PSA-A Cautionary Tale!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I'm sorry if you took my joke as a verbatim attack, I was making light of a silly back-and-forth you had with Kevin. If you would like an actual quote refer to post #83:

"Joe will handle this problem like they do all their other problems - just sweep it under the rug and hope it goes away."

It's clear to me Joe isn't sweeping this under the rug. In fact, Joe is sending you an invitation to call him so he can provide you a personal explanation. I don't know what more you can expect from the President of a public company. If a man threatened to sue my company I would damn well make sure he and I never did business again.

Hey, Jason. I apologize if I mistook the intent of your post. However, I feel that Joe did try to sweep the problem under the rug by banning Matt from the CU boards and telling him that he was no longer welcome to do business with PSA. That's what sweeping a problem under the rug means - making it go away.

It would have been different if Matt posted there what he posted here. It is their board and they can control the content of what it said, like it or not. And as far as threatening to sue the company, you can not say that as if it were a fact because you (or I) don't know that.

I just think banning him from the CU boards was very childish. If Matt were trashing the company on their boards I could understand it, but that wasn't the case. I've seen Leon get into some pretty heated exchanges on these boards, but he never banned anybody that disagreed with him (at least that I know of).

It's okay to disagree. Do so and move on. But to try to silence those that disagree with you is sweeping the problem under the rug. I guess you don't see it like that, but I (and I think many others too) do.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

... And as far as threatening to sue the company, you can not say that as if it were a fact because you (or I) don't know that.

David, if you read Matt's initial post in this thread, Matt himself said he did tell Joe that he was going to talk to a lawyer about this.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by glchen

David, if you read Matt's initial post in this thread, Matt himself said he did tell Joe that he was going to talk to a lawyer about this.

Talking to a lawyer and threatening to sue are two different things. And just to clarify, here's what Matt actually wrote:

This is not a business to me, its a hobby and I collect high end cards that I can't go out and just replace. Send me back my cards immediately, and after I speak with my council, I will give you a number on the Hank Aaron card.

I knew exactly what I was saying when I made the comment to Joe about speaking with my council, and I also knew exactly how he would take my comment. Never was I intending to contact my lawyer over a baseball card. I really just wanted to speak with a couple people I know in the hobby that I trust, one of which was my buddy that had the same thing happen to.

I took Matt's comment as if his council were the couple of people that he knew in the hobby that had a similar experience. If he said legal council, then that would be different.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Talking to a lawyer and threatening to sue are two different things. And just to clarify, here's what Matt actually wrote:

This is not a business to me, its a hobby and I collect high end cards that I can't go out and just replace. Send me back my cards immediately, and after I speak with my council, I will give you a number on the Hank Aaron card.

I knew exactly what I was saying when I made the comment to Joe about speaking with my council, and I also knew exactly how he would take my comment. Never was I intending to contact my lawyer over a baseball card. I really just wanted to speak with a couple people I know in the hobby that I trust, one of which was my buddy that had the same thing happen to.

I took Matt's comment as if his council were the couple of people that he knew in the hobby that had a similar experience. If he said legal council, then that would be different.

Any business owner would take "Send me back my cards immediately, and after I speak with my council, I will give you a number on the Hank Aaron card." as a threat. You know this. Whether the word "council" was meant to refer to his lawyer or group of friends is irrelevant. If a customer said this to me I would have acted exactly the same. Granted, I never would have let it get to this point, but that is also irrelevant.

But, wait a minute, what are we arguing again?

I think Joe acted like a man protecting his business and I think Matt acted like a man who just had his irreplaceable collectable destroyed. The whole situation is a shame.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I think Joe acted like a man protecting his business and I think Matt acted like a man who just had his irreplaceable collectable destroyed. The whole situation is a shame.

LOL comeon. Joe's "business" is part of a public company. Do you think its board of directors or shareholders wouldn't be pissed as to how he handled the situation? I have empathy for the guy here to a point and I have no doubt he tires of being abused for PSA's mistakes but that's kind of the cost of doing business and having his job. Less paranoia, less crazy behavior, more transparency. I think Joe would be surprised that people would be more understanding with PSA if such occurred. And it doesn't hep his company's credibility by the way when it comes out in the press that they slabbed an altered Wagner and claimed publicly for years that it never occurred.

[T206Collector]

I have never understood why collectors rely on TPG for anything other than an objective opinion from a source other than a dealer who likes to upgrade his cards in the description.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by calvindog

LOL comeon. Joe's "business" is part of a public company. Do you think its board of directors or shareholders wouldn't be pissed as to how he handled the situation? I have empathy for the guy here to a point and I have no doubt he tires of being abused for PSA's mistakes but that's kind of the cost of doing business and having his job. Less paranoia, less crazy behavior, more transparency. I think Joe would be surprised that people would be more understanding with PSA if such occurred. And it doesn't hep his company's credibility by the way when it comes out in the press that they slabbed an altered Wagner and claimed publicly for years that it never occurred.

He is offering you his phone number and a personal conversation, how much more transparent do you need?

Personally, I think the board of directors could care less whether or not Matt was banned from the CU forum.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

He is offering you his phone number and a personal conversation, how much more transparent do you need?

Personally, I think the board of directors could care less whether or not Matt was banned from the CU forum.

They should...it appears he spends a lot of money on high end PSA cards. Or at least he used to.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Personally, I think the board of directors could care less whether or not Matt was banned from the CU forum.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to -- that the board of directors would be worried about Matt, not how he handles customers who were damaged by PSA and the resultant negative publicity.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by calvindog

LOL comeon. Joe's "business" is part of a public company. Do you think its board of directors or shareholders wouldn't be pissed as to how he handled the situation? I have empathy for the guy here to a point and I have no doubt he tires of being abused for PSA's mistakes but that's kind of the cost of doing business and having his job. Less paranoia, less crazy behavior, more transparency. I think Joe would be surprised that people would be more understanding with PSA if such occurred. And it doesn't hep his company's credibility by the way when it comes out in the press that they slabbed an altered Wagner and claimed publicly for years that it never occurred.

yeah , when will we hear anything from Orlando regarding the Wagner card !

[MBMiller25]

Where has Matt been since the original post?? Has anyone noticed that he has been eerily quiet since the opening statement?? I'm guessing he is reading this thread still?

I am following the thread Bobby, but don't have anything else to add. I said before in my second follow-up post that I don't mind any negativity directed at me. That's what makes America such a great place, we can all have an opinion, and aren't forced to agree with each other. I've enjoyed reading this thread and seeing what everyone has to say.

[nolemmings]

Actually, whether Matt intended or not, he chose the correct word in saying he wanted to speak with his council, i.e. a group of people, rather than his counsel, i.e. his attorney. Inasmuch as this was a phone conversation, however, I doubt the enunciation was so distinguishable.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

.... I've seen Leon get into some pretty heated exchanges on these boards, but he never banned anybody that disagreed with him (at least that I know of).

It's okay to disagree. Do so and move on. But to try to silence those that disagree with you is sweeping the problem under the rug. I guess you don't see it like that, but I (and I think many others too) do.

Generally, I won't ban someone for calling me a name or calling me out on something. I am as fair game as anyone. I will even let it go on for a while. However, if ALL someone wants to do is antagonize me or any other board member, then no, that won't be tolerated. I get into arguments with people and it would be crazy to ban them, generally speaking. They can call me names (per the open rules) and I can tell them to F-off.....but I will not constantly hound someone. It does seem a few people like to antagonize but so be it.