Question about MBA grading

craig44

i read a thread over across the street about MBA grading putting number grades on min sized cards. sure enough, it seems to be true:

https://milehighcardco.com/1915_Cracker_Jack__E145_2___30_Ty_Cobb_MBA_5_5_EX_-LOT118478.aspx

this is certainly not industry standard, or even industry accepted. I do not believe any other legitimate grader will give a number grade to a min-size card. what is going on here?

This, coupled with the news that Brent "mastro" is in the owner group of MBA and Mikes reputation with GAI grading back in the day, color me VERY skeptical about this company.

do I have it wrong here?

1982FBWaxMemories

Card "investors" and sellers love and support a good scam if they perceive a personal fiscal benefit from it.

They of course will attack a post like this with self righteous indignation

1951WheatiesPremium

@craig44 said:
i read a thread over across the street about MBA grading putting number grades on min sized cards. sure enough, it seems to be true:

https://milehighcardco.com/1915_Cracker_Jack__E145_2___30_Ty_Cobb_MBA_5_5_EX_-LOT118478.aspx

this is certainly not industry standard, or even industry accepted. I do not believe any other legitimate grader will give a number grade to a min-size card. what is going on here?

This, coupled with the news that Brent "mastro" is in the owner group of MBA and Mikes reputation with GAI grading back in the day, color me VERY skeptical about this company.

do I have it wrong here?

No. You do not have it wrong.

craig44

I have also heard that MBA "grading" will sticker their own slabs. if true, that is insane to me.

I wonder, do they charge extra for that sticker on their own slabs?

ElMagoStrikeZone

If a card comes directly from a pack or a reliable source and is Minimum Size, why would it not be deserving of a grade if the disclosure included describes it that way? There are other cards being sold this way with an assigned grade and “Minimum Size” being descriptively included. Some raw examples I observed have sold for good money. I have plenty of cards like this. Should I just throw them away?

craig44

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
If a card comes directly from a pack or a reliable source and is Minimum Size, why would it not be deserving of a grade if the disclosure included describes it that way? There are other cards being sold this way with an assigned grade and “Minimum Size” being descriptively included. Some raw examples I observed have sold for good money. I have plenty of cards like this. Should I just throw them away?

it has never been an industry standard. other than MBA grading, what legitimate grader will give a min sized card a number grade?

yes, some cards come straight from the pack min sized. the 2000 Brady rookie ticket is one. but we cannot trace the chain of custody from the original owner. a min sized card could be owned by 50 people before it is graded. we dont know. when a card doesnt measure up, it doesnt get a number. thats the breaks and the way it has always been.

the graders have a hard enough time identifying trimmed cards without giving number grades to cards that legitimately do not measure up.

I would be shocked to see this if i didnt know Brent "Mastro" was involved in MBA.

ElMagoStrikeZone

@craig44 said:

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
If a card comes directly from a pack or a reliable source and is Minimum Size, why would it not be deserving of a grade if the disclosure included describes it that way? There are other cards being sold this way with an assigned grade and “Minimum Size” being descriptively included. Some raw examples I observed have sold for good money. I have plenty of cards like this. Should I just throw them away?

it has never been an industry standard. other than MBA grading, what legitimate grader will give a min sized card a number grade?

yes, some cards come straight from the pack min sized. the 2000 Brady rookie ticket is one. but we cannot trace the chain of custody from the original owner. a min sized card could be owned by 50 people before it is graded. we dont know. when a card doesnt measure up, it doesnt get a number. thats the breaks and the way it has always been.

the graders have a hard enough time identifying trimmed cards without giving number grades to cards that legitimately do not measure up.

I would be shocked to see this if i didnt know Brent "Mastro" was involved in MBA.

The industry is changing. I won't deny any contention that the people you insist are involved are and have been suspect for a very long time. However, legitimizing the origin of cards is something way bigger than your Brady rookie ticket. There are myriad numbers of cards which deserve inspection and some kind of authentication to identify them. Some people want their stuff to be more defined than what the "standard" is, or used to be. And some want to identify cards which need to be legitimized in a method which appears to be honest. This is the direction the industry is going. You don't need to agree with it, nor do I. But it is happening.

1951WheatiesPremium

Hopefully, they’ll soon be able launch an additional service wherein they start grading the stickers, themselves.

It’s totally necessary because I’m seeing some stickers that are placed slightly O/C or have some surface scratches on them or even a corner coming up and getting some wear. Don’t get me started on the grading of the diamonds on the stickers; applying the classic ‘four C’s’ grading methodology seems like a no brainer for this aspect, right?

CW

@craig44 said:
I have also heard that MBA "grading" will sticker their own slabs. if true, that is insane to me.

I wonder, do they charge extra for that sticker on their own slabs?

Even crazier is that you can get a sticker on a card that already has the half grade bump. I don't know, just seems redundant to me.

Here's a T206 Chase from a recent auction:

1982FBWaxMemories

There could NOT be anymore of a card trimmers fox in hens house situation than MBR with Brett

Perhaps, Gary Moser and Bill Mastro can send thir trimmed cards in along with Brett's and getting slabbed grades.

craig44

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:

@craig44 said:

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
If a card comes directly from a pack or a reliable source and is Minimum Size, why would it not be deserving of a grade if the disclosure included describes it that way? There are other cards being sold this way with an assigned grade and “Minimum Size” being descriptively included. Some raw examples I observed have sold for good money. I have plenty of cards like this. Should I just throw them away?

it has never been an industry standard. other than MBA grading, what legitimate grader will give a min sized card a number grade?

yes, some cards come straight from the pack min sized. the 2000 Brady rookie ticket is one. but we cannot trace the chain of custody from the original owner. a min sized card could be owned by 50 people before it is graded. we dont know. when a card doesnt measure up, it doesnt get a number. thats the breaks and the way it has always been.

the graders have a hard enough time identifying trimmed cards without giving number grades to cards that legitimately do not measure up.

I would be shocked to see this if i didnt know Brent "Mastro" was involved in MBA.

The industry is changing. I won't deny any contention that the people you insist are involved are and have been suspect for a very long time. However, legitimizing the origin of cards is something way bigger than your Brady rookie ticket. There are myriad numbers of cards which deserve inspection and some kind of authentication to identify them. Some people want their stuff to be more defined than what the "standard" is, or used to be. And some want to identify cards which need to be legitimized in a method which appears to be honest. This is the direction the industry is going. You don't need to agree with it, nor do I. But it is happening.

min size cards have always been identified/legitimized by the big 3 graders.

as authentic or authentic altered.

min size cards have never been allowed a number grade.

I dont know if you are versed in the trimming scandal of 2018-2019, but the ability of trimmers using modern techniques is practically undetectable. including the vintage and opc rough cuts. for this reason the graders cannot give a min size card a numbered grade. nearly impossible to differentiate between a legitimate (from the pack) min size card and a trimmed min size card.

I disagree this is "the direction the industry is going." it seems to be the direction a couple of bad actors want to push the industry. We have seen Brent pull this garbage before in his PWCC days with "restoration" garbage he was trying to push on the industry. this is just a new iteration.

ElMagoStrikeZone

I’m well aware of grading policies. I’ve known about plenty of scandalous behavior within the hobby and industry. As usual, it’s up to each person to decide where to place their trust. When useful information becomes available that makes it easier to do so.

1951WheatiesPremium

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:

@craig44 said:

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
If a card comes directly from a pack or a reliable source and is Minimum Size, why would it not be deserving of a grade if the disclosure included describes it that way? There are other cards being sold this way with an assigned grade and “Minimum Size” being descriptively included. Some raw examples I observed have sold for good money. I have plenty of cards like this. Should I just throw them away?

it has never been an industry standard. other than MBA grading, what legitimate grader will give a min sized card a number grade?

yes, some cards come straight from the pack min sized. the 2000 Brady rookie ticket is one. but we cannot trace the chain of custody from the original owner. a min sized card could be owned by 50 people before it is graded. we dont know. when a card doesnt measure up, it doesnt get a number. thats the breaks and the way it has always been.

the graders have a hard enough time identifying trimmed cards without giving number grades to cards that legitimately do not measure up.

I would be shocked to see this if i didnt know Brent "Mastro" was involved in MBA.

The industry is changing. I won't deny any contention that the people you insist are involved are and have been suspect for a very long time. However, legitimizing the origin of cards is something way bigger than your Brady rookie ticket. There are myriad numbers of cards which deserve inspection and some kind of authentication to identify them. Some people want their stuff to be more defined than what the "standard" is, or used to be. And some want to identify cards which need to be legitimized in a method which appears to be honest. This is the direction the industry is going. You don't need to agree with it, nor do I. But it is happening.

I’m nuts but I read the first sentence and then my mind went immediately here:

“…so you see the puppy was a dog. But the industry, my friends…that was a revolution…

…KNIBB HIGH FOOTBALL RULES!”

ElMagoStrikeZone

Sure. Insanely idiotic and everyone here is dumber for it.

1951WheatiesPremium

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
Sure. Insanely idiotic and everyone here is dumber for it.

May god have mercy on my soul.

ElMagoStrikeZone

@craig44 said:

min size cards have always been identified/legitimized by the big 3 graders.

as authentic or authentic altered.

min size cards have never been allowed a number grade.

I had to reflect on this reply before answering. I didn't want to shoot from the hip and regret it.....

We must both agree that NONE of the so-called big 3 graders is infallible. I've submitted tens of thousands of cards over the years and handled thousands more. Cracked out a few. I can tell you from vast experience that not every opinion is necessarily correct, and by that I mean that of the grader(s) assigned to the job. They don't always get it right. There are plenty of undersized cards in holders with numbered grades assigned. You must then consider the what if's, particularly where a service which provides another opinion is concerned. This brings up an interesting thought. If you or I submit a graded card to Baker for a second opinion and a sticker, would we want complete transparency and disclosure that the card is indeed Minimum Size? Think about it. If the original grader missed an alteration, but the secondary opinion found it, would you want to know? Hmmmm. You claim that Minimum Size cards have never been allowed a number grade, and by policy that is true. The reality, though, is that it's not true.

craig44

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:

@craig44 said:

min size cards have always been identified/legitimized by the big 3 graders.

as authentic or authentic altered.

min size cards have never been allowed a number grade.

I had to reflect on this reply before answering. I didn't want to shoot from the hip and regret it.....

We must both agree that NONE of the so-called big 3 graders is infallible. I've submitted tens of thousands of cards over the years and handled thousands more. Cracked out a few. I can tell you from vast experience that not every opinion is necessarily correct, and by that I mean that of the grader(s) assigned to the job. They don't always get it right. There are plenty of undersized cards in holders with numbered grades assigned. You must then consider the what if's, particularly where a service which provides another opinion is concerned. This brings up an interesting thought. If you or I submit a graded card to Baker for a second opinion and a sticker, would we want complete transparency and disclosure that the card is indeed Minimum Size? Think about it. If the original grader missed an alteration, but the secondary opinion found it, would you want to know? Hmmmm. You claim that Minimum Size cards have never been allowed a number grade, and by policy that is true. The reality, though, is that it's not true.

I think you have fallen into a logical fallacy here. are you postulating that because mistakes have been made by giving number grades to a min size card that we should change policy to allow min size cards number grades? wouldnt that be like saying that because sometimes police officers dont catch every person speeding that we should abolish speed limits?

to add, i am not convinced that a card can be reviewed for min size while holdered because of parallax. you cannot tell if card is /32 or even /16 short in a slab.

there is also zero excuse for any grader missing min size cards. it only takes 10 seconds or less to accurately determine if a card measures up or not. you also mentioned that grading "services provide opinions" that is true for much of the grading process, but not min size. that is 100% objective not subjective. a card either measures up, or it does not.

brad31

Where did you see that Brent is in the owner group? I was not aware of that.

bgr

I have had quite a few interesting interactions with PSA regarding min-size objectivity and I think you're giving them too much credit. I've been told things such as:

• whether the card is min-size or not is up to the grader's discretion and how the card sits in the holder.
• another grader might evaluate the card differently and give it a numerical grade if I send the card back in for review in the holder.

I have to submit some cards a few times to get a number grade. They eventually do, but if they're really sharp and in that margin, I think they assume it's trimmed and min-size it - because they don't know / they can't know.

Regarding measurement of a card in a slab I would argue that it's possible and that this is a problem that is not novel. Parallax is a result of perspective that can result in observational error from the camera sensor. You can address this by changing the perspective to measure - such as by using two images which are both taken without angle to the points of measure. Another, simpler way, is to use the known camera intrinsics and camera system extrinsics to compensate for the error. The precision will be defined by the resolution and it would be orders of magnitude more precise than 1/32 of an inch.

I don't see MBA as a legitimate grader any more than PSA is., and I think it's a little bit misleading to mark a card as min-size and give it a grade. Not because a min-size card couldn't/ shouldn't be given a number grade (if it wasn't too small it would be a seven, etc.), but rather, because they don't know if it's min-size or was the work of a surgeon.

CW

@brad31 said:
Where did you see that Brent is in the owner group? I was not aware of that.

saw this posted by Peter over on Net54:

https://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=2311893&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE

craig44

@bgr said:
I have had quite a few interesting interactions with PSA regarding min-size objectivity and I think you're giving them too much credit. I've been told things such as:

• whether the card is min-size or not is up to the grader's discretion and how the card sits in the holder.
• another grader might evaluate the card differently and give it a numerical grade if I send the card back in for review in the holder.

I have to submit some cards a few times to get a number grade. They eventually do, but if they're really sharp and in that margin, I think they assume it's trimmed and min-size it - because they don't know / they can't know.

Regarding measurement of a card in a slab I would argue that it's possible and that this is a problem that is not novel. Parallax is a result of perspective that can result in observational error from the camera sensor. You can address this by changing the perspective to measure - such as by using two images which are both taken without angle to the points of measure. Another, simpler way, is to use the known camera intrinsics and camera system extrinsics to compensate for the error. The precision will be defined by the resolution and it would be orders of magnitude more precise than 1/32 of an inch.

I don't see MBA as a legitimate grader any more than PSA is., and I think it's a little bit misleading to mark a card as min-size and give it a grade. Not because a min-size card couldn't/ shouldn't be given a number grade (if it wasn't too small it would be a seven, etc.), but rather, because they don't know if it's min-size or was the work of a surgeon.

I am looking at parallax in relation to a rifle scope. because the reticle and target are not on the same focal plane, if your eye is not perfectly in line with both the scope and reticle, the reticle can shift in relation to the target. similarly, because the measuring tool and the card are not on the same focal plane when it is suspended in the slab, any very slight shift in either your eye/card/ruler will throw off the measurement. when we are talking about very small measurements (/32") it can be exceedingly difficult to get a true reading.

craig44

@bgr this is the crux of the issue. "because they don't know if it's min-size or was the work of a surgeon."

with trimming "technology" where it is at, the ability to recreate even vintage/opc rough cuts, the only real "tell" is size. yes, that may disqualify some legitimate factory short cut cards, but will help to keep trimmed short cards out of numbered slabs.

1982FBWaxMemories

Mile High and cronies are doin' it again - this should surprise no one.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?p=20133088#post20133088

@1982FBWaxMemories said:

@1982FBWaxMemories said:
I commented on it here earlier in the week:

@1982FBWaxMemories said:
Mile High and cronies are doin' it again - this should surprise no one.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?p=20133088#post20133088

My guess is no one who has spent solid coin on little stickers to be placed on their slabs will say anything negative about Mike or Brent. They also will remain totally quiet on trimming!

In addition Mike Baker will NEVER note trimming on a cards sent for sticker-ing - not his job he will say --- yeah right especially when he has a business relationship with the person who may have trimmed it in the first place.

Now awaiting the "advanced" collectors here who I'm sure will tell us Baker is above and Trimming is fine 'cause it's only about the Benjamins. Trimming is fine as long as you own the cards and can make money off of them -- right!

Mike Baker LOVES trimmed cards enough to give them credence with a numerical grade - seriously WTF:

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpost.php?p=20138807&postcount=31

craig44

just terrible

bgr

@craig44 said:

@bgr said:
I have had quite a few interesting interactions with PSA regarding min-size objectivity and I think you're giving them too much credit. I've been told things such as:

• whether the card is min-size or not is up to the grader's discretion and how the card sits in the holder.
• another grader might evaluate the card differently and give it a numerical grade if I send the card back in for review in the holder.

I have to submit some cards a few times to get a number grade. They eventually do, but if they're really sharp and in that margin, I think they assume it's trimmed and min-size it - because they don't know / they can't know.

Regarding measurement of a card in a slab I would argue that it's possible and that this is a problem that is not novel. Parallax is a result of perspective that can result in observational error from the camera sensor. You can address this by changing the perspective to measure - such as by using two images which are both taken without angle to the points of measure. Another, simpler way, is to use the known camera intrinsics and camera system extrinsics to compensate for the error. The precision will be defined by the resolution and it would be orders of magnitude more precise than 1/32 of an inch.

I don't see MBA as a legitimate grader any more than PSA is., and I think it's a little bit misleading to mark a card as min-size and give it a grade. Not because a min-size card couldn't/ shouldn't be given a number grade (if it wasn't too small it would be a seven, etc.), but rather, because they don't know if it's min-size or was the work of a surgeon.

I am looking at parallax in relation to a rifle scope. because the reticle and target are not on the same focal plane, if your eye is not perfectly in line with both the scope and reticle, the reticle can shift in relation to the target. similarly, because the measuring tool and the card are not on the same focal plane when it is suspended in the slab, any very slight shift in either your eye/card/ruler will throw off the measurement. when we are talking about very small measurements (/32") it can be exceedingly difficult to get a true reading.

I understand the concern. I am just stating that this problem has been solved. It's important to know the distance (between those focal planes) to perform the measurement without error. I don't want to suggest it's easy for the lay person to do, but I don't want to promote that there are only a rare few who can do this either. It's a 6 out of 10.

ElMagoStrikeZone

I enjoy a robust conversation about this topic. The speed limit comparison gave me a good laugh. I will not defend or be an apologist for them. This is the direction they’ve decided to go. None of us need to follow them into another crash.

sayheywyo

Simple solution. Do away with the min-size and call them mis-cut. There you go, numerical grade, half grade, stickers. They can change the standards to whatever and have already done so in the past.

1982FBWaxMemories

@sayheywyo said:
Simple solution. Do away with the min-size and call them mis-cut. There you go, numerical grade, half grade, stickers. They can change the standards to whatever and have already done so in the past.

Hope you are kidding as that that would be a true victory & validation for the Brent's,Baker's, Gary Moser's, Bill Mastro's of the world.

craig44

More MBA tomfoolery.

there is a new post across the street with a poster asking about crossing an MBA 7 t206 johnson to PSA. after reading through the thread, it sure seems that the walter johnson that is currently sitting in a brentbaker 7 slab is the same johnson that sold in summer 2024 in an REA auction that was in a PSA 2 graded slab. it was in the psa 2 slab because of glue residue which was disclosed by REA in the description.

looks like Brent Mastro is bringing his "restoration" knowledge to MBA grading.

i would say to beware MBA slabs.

NachoNeil

Brent had a history with Gary Moser, many of whose trimmed cards ended up with the PWCC stickers. Brent and Gary both profited enormously from this venture.

Brent is now the investor behind MBA with some of Mike's self-graded, stickered cards now being outed as trimmed. Why anyone would trust items coming through a Huigens-financed enterprise is beyond me as he's already shown us his stripes.

Here we go again. Round 2.

mintonlypls

I’ll follow Ali….and do a rope-a-dope here.

craig44

@NachoNeil said:
Brent had a history with Gary Moser, many of whose trimmed cards ended up with the PWCC stickers. Brent and Gary both profited enormously from this venture.

Brent is now the investor behind MBA with some of Mike's self-graded, stickered cards now being outed as trimmed. Why anyone would trust items coming through a Huigens-financed enterprise is beyond me as he's already shown us his stripes.

Here we go again. Round 2.

agreed. this will not end well.

I very much dislike bad actors in the hobby, and was really surprised Brent scurried out from under the refridgerator after the PWCC debacle.

there will come a point sometime in the future where MBA slabs will be like a hot potato.

1951WheatiesPremium

@craig44 said:

@NachoNeil said:
Brent had a history with Gary Moser, many of whose trimmed cards ended up with the PWCC stickers. Brent and Gary both profited enormously from this venture.

Brent is now the investor behind MBA with some of Mike's self-graded, stickered cards now being outed as trimmed. Why anyone would trust items coming through a Huigens-financed enterprise is beyond me as he's already shown us his stripes.

Here we go again. Round 2.

agreed. this will not end well.

I very much dislike bad actors in the hobby, and was really surprised Brent scurried out from under the refridgerator after the PWCC debacle.

there will come a point sometime in the future where MBA slabs will be like a hot potato.

olb31

I do like the concept. I will pick a 1987 topps Barry bonds as an example. There are many psa 10's of this card, but many are not centered the way you would think a 10 would be centered. having a stamp on one that was centered by a reputable company, person, psa, sgc, whomever, would be nice. JMHO.

grote15

@olb31 said:
I do like the concept. I will pick a 1987 topps Barry bonds as an example. There are many psa 10's of this card, but many are not centered the way you would think a 10 would be centered. having a stamp on one that was centered by a reputable company, person, psa, sgc, whomever, would be nice. JMHO.

Or you could just use your eyes.

1982FBWaxMemories

The evidence keeps on mounting against Baker, Brent and MileHigh:

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1623005&page=4

Gotti was convicted on far less than this...

NachoNeil

@mintonlypls said:
I’ll follow Ali….and do a rope-a-dope here.

Cool. In the meantime, I hope and pray your stickered cards don't end up on Blowout or you'll have a heckuva time reselling them.

ElMagoStrikeZone

I don't understand the consternation over Monte's cards. I'm only a sideline spectator to his efforts, but it seems to me he's pretty adept at finding and acquiring legit cards in holders BEFORE they ever make it into the hands of the "evaluators" who add a sticker. He should be very confident about what he owns. He's only attempting to enhance what is already approved by the holy Gods of PSA. Elsewhere, the cheaters will cheat. It's not his job to stop them. I suppose if he felt a concern over being identified with them, he'd just remove the sticker. Voila! He sleeps well.

craig44

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
I don't understand the consternation over Monte's cards. I'm only a sideline spectator to his efforts, but it seems to me he's pretty adept at finding and acquiring legit cards in holders BEFORE they ever make it into the hands of the "evaluators" who add a sticker. He should be very confident about what he owns. He's only attempting to enhance what is already approved by the holy Gods of PSA. Elsewhere, the cheaters will cheat. It's not his job to stop them. I suppose if he felt a concern over being identified with them, he'd just remove the sticker. Voila! He sleeps well.

I personally dont care one bit about his cards. I believe they are all PSA holdered. they are probably good to go (though i am sure we ALL have doctored cards that have slipped through)

my issue is people continuing to do business with KNOWN bad actors in the hobby. I have never understood doing business with shady/crooked people. that goes for sports cards, transmission repair shops or appliance stores. why give bad people/businesses your hard earned? it does nothing but perpetuate the problem.

if everyone just stopped doing business with guys like Brent/Baker/MBA and the like, they would have no recourse but to close up shop. that is why i will keep "shouting from the rooftops" whenever I hear about these bad actors. It is possible there is some new hobbiest lurking on these forums for the first time that have never heard of this before. i just cannot imagine going into business with someone like Brent. like they say, birds of a feather...

i suppose it is stuff over integrity for many folks though.

ElMagoStrikeZone

@craig44 said:

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
I don't understand the consternation over Monte's cards. I'm only a sideline spectator to his efforts, but it seems to me he's pretty adept at finding and acquiring legit cards in holders BEFORE they ever make it into the hands of the "evaluators" who add a sticker. He should be very confident about what he owns. He's only attempting to enhance what is already approved by the holy Gods of PSA. Elsewhere, the cheaters will cheat. It's not his job to stop them. I suppose if he felt a concern over being identified with them, he'd just remove the sticker. Voila! He sleeps well.

I personally dont care one bit about his cards. I believe they are all PSA holdered. they are probably good to go (though i am sure we ALL have doctored cards that have slipped through)

my issue is people continuing to do business with KNOWN bad actors in the hobby. I have never understood doing business with shady/crooked people. that goes for sports cards, transmission repair shops or appliance stores. why give bad people/businesses your hard earned? it does nothing but perpetuate the problem.

if everyone just stopped doing business with guys like Brent/Baker/MBA and the like, they would have no recourse but to close up shop. that is why i will keep "shouting from the rooftops" whenever I hear about these bad actors. It is possible there is some new hobbiest lurking on these forums for the first time that have never heard of this before. i just cannot imagine going into business with someone like Brent. like they say, birds of a feather...

i suppose it is stuff over integrity for many folks though.

There’s no argument here. Really. Keep shouting. I don’t mind. We’ve all dealt with shady people in the past. You probably have and didn’t even know at the time. You completed a transaction and walked away satisfied. The hobby, or business, has allowed for such behavior for a very long time. It just manifests itself in different forms and shapes.
Warning people about potential trouble is a good thing. The information being shared about troublemakers is a good thing. It’s a personal choice in which bed you sleep.

brad31

I know everything Brent and PWCC did and will stay away because of this - but keep hearing about Mike Baker and GIA.

From what I remember and can find - Mike Baker was at PSA and bought GIA's assets out of bankruptcy. He and a partner started Global Authority to be a new grader using GIAs old equipment. Global then had an idea for free grading - where you submit cards, get a grade and only pay for those you want to encapsulate at that grade. The company did not anticipate the amount of cards they would get that submitters chose not to encapsulate (situations where only a 10 made sense to grade and others where the service was used in bad faith to screen cards to submit elsewhere) and quickly fell behind. They could sustain the costs of grading the cards they had received without a high enough percentage electing to encapsulate and went bankrupt and ceased operations. Is there shadiness I am missing or was it the consequences of a program that (free grading) that did not work the way they anticipated?

Any info here on what I have wrong or additional stuff about Baker would be appreciated.

mintonlypls

Was there an GIA, too or only GAI?

handyman

It’s all the same at this point I think.

You are guaranteed to get a Pokémon card folks!!

1982FBWaxMemories

@mintonlypls said:
Was there an GIA, too or only GAI?

Perhaps folks are thinking of the old Gia Prism, later the Chevy Prism. All were re-badged Corrolla's. Highly dependable automobiles.

grote15

@brad31 said:
I know everything Brent and PWCC did and will stay away because of this - but keep hearing about Mike Baker and GIA.

From what I remember and can find - Mike Baker was at PSA and bought GIA's assets out of bankruptcy. He and a partner started Global Authority to be a new grader using GIAs old equipment. Global then had an idea for free grading - where you submit cards, get a grade and only pay for those you want to encapsulate at that grade. The company did not anticipate the amount of cards they would get that submitters chose not to encapsulate (situations where only a 10 made sense to grade and others where the service was used in bad faith to screen cards to submit elsewhere) and quickly fell behind. They could sustain the costs of grading the cards they had received without a high enough percentage electing to encapsulate and went bankrupt and ceased operations. Is there shadiness I am missing or was it the consequences of a program that (free grading) that did not work the way they anticipated?

Any info here on what I have wrong or additional stuff about Baker would be appreciated.

Baker purchased the card and wax pack grading divisions for GAI in 2009.

ElMagoStrikeZone

I thought GIA is the Gemological Institute of America.

grote15

@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
I thought GIA is the Gemological Institute of America.

I assume he meant to type GAI as that is the company Baker was heading.

brad31

I did mean GAI thanks. Still trying to learn what the watch outs are about Baker if any from those days.

1951WheatiesPremium

@brad31 said:
I did mean GAI thanks. Still trying to learn what the watch outs are about Baker if any from those days.

The older the slab the better.

addicted2ebay

old school here but any card slabbed not in a psa, sgc or Beckett holder immediately becomes questionable size wise like PRO basically and anyone dropping 5 figures plus on them is crazy imo.

edit: I’ll add CGC to that list of being reputable.

coinspacks

Here is a mike baker cameo

https://youtube.com/shorts/C1jEFkb1Dv4?si=HFAtWq5VkcUkj1Ie