Now isn't this just beautiful
 

:mad:
They take a great vintage picture and stick their ugly red, white and blue sticker on it. Where does your eye first go? The autograph or the sticker? Have you no sense of decency PSA? Pardon me for borrowing a term from American History but what can I say?

beautiful
 

Actually it went to Connie Mack!:D:D

Is it not the choice of the submitter on whether they want the sticker or not? It is not PSA's call or fault. I do think it would have been better on the back however or just on the cert itself.

Really? I want you for my judge if I do something wrong. Who's fault is it? Judge Judy's? SGC's? Unless PSA gave the sticker to the submitter then they put it on there. Maybe I don't understand. :confused:

beautiful
 

Leon,
I think Judge Judy may be in on it. She just finished a house about 10 minutes from me. Google Judge Judy House and you will see what Im talking about!:eek::eek:

They slap their advertising on everything to the detriment of the piece. i cringe everytime I see something like that.

As another poster said, I believe PSA/DNA offers the submitter the option on whether or not they want the sticker on the item or on the letter of authenticity if the item being authenticated is $50 or more.

I made a thread a little while ago on a Mantle signed magazine I have with a JSA sticker on it. It is true that they asked me if I wanted a sticker on the item. I don't recall choosing where they placed it. But maybe I did.

I agree with the "blame the submitter" crowd. PSA/DNA only does what someone pays them to do.

There are plenty of people who would shred or burn the thing if you gave them money them to do it. I wouldn't blame them, either.

A car company could have a box to check when you buy a new car that said "before delivery, would you like your car keyed and the paintjob wrecked?"

Is that responsible for them to offer it, even though someone might check the box? Just because they could, it doesn't mean they should.

If they didn't offer that box to check, and someone wanted their car keyed before delivery, they should just say "no, we don't do that." They might lose a sale, but they would have integrity.

Put the sticker directly over the subjects face a few times and the sticker craze will go away.

PSA and JSA both offer the option to not sticker the item. It's part of the submission form.

Maybe they cringe too when a submitter wants something vintage stickered. I prefer not to have the sticker, but you can't legislate taste.

I don't understand. This is a matter of aesthetics and nothing more. You and I don't like the sticker there, but we don't have to, do we?. The owner may think it actually adds to the piece. It was put there by mutual consent.

To your example: if you paid a car dealer to key your car, they would do it. And if it appeared to be a trend, the option would start appearing on car order forms. Wouldn't be unethical or irresponsible in any way, either.

I think some of you guys are letting your hated for the ABCs cloud your judgment a bit. Does the piece look worse because of the sticker? I think so. Do I blame the authenticator for putting it there (or offering the service to do so)? Not at all.

Visual pollution
 

Travis,
Like

Wrong??? Says who??? Many want it on there. Maybe it is I who doesn't understand....

+1
if we could legislate taste the Kardashian sisters would be cheap hookers.

with all its existing problems psa/dna has now hit a new low...being in the same conversation with the kardashians

like

like

the stickering on the front of the photo is incredibly short sighted.

what about gai? who wants a gai sticker on their photo now? other companies could go the same way as gai, then what?

also, all of the vintage babe ruth, lou gehrig, etc. photos don't have the sticker on it. why? because the serious investors and mostly older collectors who have the disposable income for such pieces know better.

but the dimaggios, williams and mantles have the stickers, because there are more of them signed, they cost less,, but these are the ruths and gehrigs of tomorrow.

its when the unstickered certed photos bring in a premium over the stickered ones, is when we will see a change in whether people ask for the sticker on the front of the photo.

travis roste

A little off the subject, correct me if I am wrong but do not car dealers affix stickers or even metal plates with their names on them to the car? At least the ones I have dealt with in the past did.

On the back of the car, right? Not on the windshield.

In my opinion any company that gets paid to authenticate an item, and puts a sticker on it that defaces it, is wrong. If a customer wants that then that is not a service an authentication company should provide, imo. I doubt if you call Toyota and ask them to sell you a destroyed new Camry, they would do it. Yes, imo and almost everyone (even the people that agree with the idiocy) here thinks it is defacing the item. Just my opinion that it is wrong. Maybe a poll is in order? :)

Right you are Leon,,, poll commencing.

Now that's funny...From the King of Analogies, I think you hit the nail right on the head!:D When I sell all my autographs and buy another car, I'm going to ask if they can key it before delivery instead of the under body coating or worthless extended warranty!:D

This has to be the stupidest thing I've seen in a while. Talk about just obliterating a nice item.

They're only a step or two away. LOL