|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Robert {Bigb13}
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: jay behrens
If this bids are legit, I am sure we can count a lot more scammers submitting their reprints so they can get the valuable ?AUTHTCT flip. I never understood why a flip is sent for a card they won't. It serves no purpose, except for this one. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: identify7
If the authenticity is not questionable, they should not state that it is. I do not think that the authenticity of this card is uncertain. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Tom Boblitt
fake fake fake........ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)
The seller even amended the item description to indicate that the PSA label meant questionable authenticity. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: identify7
To some, questionable authenticity means that PSA says - maybe it is real, we aren't sure. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Robert {Bigb13}
If these are real bidders they really should experience themselves
in what a real CJ should look like. Rob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)
If these are real bidders then the winner is going to find out just how much $500 of experience will be worth... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: tbob
I looked at all the past feedback of the winning bidder and he looks legit to me. Just fooled by this obvious fake. So I guess this means that PSA won't grade my blank back T207 as authentic, even though it is, but will grade an obviously fake Cracker Jack reprint. Gee, nice to know... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)
I guess we should include this link with it: |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: barrysloate
Anybody have the nerve to email the winner and tell him exactly what his $500 got him? I hate to get involved, but maybe someone on the board has more guts than I do. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Lee Behrens
To me just more proof why you should NEVER use PSA, no scruples. They will grade anything for a buck. We are to believe they are "experts" doing crap like this. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: leon
I am a little less than neutral about PSA but they did get this one RIGHT. If anyone buys a card in a holder that has a question mark next to "authentic" then I just don't have too much sympathy for them. Questionable authenticity is the correct grade on this.....actually more correct would be "FAKE"....but I still think PSA was ok on this one...unless there's something I am missing....regards |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: barrysloate
"Questionable" sounds like they couldn't determine if it was fake or real, and thus are not passing final judgment. In this case, there's no grey area, it's 100% fake. Misleading label. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Lee Behrens
Leon, |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: scott brockelman
according to a quick check of the cert. # PSA never slabbed the card, they returned it unslabbed with the label, just as they do trimmed or recolored cards, or any other card not slabbed for some reason, they all get a cert# and label as they go through the grading process. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: dennis
it's either a reprint or authentic...there should be no such thing as questionable authenticity. shame on PSA for not calling this a REPRINT. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: leon
I have to agree. The more I think about it there is really nothing "questionable" here and it should have been labeled a FAKE or REPRINT.....I guess it's semantics and PSA should be more clear. If I graded the card in question I would put a big fat "FAKE" or "REPRINT" on the label..... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Rick
PSA did nothing wrong...sent back the card to the guy without a holder and told him they wouldnt grade it. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: David Vargha
Questionable authenticity is simply "lawyerese" for fake. What does SGC call it? Geez, the card was unslabbed and sent back because it wasn't real. That somebody then bid $500 on it is a testament to greed, not PSA's inability to convey the English language properly. PSA has enough real issues without having to create imaginary ones. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: jay behrens
so why is it neccessary to speak legalese? Why is it so difficult to just call it a reprint? Reprint is clear, concise and to the point. Calling a card "? AUTHNTCT" leaves their judgement of the card wide open to interpretation. This is completely unacceptable from a company that claims to be the leader in its field. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: David Vargha
so why is it neccessary to speak legalese? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: one-in-ten
Why not just refuse to slab the card like SGC does? I have nothing against PSA, but that seems the reasonable thing to do. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: rob
Where they made the mistake was where they typed up that label, quite misleading. Just where are PSA's so called experts? They should know a 1915 CJ back will be upside down. Of course, so should anyone buying CJ cards. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Greg Ecklund
PSA did refuse to slab that card - they did their job in that regard. I don't know how anyone can look at the picture of it and think it is in a slab. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Lee Behrens
First all everyone the card was never slabbed. It go the same procedure as SGC, where you get a label without a slab. Where I fel that PSA is wrong is the that the label is theirs and the ? Authentic, is a very poor way of saying why the card was not slabbed. It still has there named attached, even though it is not slabbed. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)
It's Back.... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: scott ingold
With the same returned not authentic flips. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)
Last one (at this time): |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
To Much Money for a Fake
Posted By: dennis
Backed out after auction ended. BEWARE!! Please remove this buyer from Ebay |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Was it real, fake, or did someone just offer money to end? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 12-17-2006 09:56 AM |
Welch Old Judge ebay item - fake or just too much money? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 02-06-2006 08:49 AM |
When you have no money.... | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 24 | 11-11-2005 10:28 AM |
How much money is out there? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 135 | 05-06-2005 12:18 AM |
What a deal! Fake Ramly and fake signature to boot! | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 01-13-2005 11:16 AM |