Registry Autograph Sets and a problem with PSA policy with them

GOODLIEU

I am in the process of trying to assemble a PSA authenticated HOF/TOP 50 Basketball autographed set. This process has become more difficult due to the PSA rule that prohibits authenticated cards from the manufacturer dated before 1998 . This leaves out in Basketball the 1995 Action Packed HOF cards, 1996 Topps Stars Rookie Reprint Auto's, 1996/1997 Skybox autographic's and others. The only way to get these cards graded is to send them through their PSA/DNA service which is going to cost you $20.00 a card as opposed to utilizing the Special at $5.00 a card. Believe me I am not knocking the PSA/DNA service at all, as I realize how vital it is in getting hand signed cards of retired or deceased players authenticated and graded. I do not follow it that closely but I am sure that this problem also is occurring in the other major sports Auto Registry sets. I would like to get some feedback on how others feel about this before addressing to PSA directly. In my opinion they should eliminate any dates and treat all manufacturer's signed cards like any other card.

NathanSr

I submitted a 1997 Seau card through PSA/DNA. It has certification on the front of the card. I also submitted a 1997 Seau through the PSA/DNA service that did not have any certification on either side of the card. Both cards were issued by the manufacturer in packs. I can understand why I had to submit the later through PSA/DNA but the first one? I feel they need to address this issue. Leaving things as they are seems easiest for them, but I do not appreciate having to shell out $15.00 more for the authentication. I am very certain in my opinion that PSA saw the certification on the front of the first card and passed it as authentic. This, without any expert actually approving the signature. If they were not already part of the master set registry, I would not have bothered with them as there are plenty of other certified auto's issued after 1998.

As a note, both of these cards were autographed issued cards, not an autogrpahed parallel of an existing no autogrpahed base card.

Nathan Sr.

liffeystynx

As the originator of the first autograph registry set (HOF BB) I have had to go through this with a number of cards. I figured that PSA's rationale was that, pre-1998, there was more occasion/opportunity for forgery, especially where you had both autographed and non-autographed versions of the same card issued - I almost got burned on one of those.

I would counsel against demanding a change to the current regime, however, as PSA's solution may well be to insist that ALL autographed cards go through the $20 authentication process. Anybody up for that?

Jonathan

wufdude

It seems there was thread somewhere that discussed PSA's rationale for requiring auto cards prior to 1998 to go through the authentication process. I know there was an issue with some "certified" Donnie Shell autos being signed by his wife...

doncherry

<< <i>I would counsel against demanding a change to the current regime, however, as PSA's solution may well be to insist that ALL autographed cards go through the $20 authentication process. Anybody up for that?

Jonathan >>





While i agree it can be frustrating having to pay $20 for pre 1998 cards . I really think we are heading closer to $20 for all autograph cards instead of $5 specials . The logic being if you look at the situation with the BGS Upperdeck fake Ruth autograph . BGS is sharing in the bad publicity even though they only graded the card not the authenticity of the autographs on it. I really don't think PSA would want the bad publicity associated with grading something like this

fsjeter

I think pre-1988 auto's that were signed directly on the card and certified by the manufacturer (like the Mikan above) should not have to go through the authentication process. Obviously, cut signatures, like the Ruth example mentioned in the previous post, and non certified auto's are a completely different animal and should be authenticated before grading. That said, BGS did give the Ruth, Cobb, Johnson, and Wagner atuo's in that Upper Deck card a grade of "10" without first authenticating them. IMO, if you are going to grade an autograph you need to make sure it's real first. It's a logical part of the process and is as necessary as making sure a card is not counterfeit before giving it a grade. Just my $0.02.

Scott

GOODLIEU

Upper Deck or any company that authenticates these cards have to be held responsible for them. This is why I stated before that PSA and Beckett since their name came up should only be in the business of slabbing these cards regardless of what year they came out and not authenticating them. The exception to this would be submitting your card to PSA/DNA who are responsible for authentication. By the way the following info is right from the Beckett sight in referece to their autograph grade.
This is the info direct from Bekett on their Authenticated Autograph Grading Service.
Certified Autograph Cards

Beckett Grading Services will grade cards with "certified autographs".
That is, cards issued by major manufacturers that carry additional design
elements indicating the manufacturer has certified the autograph of the card.
The autograph itself will not be authenticated.



In grading the autograph itself on a card, the key feature being examined is
the production quality and clarity of the signature (and other after-market
ink, such as hand serial-numbering or inscriptions). This does not take into
account the legibility of the player’s autograph; rather, it involves aspects
such as bubbling, smearing, positioning/location, etc.



The autograph subgrade will stand alone and play no part in determining the
overall grade. Generally speaking, autograph flaws will only deduct from the
autograph grade. For example, a card that was signed and immediately smeared
will get a lower grade on the autograph, but the surface will not be affected.
An exception to this rule would be if the autograph flaw affects both the
signature quality and the card itself; for instance, a signed cut that creases
the surface and also smears the autograph. The best rule of thumb is that any
flaws related to the actual ink of the autograph will normally be deducted
from the autograph grade, while other flaws generally are taken into account
on the surface grade. When the signature is on a sticker or cut, and the
sticker/cut itself is creased (or torn, stained, etc.), this is taken into
account in the surface grade. Excess glue bleeding onto the cut is also
counted against surface. If the flaw also damages the autograph itself,
both the surface and autograph grade may be lowered.

fsjeter

<<For example, a card that was signed and immediately smeared
will get a lower grade on the autograph, but the surface will not be affected.>>

Well, thanks to BGS, I feel a whole lot better knowing that Marino didn't smear that "Ruth" signature he forged. I, for one, put no premium on the BGS Autograph grade. I know Upper Deck dropped the ball on that card and possibly others, but I stand by my original comment that all cut signatures should be authenticated if they are going to be slabbed. I agree that the manufacturers should be held responsible but I also feel that BGS needs to reassess their policy on grading signatures and should take some responsibility as well. If that policy were in place at BGS, the card would never have sold assuming they would have caught it as being fake. Incidently, Beckett brokered the sale of that card for the owner listing it under their own name on eBay which doesn't sit too well with me either, but I digress.

Again, if part of the process of grading a card is to make sure the card is not counterfeit, why would you treat an autograph any differently if it is to be graded. Truthfully, many of the signed cards in packs today are not signed in person. More than a few of them are shipped to the player to sign and then shipped back. So, you don't really know who signed that card (not that I believe there is any foul play but it is possible). I think PSA and other companies should charge one price to do both (authenticating and grading). I don't think they should charge the full price for both nor do I believe they should grade a cut auto without authenticating it first. Cards signed in the presence of the manufacturer should be graded without authentication as I don't think any manufacturers are deliberately trying to deceive us.

Scott

roastedcat

Join the club, your still going to pay the $20. I've been asking them for years and still they tell me my questions have been noted
and under review and still I have to pay the $20. anyways.... I decided the easy way to complete this set is buy cards already slabbed.
Forget sending them in to PSA/DNA it's not worth it they are not accurate anyways. They think they are the best, they think they know what everyone signatures look like, an athlete can sign hundreds of items in a day at a convention and after awhile their signature tend to not look as neatly and one of these items you personally get signed and witnessed by them fails to pass PSA/DNA inspection. Your out $20. and yep it happens to me all the time. What can you do. Just sell off the card on ebay and forget about it.

markmac

I have sent in a few of these 1996 Topps Stars autos (Mikan, Jones, Reed) and they have graded them under the $5 special. I forgot all about the 1998-present rule when sending them in. I also requested the NBA@50 auto set just last week.

GOODLIEU

I wrote the message below on the original thread regarding the HBO revelation that a Upper Deck card with 4 HOF players were possibly fake and my point was to take the Grading service's out of the equation and weigh the value of the manufacturer authenticated cards on what we the consumers thought we were getting when we opened up a pack of U.D.,Topps etc. It seems to me now that my opinion of problems in the authenticated card market are defintely taking hold as the messages and opinions of the collectors in this thread seem to indicate that they have lost have lost quite a bit of faith in Authenticated cards. From a collecting stand point this could be bad news because the market lately for Autos of Deceased Hall of Famers which will be coming in the form of cuts on cards created to hold them will if I'm reading this correctly always be looked at somewhat dubious. Maybe PSA/DNA or another reputable Authenticating service can hook up with the Card companies and put their seal of approval on the Autographed cuts before they are carded and put into production this way wether you grade it or not you have a little more faith in the cards authenticity.This was my original message on 1/18/06 . By the way thanks to everyone for their input and opinions on this thread.
This one really bugs me because I love those Auto cards and was thinking that any one of us would have went into shock upon opening up a pack of Upper Deck cards and seeing a card such as this sitting in the middle of the pack. And after we came out of our state of shock the first thing anyone except the real avid collector would be thinking is "Cha-Ching" and to be honest you would have thought before this cut-card problem that a plastic inner sleeve with a good screwdown holder and the closest phone in order to call one of the auction houses would be all you really would need to cash in on the lotto. The reason for that was easy than "Authenticated from the Card Company = Real Thing". Again without beating a dead horse this is Upper Decks screwup that in the long run is going to end up hurting everyone Them,Us,Grading Services,Other Card Company's and Reputable Autograph services. I just hope they straighten this mess up by getting that card out of circulation and compensating the parties involved and making the problem and their reaction to it as public as possible so their credibility and the hobby itself can be restored.