besides it would make absolutely no sense for the owner of one grading company to have another grading company "Restore" his card. Like SGC would want a competitor having knowledge that they "Restored" a card??? And I'm not saying that they do that, because I don't believe they do, I'm saying it's implausible.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Reporters, like everyone else, have agendas. I have personal knowledge of many occasions in which a reporter ignored facts or only reported those facts that made for a better story.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Reporters are supposed to report facts. Before reporting the facts they are supposed to VERIFY that they are indeed representative facts.

Go SGC! I knew there was a rationale explanation for this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Of course the reporter can be held responsible. The constitution does not protect a reporter from libeling an individual or company. That being said, I think this is much ado about nothing and is now a non-issue. GAI, differnet story. When they open up on Monday I'll call and ask why one of their owners didn't trust his card with GAI.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

I have no dog in this fight, very few graded cards, just an impartial observer. But, I'm confused why everyone is beating up on this reporter. Perhaps not the greatest job of reporting, but the key allegation, that SGC agreed to "restore" the card, apparently comes from Haas's pleadings in the lawsuit. The reporter claims to have attempted to contact Forman, presumably for his reaction, but that her call was not returned before the story was published. Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Glad SGC had a reasonable response here, but the reporter definitely 18-1'd the facts in that article. Would be interested to read the actual complaint, but the issue appears dead at this point (unless the third party that is "inspecting" the card has an issue).

[Archive]

Posted By: D.C. Markel

Mystery Surrounds 1952 Topps Mantle Case

Friday, 08 February 2008

A 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card is apparently going back to its owner after a strange court case involving men representing two grading companies.

A kid who opened a pack of 1952 Topps baseball cards could never have imagined his Mickey Mantle card would potentially be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone be the subject of legal wrangling.

It's happened, though, and the case itself seems destined to end not long after it began, despite two widely different versions of what led to it landing in a New Jersey courtroom.

James Haas, a New Jersey resident, filed a civil lawsuit against Sportscard Guaranty (SGC) after he claimed the company wouldn't return a 1952 Topps Mantle he had given them several months earlier.

The two parties appeared at a hearing Thursday in a Morris County, New Jersey civil court, with SGC agreeing to have the card reevaluated by a third party before it is returned to Haas within a month.

According to the civil complaint, Haas, a shareholder in Global Authentication Incorporated, had originally submitted the card to GAI where it was graded a "10" in 2006. After seeing a PSA 9 Mantle sell for over $282,000 in Memory Lane's December 2006 auction, the civil complaint indicates Haas contacted SGC owner Dave Forman.

The complaint states Haas was hoping SGC could "correct two slight imperfections so its value could be enhanced." The card, according to Haas attorney Brian Spector, had "two small spots" and according to the complaint, SGC was hired to see if it could "legitimately correct the imperfections". Working through GAI employee Mike Baker, Haas turned the card over to SGC during the Eastern Pennsylvania Collectors Club show in the spring of 2007.

The complaint further alleges Forman kept the card throughout the second half of 2007, while meeting three times with Haas in West Orange New Jersey to discuss the status of the card. The card was eventually graded and slabbed in what the complaint states was an "SGC 9" (96) holder but remained in SGC's possession as the company "made one last try" to "legitimately correct the imperfections." There is no mention of what, if anything, Haas alleges was done to the card while in SGC's possession. An invoice obtained by Sports Collectors Daily includes the words "for D Forman Review" but no other information about other assigned tasks is printed on the form.

After learning via an internet post that a 1952 Mantle card was being held as collateral for a loan given to "a majority shareholder in Global and a high profile Mickey Mantle card collector", and no longer able to contact Forman, Haas became concerned that the card involved was his and contacted the Parsippany Police Department.

On November 28 of last year, Haas and patrolman Richard Howell attempted to retrieve the card at SGC's offices but after waiting 40 minutes, were rebuffed and advised to contact SGC's legal counsel.

In court Thursday, SGC attorney Gordon Graber told Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis that comments appearing on internet message boards accusing SGC of intending to alter the card "are considered defamatory by the company."

SGC's official response, posted by Vice President of Operations Sean Skeffington on the company's web site, denies that any agreement took place regarding attempts to alter the card in any way:

"At some point in 2007, Jim Haas submitted a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card to SGC for grading. The card had been graded a "10 Pristine" by Global Authentication. At SGC's request, a representative from Global removed the card from its holder so that it could be properly examined by SGC.

After reviewing the card, in accordance with its normal standards, SGC awarded the card the grade of "96 - Mint 9", due to two minor imperfections on the surface. Mr. Haas asked SGC to review the card a second time. After reviewing the card a second time, it was determined once again to be a "96 - Mint 9."

At no point did any representative of SGC perform - or agree to perform - any "restoration" on the card to improve its condition. SGC does not restore cards. SGC is a grading company, and its role is simply to assess the condition of trading cards. Mr. Haas seemed unhappy with the result.

When Mr. Haas requested return of the card, on the advice of counsel Mr. Forman requested a release protecting Mr. Forman from any allegation that SGC damaged the card, diminishing its value. Mr. Haas was provided with the identity of SGC's legal counsel. Until this week, SGC's counsel never received a call from either Mr. Haas or Mr. Haas' attorney. While waiting for Mr. Haas to contact SGC's counsel, the card remained safely in SGC's custody. Today, the parties entered into a consent order transferring the card to a third party for inspection prior to its return to Mr. Haas.

We feel that it is important to note that a number of inaccuracies about how this story has been reported - largely due to unfamiliarity with our industry - have cast SGC in a negative light. Hopefully this statement will explain that SGC is a "grading and authentication" company and not a "rating and restoration" company, and that our business remains to assess the authenticity and condition of trading cards. We categorically deny any allegation that SGC or Dave Forman agreed to restore the card for Mr. Haas, and hope that this episode can now be put to rest so that we may continue on our mission to remain the highest quality grading company in our industry."

Attorneys for both sides have not returned phone calls since Thursday's hearing.

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/latest/mystery-surrounds-1952-topps-mantle-case.html



edited to replace link to give credit...

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Russo

I know Ms. Wright from several years of practicing law in Morris County. She is the courthouse beat reporter for the Daily Record. Most newsworthy happenings at the county court involve criminal cases. She has become very good at reporting on details of criminal trials. I have found her to be very fair in that she always reaches out to defense attorneys for comments while many reporters for the larger papers seem to act as publicity arms of the prosecutor's office reporting only convictions. Interesting civil cases are encountered far less frequently and obviously Peggy is no expert on baseball cards. She likely reported based on the content of the pleadings, what she heard in Court and comments from Mr. Haas. Obviously, she should have gotten a response from SGC. Sloppy... possibly, but not malicious. I doubt that SGC's reputation has been damaged in the slightest. Most people don't know or care about what they do. Those in the hobby know SGC and GAI and their relative reputations. Haas's actions are very strange and I can't blame Mr. Forman for exercising caution when it looked like he was possibly being set up.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

IMO the only one damaged in this case here is GAI. SGC found two imperfections on a card that GAI deemed 'MINT 10 PERFECT!!!! BEST IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!1'

STRIKE ONE ON GAI!!!!

and a principal owner of GAI decided to get it graded by his competitor because cards in his slab bring lower $$$$'s and he knows it....

STRIKE TWO ON GAI!!!!

GAI's official re-grand opening has been pushed back to Tuesday because of court costs and lawyer fees.

STRIKE THREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I think, unfamiliar with the hobby, the reporter mixed up her terms. Yes, I think the error was sloppy and hasty, but innocent.

As I said in an earlier thread, even if the owner did want it restored, the last person he'd tell this to would be a reporter as the publicity would ruin the card's value. So my assumption all along was the reporter mixed up terms.

I sincerely don't doubt that reporting is a tough business, especially reporting about an area you're unfamiliar with (whether it's biomedical engineering or baseball grading), but when an article makes a claim of 'fact' that neither side in the dispute even claimed, it's known as bad reporting. She may have assumed 'regrade' and 'restore' were interchangable, but to card collectors the terms are mean significantly different things. If someone said, "I sent in my photo to be framed," and in the article it came out as "He sent in the photo to be forged"-- obviously the owner will not be too happy with the reporter's translation of what he told her. Reporters often do not tape interviews, but sit with notebook and pen, and there will be later translation, interpolation, extrapolation and jogging of the memory about what was said. Some seemingly meaningless words and phrases can and will be transformed during translation.

I was once misparaphrased in an article about memorabilia-- it was a largely meaningless misinterpretation of what I said (or what I meant, perhaps I spoke unclearly) and no big deal--, but it made me realize that celebrities and sports stars can be misquoted. The reporter interviewed me with pen and notepad and did not tape record my every word. Since then I prefer, though don't require, that reporter's or article writer's questions be submitted to me via email, so that I can type out what I say myself.

I used to write a bi-weekly memorabilia newsletter and the start of a newsletter would correct last weeks errors, often pointed out by readers. So making errors and later correcting them is, or at least should be, a natural part of journalism. I don't consider making an error or misinterpritation in and of itself to be a mortal journalistic sin. If a newspaper never notes and corrects it's errors, that would be a problem and bad journalism. As an amateur newsletter writer, I considered it my duty to inform and enlighten and I would be amiss and possibly look like the complete fool ("The idiot wrote that 1953 was Mickey Mantle's rookie year. What a bafoon! What am I taking card advise from him for?") if I didn't correct the errors I myself made.

And, as was pointed out in the other thread, when you count the number of factual errors and misused terms in a newspaper article about a subject you know about, it should make you ponder about the number of errors and misued terms that exist in articles about subjects you are ignorant about-- errors you might take as fact because they are 'reported.' If a publication regularly corrects its errors, you can at least be confident that any significant errors you might be oblivious of will pointed out be later, and that should give you more confidence in the publication as a whole. It's like with baseball card dealers-- it's not IF a dealer will ever make a mistake (as everyone on earth makes mistakes), but what they do WHEN he makes a significant mistake. If a dealer is known to offer refund and an apology, you will have more confidence in him as a dealer. If a dealer is known to deny the obvious and refuse refund, you probably would won't purchase his products. The presence of an error in and of itself doesn't determine whether the dealer is considered good or bad. Obviously if a baseball card dealer makes 100 errors to another dealer's one, you will prefer the dealer who makes fewer errors.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Dan is correct. If SGC found two imperfections on the card, no matter how inconsequential, how on earth did GAI give it a 10? Ten is an almost impossible grade for a 56 year old card, unless it jumps out at you and hits you in the head.

And who on earth would cross over a card that's already a 10? The risk and reward factor is way out of line. The best you could hope for is an equal grade from a better company, and if you lose a grade, as Mr. Haas did, you leave 100K on the table. If I had a 10 anything I would leave it just as it is.

I think SGC is okay here, and feel it is a nonissue at this point.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Barry - not sure there was risk if it came back lower since he owns GAI; wouldn't he just have them re-slab it a 10, knowing it was in a 10 before?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

I would much much rather have a SGC 9 than a GAI 10. Mr. Haas should be jumping for joy his Mantle is now in a SGC 9.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Matt- that's yet another problem. He owns GAI and he gets GAI to grade his cards? Sounds like a huge conflict of interest to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

It seems to me that the card is MORE valuable in an SGC 96 holder than a GAI 10 holder especially a few years down the road...

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I don't think this card has been put into an SGC 96 (9) holder currently, unless I missed something. I have been told it probably is an SGC 96 still, though....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

Well shucks, if its not holdered yet, then send it to PSA and get a 8.5

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

A partial owner of GAI did not think their grade of 10 was good enough?!?!?!?!?!
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Ricky Y

Interesting...this kind of stuff reminds of those excercises given at numerous communication seminars I've attended...one person at the end of the row is given a story..and tells it to the next person...and then to the next..the last person then gets up and rights the story as he/she was told on the black board and then explains it to everyone in the room...ofcourse its often nothing like what the original story entailed..looks like in this case, the first person was also the last person in the row.

Ricky Y

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

If you had this card, REGARDLESS of how much you trusted Dave Forman and the boys over at SGC, why wouldn't you use the walk through service..........?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

I would love for any one of you to have people watching every move you make each day at work and criticizing, jumping to conclusions and then posting on a public chat board.

First of all, did anyone ever think that Haas, as an investor in GAI, may have wanted to have his cards in GAI holders and did so early on to promote the company and show he is putting his money where his mouth is?

Maybe, Jim B, Haas has not liked what has taken place with GAI recently and was concerned about what he would get for his collection in GAI holders had he left them there. Seems logical to me.

And can any of you actually tell a 9 from a 10? I am not sure I can. Seems based on what SGC says, Barry, that the card very well could have met the criteria for the grade with two minor imperfections. Heck, their 100 grade states "virtually flawless". What is virtually flawless? See grading standards below. Were we ever told that those minor imperfections are? I certainly don't recall reading about it.

100 PRISTINE: A "virtually flawless" card. 50/50 centering, crisp focus, four sharp corners*, free of stains, no breaks in surface gloss, no print or refractor lines, and no visible wear under magnification.

98 GEM 10: 55/45 or better centering, sharp focus, four sharp corners*, free of stains, no breaks in surface gloss, no print or refractor lines, and no visible wear. A slight print spot visible under close scrutiny is allowable if it does not detract from the aesthetics of the card.

The article is a bit unclear as to whether the card was submitted to SGC through normal channels or whether Haas contracted with Forman directly and it is unclear if the card now resides in a 96 or ungraded.

I am not taking sides here. Just pointing out how easily we start drawing conclusions absent all of the facts. I do not know Haas and I like the guys at GAI and SGC very much. As an outsider in this, I am sorry it happened.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Greg,

I agree that the difference between a "9" and a "10" is minute. but apparently it's real enough for these guys to fight over.

And I don't believe that we're "watching every move you (they) make each day at work and criticizing". This matter became public when Haas filed a lawsuit and then talked to a reporter. No one was discussing it prior to that. However when a suit is filed, in a public forum, and it involves two companies of interest to collectors, you can expect that we will talk about it.

Many people on this board have much invested in cards from these two companies. That makes their reputation a matter of interest to the board.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Hi Jim,

Are you certain that is what they are fighting over? The difference between a 9 and a 10?

I think you missed another point, which is that I am not suggesting this topic not be discussed. I am merely pointing out the board has a tendency to do more than discuss matters. And I saw that happening again with this thread. I am not advocating sweeping anything under the rug, Jim. Just trying to point out there is a big difference between discussing or tossing around ideas and thoughts than passing judgment when facts are missing.

Thanks,
Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

Very true. When facts are not yet in evidence, this board, and most public forums (and I guess, some newspaper reporters) tend to fill in the blanks with their own thoughts.


There is no guarantee that any public debate will be fact filled or intelligent.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I certainly wasn't drawing any conclusions. If anything, I am still not sure I understand exactly what happened here.

And the term "virtually flawless" to describe a 10 is kind of funny, because a card that was in fact "flawless" would have to grade higher still. I think a 10 has to be perfect; if not, then it's an 8 or 9.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

This is what happens when one acts only out of greed.

Also- I think the only difference between a 9 and a 10 is who you know-

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

This is what happens when one acts only out of greed.

Also- I think the only difference between a 9 and a 10 is who you know

....and about $500,000. Disturbing story, no matter whose side you're on.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

If Forman was corrupt and looking to make money off the deal, wouldn't he have just slabbed the card into a 10 holder? It's not like it had too far to go to get to that level.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

"This is what happens when one acts only out of greed."

What is "this"?
Who is the "one" you are talking about? Haas?
I assume your collection will be given to charity some day, right?


"I think the only difference between a 9 and a 10 is who you know-"

Apparently not...

[Archive]

Posted By: Neal Kane

<<Matt- that's yet another problem. He owns GAI and he gets GAI to grade his cards? Sounds like a huge conflict of interest to me.>>

Forman is a collector no? Does he own cards?

For the record, I would still collect if I owned a grading company just like Haas and Forman do.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony N.

<<because a card that was in fact "flawless" would have to grade higher still.>>

Barry, that would be an 11- just a bit more flawless


"You see, most cards will be grading at 10. You’re on 10, virtually flawless, virtually flawless...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One better."

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

The one thing missing from this story is why SGC demanded a release before sending the card back to its owner. Even when the owner is dissatisfied with the grade, standard procedure is to send the card back to the owner. After all, it is his card. From SGC's statement, it looks like the owner must have been alleging that SGC damaged the card. But even so, I doubt that gave SGC the right to hold a card hostage while demanding a release. It's his property, and if he has some crazy theory that SGC damaged it, he can try to prove it in court. The fact that he sent it back to SGC for a second look should not give SGC the right to hold his card hostage until he gives up his legal claims.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Richard-

"This" refers to a legal battle over a baseball card that would have previously made the owner a handsome sum- but which was apparently not enough. "After seeing a PSA 9 Mantle sell for over $282,000 in Memory Lane's December 2006 auction, the civil complaint indicates Haas contacted SGC owner Dave Forman."

As for the "one," I would refer to anybody who believes they can make more money by having a card graded (a) higher; or (b) by a perceived more reliable grading company. If it works, go for it. If it doesn't work, whose fault is that? I never indicted anybody for wanting to make money. I just have an issue with losing a gamble and blaming someone else-
which in the long run, makes the grading companies more paranoid and less solvent (paying legal bills)- which ultimately gets passed on to us.

And no, Richard, my collection will not go to charity, nor do I plan on retiring over them. I also refuse to wage battles against grading companies for not getting what I believe I am entitled to.

Finally..."apparently not?" Well if an owner of one company can get a 10 from the company s/he owns and not a 10 from a company s/he doesn't own, how does that not make sense?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Anthony, why don't you just make 10 better, and make 10 be the top number and make that be a little better?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

When transferring an item, any item, this expensive to and from owner, it may be standard procedure in any business to have transfer and review papers. Remember that this is an item valued at over $200,000, not a table and chairs set from IKEA. Companies receiving and transferring a $250,000 computer chip, diamond or condominium may require similar review and transfer documentation. Signed for priority mail is probably not the way a $250,000 ring is transferred to the owner, nor the way the owner would want it returned.

In fact, I bet each of has has had multiple instances where we had to sign a document before receiving back an item we owned. I bet many storage companies require the owners to sign a review and receipt document before the owners can take their items back. If you don't sign that document, they ain't giving you your stuff.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Of all the great lines in "Spinal Tap", that one seems to be the most memorable.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

When high-grade high-profile cards are being submitted for crossover, is it standard procedure for the grading company to ask the other grading company (or in the alternative the card owner) to remove the card from the holder? And is it standard procedure if the card cannot be crossed over at at least the same grade to request a release from the card owner before returning the card? While as has been pointed out it makes good business sense to request such a release, and in fact such a practice is typical in other businesses, is this the norm in the card grading industry? Or is it that the facts and circumstances of this particular instance led SGC to believe it faced unusual risk and accordingly felt it prudent to take steps to protect itself?