[rickyb80]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Glad you liked them. They were fun to write, and back in those days, there weren't a whole lot of sources for information. There was no internet, so we had to just go with what we already knew. My favorite article was the one I wrote on rare baseball books in issue #3, and would you believe I did it without any source material at all- back then I knew all that by heart! I checked a few facts out for accuracy afterwards in the editing phase.

Regarding the scarcity of issue #7, the rumor I heard was that PSA bought up all the remaining issues and destroyed them, but I was never able to verify it.

In March of 2019, after reading through a thread found here on the forum where someone actually posted a scan of the article from Issue #7 titled PSA & ASA, Smoke Detectors Without Batteries, or something to that effect, I decided to formulate my response to the several highly-opinionated forum members because it seemed they had a bias for PSA and against Dennis. Whether their impassioned responses were fueled from a genuine place of concern or merely due to the fact that their collections were comprised of almost entirely PSA-graded cards is beyond one's ability to immediately know. However, it becomes easier to uncover the motives if we dig deeper, so I decided to search for Dennis to learn more about him. If nothing else, it seemed like a reasonable enough starting place to determine credibility, motivation, intent, etc. In any event, I did find him, and after visiting his eBay store (I don't think he's still on eBay BTW), I purchased every issue he had, which included all except for Issue #7. I asked him about that issue and this was his response:

BEGIN
"Boy, I wish I had known you 25 years ago, I'd have hired you to be a staff writer for VCBC! Very well written.

I don't think you really went off on a tangent so much as you actually wrote about something IN DEPTH, which is rare today.

I assume the article you're referencing is from Issue #7, the one titled, "PSA & ASA, Smoke Detectors Without Batteries," or something like that. Just some inside baseball for you...after that issue came out, PSA sent people out all over the country to buy up every issue they could from the magazine stands at Borders, Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble, etc., because they felt it would have a negative impact on their business. That's why you'll probably never find Issue #7 on EBAY or anywhere else. I haven't seen a #7 myself in about 15 years, maybe longer.

And now something else that nearly no one knows: one of the sting operations I mentioned to you earlier that I wrote but the new publisher chose not to publish, was regarding PSA. Part 1: I sent some Mark McGwire RC's (when it was the hottest card in the market) to PSA for grading. They were clearly NM+ or better on the low side. I also marked them with invisible ink. I got back different cards than the ones I sent in. Part 2: I promoted the largest sports card shows in the Pacific NW for about 17 years, the biggest of which were in the Tacoma Dome. This show was typically about 300 dealer tables with a dozen or so autograph guests, many national dealers, etc. At one show, I noticed some new dealers who had never done my shows before, and they were set up on four tables. The only cards on their tables were PSA 9 and PSA 10 graded cards. Over the course of the weekend I discovered that they were all employees of PSA. Hmmmm. I never let them book another show after that one.

Thanks for letting me read your article."
END

The article I sent Dennis was my response to the members of the forum page that were critiquing Dennis' issue #7 article. Many of the members seemed confident in their views, even though it was clear they were just interested in deluding themselves into believing whatever made them feel the best, based on the reality of their own lives. I understand that it must be hard for some people to read articles that expose a company like PSA, especially when the collection they prize is all slabbed by PSA, and the end result is usually a conditioned response that has been filtered through the ego first, then passed along in the form of criticism to those who disagree. Most people are aware of this and can see it, but anyone can fall prey to such a mindset if they allow themselves to correlate the veracity of information with the level of discomfort it causes them to feel.

I do not own any PSA-slabbed cards, but I do own about 2500 or so cards slabbed by SGC, BVG, and BGS. I recognize that there are many factors that contribute to a cards overall grade. During the early years of BVG, there is a disproportionately higher number of cards I believe are overgraded by BVG. These are cards with visibly below average eye appeal that would like garner a grade or even 2 grades lower if sent to SGC or PSA. I acknowledge this and I still choose to have some vintage cards graded by BVG because the slabs are better quality. On the other hand, if you send a vintage card to BVG today, you can expect it to be strictly graded, for the most part. PSA, on the other hand, well, I won't even get too deep into that. I'll just say there are reasons I do not use them at all. I joined their "club" about 6 years ago, completed the initial order, and that was the only time I used them. I am not saying that the entire operation is a scam but, at this point, you'd have to be from another planet (or just not paying attention at all, or in complete denial) to deny what's going on. Someone sends in 50 Upper Deck Griffey's and 50 Upper Deck Randy Johnson's from the same sealed case. The end result is that 2 Griffey's get a PSA 10 and half of the Randy Johnson's receive a 10. Now, I understand there are other factors to consider like (where is each card located at on the cut sheet?, what is the history of each card?, how was each one handled?, was there a production flaw specific to either?, etc.)...To save everyone some time I'll just say that I already considered all of that using the scientific method. Instead of looking for ways to confirm my point (confirmation bias), I sought to prove myself wrong. Unfortunately, the deeper I dug, the more I confirmed my suspicion.

PSA uses Population control and the overall grade does seem to differ depending on who submits the cards and who grades them. Last year, I purchased a 1990 Topps Tiffany Frank Thomas RC in an older PSA 8 slab. I cracked it and sent it to BGS and it received a BGS 10 (Pop 7), then I sold it for a huge profit, bought 4 more of the same card in a PSA 8, and none of them received lower than a 9.5. I looked at each under 10x magnification in a dark room with high intensity lighting and could not see any reason why the cards received an 8. I have 20/10 vision and I do consider myself to be very meticulous, especially when it comes to understanding and interacting with cards. How does one explain the random grades like this? I've seen PSA 9's of the same card with clear centering issues and I'm pretty sure none would receive a grade as high as those PSA 8's did. There are PSA 10's on eBay right now that are obnoxiously off-centered. Yes, I know, there will always be mistakes, but a lot of people tend to form very strict, rigid opinions about things before taking the time to fully understand. Most things are far more complex than they appear, which is why I still remain open-minded, even about everything I have said here in this post. My mind is always open to receive and process new information, because I just want to believe the right things so I can make decisions using accurate information. People usually appreciate this or they are intimidated by it. The moment someone can recognize that you truly do not care about winning an argument, they simultaneously begin to realize your ability to see through the fog of ego they are attempting to use as a tool to create cognitive dissonance in conversation. Since when did admitting we were wrong impact our fundamental value as humans?
Many people in our hobby (not all, but many) are too proud and/or stubborn to admit a lot of things. I see it so often and there is no getting through to those people, and I do believe those same people are the ones with the loudest voices on a given topic. Instead of remaining calm and striving to understand, they view anything short of blind and instant agreement as hostile disagreement. I have a hard time understanding how, in light of everything we already know to be the truth, irrefutably, there are people who continue to laud PSA as if they are(and forever will be) the pinnacle of grading standards. Such a view requires ignoring so many unfavorable facts. They are as inconsistent as any company I have seen and it seems like a miracle that they remain in business...well, not really. Those who don't collect, or are new to the hobby, may not know the difference. When I speak to people who are new to the hobby, it's not uncommon to hear them speak highly of PSA, but to anyone willing to reflect upon facts and place a good deal of effort in pursuit of truth and understanding, it becomes very difficult to arrive at a favorable conclusion of the company. I tried...but hey, maybe someone here can help me understand what I may have missed.

I pay very close attention to many things that a lot of people simply do not consider. It's not my place to convince/persuade anyone. I'll state my opinion in a way that longs to understand, placing myself and my ideas under scrutiny on the off chance I may run into someone who knows more than I do. It does happen. However, I am also aware that our hobby, especially vintage collecting, tends to be a magnet for people of a certain pedigree. Specifically, white males from rural places who enjoy sports, and for the most part, appreciate tradition and things of the sort. I'm not saying everyone in collecting fits this description, but I've found it to be a pretty accurate observation. If I do meet someone who is outside of this "type", they usually collect something other than baseball, or they opt to collect modern wax and things of the sort. Again, not all of the time, just most of the time. I only bring this up because this category of people also tends to share many of the same values and personality traits. Challenging tradition isn't something a traditionalist will embrace, and those who try will likely be met with reflexive responses that stem from a place of ego. We all have room to grow, and the first place is to remove the blinders of the ego to pursue a natural understanding that is rooted in reality, but that's a topic for another time...maybe another forum actually.

Anyways, I did not post my response on the forum because I didn't feel like dealing with the inevitable trolling that would come with posting a well-worded, detailed, thoughtful, open-minded article. Based on the mentality of those in that particular forum page, it seemed clear that no amount of fact or desire to understand would counter those irrational few. Besides, this has been my life experience and it usually ends up arriving at the same place: someone gets upset at me for calmly pointing out something obvious because the reality of it makes them feel bad, and after a round or two of them attempting to put words in my mouth (straw man), I withdraw. So, now I just keep a journal of all the things I would like to say in response, without ever really going public. It's very effective because it allows me to organize a response start begins from a place of arguing on behalf of the other person. Once I exhaust their argument, I keep going, but I usually reach a point where fundamental right/wrong steps in to show the truth in what's occurring, at which point I begin to somewhat solidify my stance, while still remaining open-minded to new information. This allows me to bypass the steps that involve convincing others or defending myself against an unwarranted attack...ok, I'm starting to go on a tangent.

I am considering starting my own YouTube channel. It's not something I naturally would enjoy doing, but I think it would be a healthy way to communicate what's on my mind with others in the hobby. Besides, I have a pretty fun collection, and when you combine the fact that I spend most of my time researching various topics that are well outside the realm of our hobby, I could see it stirring up some very deep conversations based on the abstraction and merging of baseball, psychology, epistemology, history, etc.

I hope that the words I have shared were helpful in answering the question of what happened to Issue #7 in a little more detail. Someone already mentioned something very similar but I figured providing the actual text from a conversation with Dennis would offer something more.

Take care everyone.
Cheers,
Ricky