PSA stickers on balls frustration
 

So I've finally, sorta, maybe narrowed my current autograph focus down to signed vintage baseballs, and I am considering any balls pre-1980 to be vintage. So maybe I use the term vintage a little loosely but that's beside the point.

The only way to determine what year(s) a particular ball was made, when comparing balls from the same commissioner, is by examining the company stamp/logo on the ball, and guess where PSA just LOVES to place their "discretely located" stickers...right on the company logo/stamp. There are many autographed balls that spark my interest, but I can’t determine an accurate age of the ball because of the sticker.

This is proving to be quite frustrating as I try to pursue my interest.

Another beef to add to the list about PSA.

That is so stupid. I hope people read these threads and resist the urge to have PSA/DNA put their ugly ass sticker on auto'd items.

That's what happens when the submitter chooses the sticker to be placed on the item versus the LOA.

They still have the option with the letter to have a sticker put on it unfortunately.

putting a sticker on autographed pieces was just a bad idea to start with.

anything applied to an item can be taken off regardless what they say about it being tamperproof. all it does it wreck a piece and makes it look like a billboard advertisement.

I could take a look at some of the baseballs for you and help date them.

Too late for this baseball...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7015/6...316b2e6a_z.jpg
(Photo taken January 22, 2012. © Gary Dunaier. Link to upload on Flickr.com: here.)

probably one of the stupidest thing I ever saw. I stumbled into a signing with Willie Davis a few years back before he passed. I had him sign a ball and shook his hand, then they asked if I wanted a PSA authentication? ($7 @ that time)...NOW WTF would I want a stupid authentication sticker, when I just saw the man sign the ball if front of my own eyes????:confused:too F'ing stupid for reason

There was a beautiful Van Mungo signed picture (I think it was a magazine page, been a while) that I really wanted to buy. I'm not into autographs but this was a real nice one. The only drawback was PSA put their lousy sticker right on the front and it wasn't even "tastefully" done, the damn thing was crooked!

I went back and found it:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/VAN-LINGLE-M...item53edc26d65

Sold for $42. I would have paid more for it becauuse of the great pose and rich photography had it not been wrecked by PSA. Someone should be held responsible for ruining a real nice piece with that stupid sticker!

I've removed more than a couple such stickers from pieces I have purchased if I haven't been able to hide them under framing or matting.

I always heard bad things about the ink coming up when the stickers are removed. Since it is a magazine page I was gambling that the sticker would remove ink, or if not, leave a nasty residue. I would think that it wouldn't be too bad removing a sticker from a photograph or ball but a 70 year-old magazine is another story. Just seemed too much of pain to have to go through when it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Regrettably, they apparently vandalize everything they handle with their stickers - too bad.

PSA stickers on equpment
 

I personally think this is one of the worst ideas/trends to ever hit our hobby.
I hate 'em and mostly refuse to own any in my personal collection. To me it defaces the collectible, FWIW... :(

Defaces is a kind word for what that sticker does to your collectible, I was thinking more like F---- up.
And good to see you back here Bill P.

I too concur that these are ugly, and I won't purchase an item with one of them. In most cases, I think it is more appropriate to castigate the owner who asked and paid PSA to do this to an item. One does not have to use a TPA (though I understand why they do), and one does not have to request a sticker (I don't get at all why people do). So, in most cases, I blame the submitter for defacing the item.

In this case, however, I do blame PSA for the placement on a stamp. Poor choice on their part.