FS: 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson PSA 4.5 - Net54baseball.com Forums
  NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-01-2021, 08:53 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 34,229
Default

Man. Not surprised, I guess, but it sure seemed a clear cut case. Meet the new boss. (riff) Same as the old boss. (riff)

AJ, I don't suppose you know if Reza reviewed it?
__________________
Four phrases I nave coined that sum up today's hobby:
No consequences.
Stuff trumps all.
The flip is the commoodity.
Animal Farm grading.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 04-01-2021 at 08:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-05-2021, 03:04 PM
Yoda Yoda is offline
Joh.n Spen.cer
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
Man. Not surprised, I guess, but it sure seemed a clear cut case. Meet the new boss. (riff) Same as the old boss. (riff)

AJ, I don't suppose you know if Reza reviewed it?
PSA won't get fooled again (loud riff)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-05-2021, 04:55 PM
dio dio is offline
Eric Cheng
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: CA still
Posts: 275
Default

FBI can't and won't do anything about it.
it's PSA and grading company's opinion, and you agree when you send the card to them. It's THEIR OPINION not you and everyone else opinion
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-05-2021, 05:04 PM
Johnny630 Johnny630 is offline
Johnny MaZilli
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,441
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dio View Post
FBI can't and won't do anything about it.
it's PSA and grading company's opinion, and you agree when you send the card to them. It's THEIR OPINION not you and everyone else opinion
Agree I’ve been saying this for months. PSA has Done ZERO NOTHING CLOSE THAT RISES TO CRIMINAL...IT’s just their opinion, nothing more nothing less.

Last edited by Johnny630; 04-05-2021 at 05:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-05-2021, 05:38 PM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 34,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny630 View Post
Agree I’ve been saying this for months. PSA has Done ZERO NOTHING CLOSE THAT RISES TO CRIMINAL...IT’s just their opinion, nothing more nothing less.
Bill Hughes has been quoted as saying he and everyone else in the room KNEW the Wagner was trimmed (not to mention sheet cut in the first place). It is slabbed an 8. Is that "just their opinion"?

Again, suppose some of their "opinions" were not genuinely held?

The evidence may not be there to support a criminal charge, but that's an entirely different question from are there circumstances in which they could be criminally culpable for rendering an "opinion."
__________________
Four phrases I nave coined that sum up today's hobby:
No consequences.
Stuff trumps all.
The flip is the commoodity.
Animal Farm grading.

Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 04-05-2021 at 05:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-05-2021, 05:59 PM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is offline
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 10,850
Default

I believe AJ has done everything he can, If I was AJ I would be unloading this thing quicker than fast with a clear conscience.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-05-2021, 09:34 PM
steve B steve B is offline
Steve Birmingham
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: eastern Mass.
Posts: 8,464
Default

Didn't take long as usual for the PSA apologists to come out of the woodwork.

Hey, if I charged people a bunch of money for MY opinions on some things, I'd be right as often as they are (Hardly ever apparently)
I'd probably also be doing time for some sort of fraud...

They're all way too expensive for me, but I'd like to see one of these cards where PSA can't find the alteration even when it's pointed at.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-06-2021, 05:57 AM
benjulmag benjulmag is offline
CoreyRS.hanus
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 784
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny630 View Post
Agree I’ve been saying this for months. PSA has Done ZERO NOTHING CLOSE THAT RISES TO CRIMINAL...IT’s just their opinion, nothing more nothing less.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with this statement as calling something an opinion in and of itself does not absolve the issuer of criminal liability if it can be shown it was issued knowing it was false and people would rely on it to their detriment. Admittedly proving this criminal intent would be difficult, as the issuer can reply that it is no crime to be stupid. So given these challenges I can understand how the FBI might feel its resources are better spent pursuing other matters.

IMO the matter from the civil perspective is materially different. Underlying the PSA guaranty will be a duty for PSA to act in good faith. They wrote the guaranty and inasmuch as it does not contain a phrase such as "in our sole and absolute discretion", a court would likely find the opinion must be reasonably given, which is an objective standard. Hypothetically, if I owned say, a million dollars of PSA 8s and 9s T206s that I bought in good faith believing the cards to be unaltered, and I later learned that Blowout had exposed all those cards to be altered (thereby destroying their market value), I sure as heck would pursue a civil action against PSA if they did not make good on the guaranty. Sure they may say they disagree with Blowout's conclusions and stand by their original assessment. But will a jury believe them after having been instructed to base its verdict on what a reasonable and unbiased person, upon having been presented with the evidence of trimming, would conclude. On top of that I would introduce evidence to establish that PSA's contingent liabilities materially exceed their net worth, which would make a trier of fact more likely to conclude (by the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence) PSA did not act in good faith in not making good on the guaranty.

You will note that in my example I explicitly stated that Blowout's outing of the cards destroyed their market value, thus incentivizing me to take the matter to court. This to me is the key as to whether such a suit will ever take place, given the enormous expense to do so. Right now I suspect there are many people who own altered cards who believe they are altered. But as long as the cards hold their value, these people will see no reason to sue. But should the day come when at least one of these persons (or funds) has reason to believe the cards they are holding are so tainted as to have lost much of their value, then at that point I believe we may see a serious lawsuit. I believe the risk may be particularly high in the case of funds that have invested in such cards. These funds owe a fiduciary duty to their investors, and I can foresee an instance where it might feel it has no choice but to try to invoke the guaranty.

The key consideration to me in this discussion is my simple belief the emperor has no clothes. I believe the overwhelming majority of experienced collectors know there is no way there can be such great numbers of 8s and higher of certain vintage issues in circulation, cards that were produced when cards had no value and no one would have taken the care to preserve them in a way such as to maintain an 8 or higher condition. Consider for example the T206 Wagner, a card if ever one existed that one would surmise a person would have taken more care to preserve due to its perceived scarcity. None (that are untrimmed and were issued in cigarette packs) are believed to exist in better than a generally excellent condition. The few at the top of the totem pole, whose provenance suggest their original owners knew at the time of their importance, none of them would grade higher than a 5, 5.5 tops. To me at least that has to say something as to how cards of that vintage were preserved.

Last edited by benjulmag; 04-06-2021 at 05:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-06-2021, 06:39 AM
Johnny630 Johnny630 is offline
Johnny MaZilli
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,441
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag View Post
I'm going to respectfully disagree with this statement as calling something an opinion in and of itself does not absolve the issuer of criminal liability if it can be shown it was issued knowing it was false and people would rely on it to their detriment. Admittedly proving this criminal intent would be difficult, as the issuer can reply that it is no crime to be stupid. So given these challenges I can understand how the FBI might feel its resources are better spent pursuing other matters.

IMO the matter from the civil perspective is materially different. Underlying the PSA guaranty will be a duty for PSA to act in good faith. They wrote the guaranty and inasmuch as it does not contain a phrase such as "in our sole and absolute discretion", a court would likely find the opinion must be reasonably given, which is an objective standard. Hypothetically, if I owned say, a million dollars of PSA 8s and 9s T206s that I bought in good faith believing the cards to be unaltered, and I later learned that Blowout had exposed all those cards to be altered (thereby destroying their market value), I sure as heck would pursue a civil action against PSA if they did not make good on the guaranty. Sure they may say they disagree with Blowout's conclusions and stand by their original assessment. But will a jury believe them after having been instructed to base its verdict on what a reasonable and unbiased person, upon having been presented with the evidence of trimming, would conclude. On top of that I would introduce evidence to establish that PSA's contingent liabilities materially exceed their net worth, which would make a trier of fact more likely to conclude (by the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence) PSA did not act in good faith in not making good on the guaranty.

You will note that in my example I explicitly stated that Blowout's outing of the cards destroyed their market value, thus incentivizing me to take the matter to court. This to me is the key as to whether such a suit will ever take place, given the enormous expense to do so. Right now I suspect there are many people who own altered cards who believe they are altered. But as long as the cards hold their value, these people will see no reason to sue. But should the day come when at least one of these persons (or funds) has reason to believe the cards they are holding are so tainted as to have lost much of their value, then at that point I believe we may see a serious lawsuit. I believe the risk may be particularly high in the case of funds that have invested in such cards. These funds owe a fiduciary duty to their investors, and I can foresee an instance where it might feel it has no choice but to try to invoke the guaranty.

The key consideration to me in this discussion is my simple belief the emperor has no clothes. I believe the overwhelming majority of experienced collectors know there is no way there can be such great numbers of 8s and higher of certain vintage issues in circulation, cards that were produced when cards had no value and no one would have taken the care to preserve them in a way such as to maintain an 8 or higher condition. Consider for example the T206 Wagner, a card if ever one existed that one would surmise a person would have taken more care to preserve due to its perceived scarcity. None (that are untrimmed and were issued in cigarette packs) are believed to exist in better than a generally excellent condition. The few at the top of the totem pole, whose provenance suggest their original owners knew at the time of their importance, none of them would grade higher than a 5, 5.5 tops. To me at least that has to say something as to how cards of that vintage were preserved.

Well Said!!
To Me This Has Not Decreased the value of said outed cards, they continue to go up in value....I know it's weird but who is damaged here?????
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-06-2021, 08:08 AM
TedWill1939's Avatar
TedWill1939 TedWill1939 is offline
Jeff
member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 42
Default

Just thinking out loud... Since grading is opinion based arent we putting putting faith into the equation, not absolute? The same thing has happened in the art world. "Experts" claim a piece is authentic and they are fooled. No nefarious conspiracies by the expert, just the wrong opinion. Seems to that unless a TPG is active and knowingly engaging in deceit, its a matter of having an "opinion" that may or may not be wrong.

With the amount of cards that are submitted, I always wondered how they could ever be expected to fully go over a card, they would have to hire an army. Seems like a leap of faith to me.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB 1948 leaf Jackie Robinson JohnnyKilroy 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T 2 01-27-2021 04:28 PM
wtb 1948 leaf Jackie Robinson sportscardpete 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T 2 05-06-2019 06:39 AM
FS: 1948 Leaf #79 Jackie Robinson poorlydrawncat 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T 0 03-25-2013 04:27 PM
WTB 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson poorlydrawncat 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T 0 01-08-2013 11:35 PM
1948-49 Leaf Jackie Robinson SmokyBurgess 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T 0 05-04-2009 08:19 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:09 AM.


ebay GSB