Really, PWCC?

[martyp]

Originally Posted by Beastmode

I don't buy questionable "?" authentic cards, but holy crap, can't PSA be more clear in the flip. the have the word "authentic" in the flip for frick sake. Really? That's just plain dumb. And the the question mark "?" before the word "authentic" is suppose to be a prefix?

Note to PSA, just say "unknown origination" and lose the word "authentic" in the flip. Stop with the hieroglyphics.

I do not have any problem with what PSA put on the flip. Authentic cards are slabbed and have a flip that states such. This sleeve is not intended to be sold with whatever card someone chooses to put with it. The card was not sealed in so there is no proof that this reprint was even the reprint that was sent in. PSA is not stating that it is a reprint, just that it is their opinion that the card is not original. They could be mistaken. I have had SGC return cards to me because they did not think that they were real and then slab them later when I pointed out what why the card was what I said that it was on the sub.

[Leon]

I politely disagree.
If any TPG knows something isn't real they should state it. They shouldn't leave something like "? AUT" on the flip. It can be interpreted different ways. They should know this by now. And the "reprint" designation should be reserved for ones they are sure of. If they aren't sure then they should say "Not sure" ..... I would respect them more for that then what they do now. BTW, Beastmode and I feel the same way....

Originally Posted by martyp

I do not have any problem with what PSA put on the flip. Authentic cards are slabbed and have a flip that states such. This sleeve is not intended to be sold with whatever card someone chooses to put with it. The card was not sealed in so there is no proof that this reprint was even the reprint that was sent in. PSA is not stating that it is a reprint, just that it is their opinion that the card is not original. They could be mistaken. I have had SGC return cards to me because they did not think that they were real and then slab them later when I pointed out what why the card was what I said that it was on the sub.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Leon

I politely disagree.
If any TPG knows something isn't real they should state it. They shouldn't leave something like "? AUT" on the flip. It can be interpreted different ways. They should know this by now. And the "reprint" designation should be reserved for ones they are sure of. If they aren't sure then they should say "Not sure" ..... I would respect them more for that then what they do now. BTW, Beastmode and I feel the same way....

I agree with you, Leon. And this has been discussed before. It's nothing new...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=221667

This is all the fault of PSA. They either lack the balls or intelligence to label a card for what it really is - a reprint, counterfeit, fake (or whatever term you want to use to describe it). Look at the Wagner (first post in the link just above). Why not just label it for what it is? Why call it questionable authenticity? There is nothing questionable about it. The term 'questionable' leaves room for hope. Keep drinking that PSA Kool Aid, guys!

As for Brent's listing, I saw the card and I believe it's absolutely authentic.

[Snapolit1]

I assume PSA leaves it vague on advice of their lawyers because they want to skirt a potential lawsuit and avoid having the curtain pulled back on the man behind the screen pulling the levers. To me saying "authenticity questioned" is probably as much as they can say in a lot of cases, even where they strongly suspect fraud.

[jhs5120]

I think there is a way to be vague about the questionable authenticity and prevent scam artists from abusing the PSA brand.

Buyers mistake "?AUTH" as "there is a possibility that this is authentic" when this isn't the case. PSA should either return the card without a flip (like BVG) or issue a flip that adds no value to a counterfeit card.

[bobbyw8469]

PSA labeled the card "? AUT" which is shorthand for "Questionable Authenticity". That is a polite way of saying that the card is a 'fake'. That being said, I strongly believe PSA blew it, just like Brent thought. The card appears to be the real deal, and would likely be reholdered properly upon a return trip to PSA, or even SGC for that matter. Case closed.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

That is a polite way of saying that the card is a 'fake'.

There are other polite ways of saying it though that don't leave room for hope. To me, the term 'questionable' leaves room for hope in the mind of the buyer. If you look at a PSA/DNA rejection letter it states, "After a thorough examination of your item we regret to report your item did not pass PSA/DNA authentication." Pretty clear to me. So, if they're going to issue a flip with a card that doesn't pass authentication, why not just put "Did Not Pass Authentication" on the flip?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I think there is a way to be vague about the questionable authenticity and prevent scam artists from abusing the PSA brand.

Buyers mistake "?AUTH" as "there is a possibility that this is authentic" when this isn't the case. PSA should either return the card without a flip (like BVG) or issue a flip that adds no value to a counterfeit card.

Um, a LOT of people on this board think that it is indeed the case in this instance.