Why can't I blame them for not providing me an explanation? I paid a lot of money for their service.
Also, am I allowed to blame them over my Sue Bird screw up? They wouldn't even refund my money after I told them that she signed it right in front of me.
I'm just trying to get one of you die hard PSA guys to admit that PSA is not the final authority on these issues. >>
Sorry PSA is the final authority over what gets into their holders. I'm also VERY skeptical over the idea that you can't get them to tell you why they won't holder it. I specifically gave you the direct questions to ask PSA in reguards to your card.
Did you ask them specifically if a card that gets the "MG" is potentially altered or is it simply a good card that didn't make grade?
It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not.
<< <i>Allen, your comment about De Nile is original. For the record, about half of De Nile is in Sudan. The origin of the Nile, the Blue Nile, begins in Ethiopia. >>
So are you telling me that the Nile River does not flow through Egypt? Please educate me if that is the case. >>
Of course it does silly. About half of it. The other half is in Sudan. The Blue Nile is in Ethiopia and Sudan where it becomes a tributary to the Nile.
<< <i>I may be a little naive, but doesnt PSA have an obligation here...PSA doesnt see these types of cards everyday, wouldnt there be an obligation to let the customer know if it is trimmed, thus the customer saving $$ on PSA submissions? >>
By them NOT offering an explanation is better for business. Just on this example the OP has submitted the card twice now, doubling their money on just him alone. No telling just how many times they have seen this exact card now.
"I may be a little naive, but doesnt PSA have an obligation here...PSA doesnt see these types of cards everyday, wouldnt there be an obligation to let the customer know if it is trimmed, thus the customer saving $$ on PSA submissions? "
<< <i>I may be a little naive, but doesnt PSA have an obligation here...PSA doesnt see these types of cards everyday, wouldnt there be an obligation to let the customer know if it is trimmed, thus the customer saving $$ on PSA submissions? >>
By them NOT offering an explanation is better for business. Just on this example the OP has submitted the card twice now, doubling their money on just him alone. No telling just how many times they have seen this exact card now. >>
"It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not. "
<< <i>"It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not. "
So, with this being said, we all concede at very best, the card is a 3, or at worse, it may indeed be altered?
Either way, a 3 is what, maybe $1500-$2000? And altered is how much??
He will lose on this card no matter how it turns, so if it was me, I would just submit to PSA and tell them to slab it one way or another. That way, the truth is out, the card is slabbed, and life can move on, one way or another. For better or worse..
<< <i> Sorry PSA is the final authority over what gets into their holders. I'm also VERY skeptical over the idea that you can't get them to tell you why they won't holder it. I specifically gave you the direct questions to ask PSA in reguards to your card.
Did you ask them specifically if a card that gets the "MG" is potentially altered or is it simply a good card that didn't make grade?
It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not. >>
PSA of course has the final say over what they slab but they aren't the final authority for determining card alterations. Yes, I specifically asked if MG meant that it could have been altered. Noah, in customer service explained that MG means that it did not make the grade. When asked if they note whether they believe a card has been altered, Noah's response was that it would not be noted anywhere. I have had other people tell me that they were advised that their cards were altered on a failed crossover. So, something is not consistent with their policy. Perhaps it was changed.
The reason I have not cracked it out and submitted it raw is simply out of total fear of damaging the card while cracking the slab. I was under the assumption that PSA would have more experience in doing so and would also have no problems paying up if they damaged the card. I tested cracking a GAI slab with a Randy Moss autographed rookie card. I got the card out undamaged but it was not a pretty sight.
<< <i>"It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not. "
So, with this being said, we all concede at very best, the card is a 3, or at worse, it may indeed be altered?
Either way, a 3 is what, maybe $1500-$2000? And altered is how much??
He will lose on this card no matter how it turns, so if it was me, I would just submit to PSA and tell them to slab it one way or another. That way, the truth is out, the card is slabbed, and life can move on, one way or another. For better or worse.. >>
You were 100% positive that the card was trimmed. Now you say that everyone concedes that the card is a 3 at best. Where are you pulling this cr*p from? Are you just trying to play games here or are you serious? The reason everyone jumped on the whole idea that it was trimmed is because it sure as he!! would be the best looking 3 ever seen.
<< <i>If the card is not for sale, if the sole purpose for the PSA holder is uniformity, and if it is certain to not be altered, if any grade is nothing more than mere opinion, why even request minimum grade? >>
This is a valid question. I'll answer as best I can. The card's value is somewhat of a concern to me. Whether right or wrong, PSA slabbed cards bring in more money than cards from GAI in the SAME GRADE. However, I strongly believe that I could get considerably more out of this card as a GAI 4.5 than a PSA 3. I was already offered $2200 from a dealer who obviously must leave room for a minimum $400-$500 mark up.
IF the OP has any recourse against GAI, it would be lost if he did that.
IF the card is altered, he needs a written opinion from SGC or PSA to make his case.
NOTE: I have NO idea how GAI handles this kind of problem. As a highly litigious person, I would pursue the matter if GAI was not cooperative. >>
Well, then I would be getting GAI the phone, Monday, and see what could be done, instead of dancing the issue on this message board, if I truly wanted a solution. I would ask them what proof they needed, in order buy the card back, and I would get to collecting the evidence right away.
Blaming PSA, being in denial, and making excuses, is going to result in plifter taking the hit on this one. Heck, he may very well take the loss either way it goes. I would want the truth, and go down fighting, rather than living in denial, as to what I am stuck with(a potentially altered Goudey Ruth).
<< <i>As noted, even if it was deemed a 3.5, it would NOT have met MG. >>
Exactly, this is where my problem with PSA comes into play. You can't torture an explanation out of them. This leaves a frustrated customer like myself. Can't they just at least have different wording for a card that simply doesn't meet the grade and a card that shows signs of alteration?
<< <i>"It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not. "
So, with this being said, we all concede at very best, the card is a 3, or at worse, it may indeed be altered?
Either way, a 3 is what, maybe $1500-$2000? And altered is how much??
He will lose on this card no matter how it turns, so if it was me, I would just submit to PSA and tell them to slab it one way or another. That way, the truth is out, the card is slabbed, and life can move on, one way or another. For better or worse.. >>
You were 100% positive that the card was trimmed. Now you say that everyone concedes that the card is a 3 at best. Where are you pulling this cr*p from? Are you just trying to play games here or are you serious? The reason everyone jumped on the whole idea that it was trimmed is because it sure as he!! would be the best looking 3 ever seen. >>
I believe the card is altered, yes.
But, if we take the evidence at hand, we know the card will not grade a PSA 5, nor a PSA 4, so at best, it's a PSA 3.5 or less......or else it is altered. Period....
I have never changed my thoughts, and am not pulling anything, just trying to get a general concession on the card from the other guys that was discussing this matter. I do not play games, I speak honestly as to how I feel. This is just the way I am.
You seem to want to blame everyone for this problem, including PSA, and other members of this forum. That is silly.
Wow, some of you are being pretty hard on Plifter here. As others have pointed out, it may just be that PSA does not believe the card is up to the minimum grade he requested.
Does PSA not state evidence of trimming when they deny cards for this reason? I know I have seen a number of pops on these forums where that information was specifically stated by PSA. I would also add that many of the posters with these pops have said they pulled the card out of wax themselves back when the product was brand new.
I am uncertain as to how it became fact that PSA rejected this card for evidence of trimming to some people. It is just speculation at this point and it is important to keep that context in mind.
Incidentally, I personally do not believe that PSA makes significantly more, or less, mistakes than BGS/BVG, SCG, or GAI relatively speaking. I reject the notion that a card in anything other than a PSA holder is there because PSA would not slab it, or slab it as generously as others.
The main reason I collect PSA over these others for my personal graded collecting interests is I value consistency, meaning all my slabs (especially in my sets) look the same. With PSA being the undisputed market share leader, there are simply more cards available for me to draw from. I think this dynamic and the resulting demand is often overlooked when explaining why PSA realizes a premium in many instances over their competition.
Back to the original topic though, I personally would wait to get some definitive feedback from PSA regarding their findings before I gave the matter any further thought. Oh... and I would resist any and all urges to tell anyone online that I could kick their butt.
I do hope this all ends well for you and that Babe finds himself in the PSA fold as you had originally hoped.
<< <i>You seem to want to blame everyone for this problem, including PSA, and other members of this forum. That is silly. >>
Yes, it would be silly which is why I'm not "blaming" anyone. I just want a specific answer from PSA. They have so far refused to provide one. I do blame PSA for that. My last 3 e-mails last week to Joe Orlando went unanswered. The first one he got back to me quickly saying that he would try to stop it from shipping. 24 hours later I got the e-mail saying it had been shipped. I guess 24 hours wasn't enough time to stop it from shipping.
I've sent 3 follow up e-mails and none have been answered. Maybe he's on vacation.
I have not felt the PL was in denial, nor have I seen him blame anyone or PSA for that matter.
That was tossed around early and mentioned so many times that some here have come to the conclusion that it is fact. I guess if something is said enough times the person saying it and those reading it could take it as fact.
<< <i>You seem to want to blame everyone for this problem, including PSA, and other members of this forum. That is silly. >>
Yes, it would be silly which is why I'm not "blaming" anyone. I just want a specific answer from PSA. They have so far refused to provide one. I do blame PSA for that. My last 3 e-mails last week to Joe Orlando went unanswered. The first one he got back to me quickly saying that he would try to stop it from shipping. 24 hours later I got the e-mail saying it had been shipped. I guess 24 hours wasn't enough time to stop it from shipping.
I've sent 3 follow up e-mails and none have been answered. Maybe he's on vacation. >>
plifmeister
Ya could've saved yourself a lot of heartache and bandwidth if ya had just called JO first - got to the bottom of this - ask him for a review - politely explain this was a lot of money you spent - ask for advice etc.
BTW - have ya contaced GAI for "their" input - again - this coulda saved ya too.
I'm behind ya just like Steve - I can sure empathize with this - you're worried - this was a big expense - please - make the calls - consider sending it to SGC.
You need to get Noah or his boss to talk to the grader on this. You sent it to them twice in good faith, the first requesting a five. The next requesting a four. The person who graded this crossover will remember it and the grader needs to be contacted.
The card is still a Ruth in a GAI 4.5 holder with breathtaking eye appeal. No matter what PSA says they can't take that away from you. Call PSA in the morning Monday and escalate until you get a satisfactory answer from the grader.
We know one thing and one thing only... PSA will not crack it and grade it because they won't garantee it will grade 5 or 4, which is what they have to do in order to crack it and grade it. They didn't say it was trimmed, they didn't say it wouldn't grade 5 or 4, they simply said MG ???
That's all we know. That's all anyone paying attention knows I mean. Others seem to want to make up crap and twist words.
Don't see how anyone is making crap up, everyone is replying with their opinions of how they see it. If plifter did not want such, he should have never posted about this card in an open forum. He claims he wanted opinions, but I am not too sure that is true. Rather, I think he just wanted some to back his idea that the card is fine, GAI got it right, and PSA has some conspiracy as to why they refuse to holder GAI cards.
In time, if he does follow up for the truth, as to what is truly going on, it will all come out. One way or the other, for better or worse.. But for me, I would not touch that card, even for half of what he paid for it(I highly doubt anyone else in this thread would either). Sorry, but this is just how I feel about it.
It's a bad deal all the way around, but it's always wise to do homework before dropping $3000+ for a card. I wonder how many times PSA has seen this card, before GAI holdered it? I venture to say it made a trip or two to PSA, before GAI slabbed it. But, that is just my opinion.
<< <i>I venture to say it made a trip or two to PSA, before GAI slabbed it
Speculation nothing more.
Steve >>
My opinion, Steve. Everyone is entitled to theirs....
Anyone who is fortunate enough to come across a 33' Goudey Ruth, and knows enough that they want to have it graded, is going to use PSA or SGC, first off, not GAI. This is my reasoning for my thoughts and opinions of the route it took to get in a GAI holder. GAI has been, and probably will always be one of the last resorts for slabbing a vintage card, that is refused by PSA, SGC, or BGS. There is only one tier lower, but then we start mentioning GEM and PRO.
<< <i>For all anyone knows it was in a PSA holder FIRST and the owner had GAI grade and itto get a bump. Year ago b4 GAI imploded.
And yes, your speculation was opinion. I never said you were not entitled to one.
Steve >>
Anyone fortunate enough to own a 33' Goudey Ruth in a PSA holder, is highly unlikely to want to cross it over to GAI if they had any brains at all about vintage, or the card business in general. GAI has never sold for PSA prices, even at their highest point.
They seem to have done pretty well after all these years.
Perhaps this particular card was in a PSA 3 holder back in the day, and one of these 'brainless' dealers was able to cross it into a GAI 4.5 holder and were able to get 3,300.00 for it when in a PSA 3 holder at the time it was worth less.
It is all speculation on my part, but then again so is everything that you have said too.
<< <i>if they had any brains at all about vintage,
So all those dealers had/have no brains at all?
They seem to have done pretty well after all these years.
Perhaps this particular card was in a PSA 3 holder back in the day, and one of these 'brainless' dealers was able to cross it into a GAI 4.5 holder and were able to get 3,300.00 for it when in a PSA 3 holder at the time it was worth less.
It is all speculation on my part, but then again so is everything that you have said too.
Just another point of view.
Steve >>
I don't recall too many "dealers" running to get their PSA material into GAI slabs, even if the grade could go up a point. This is based on merely the fact that GAI graded vintage never really sold for premiums over PSA, even at 1 or .5 higher.
At one time, the "1st graded" notation was the only real hot thing with GAI, but with time, that passed as well. I guess it could be called a novelty slab? Who knows, but I personally never had any interest in them.
Anyway, we just see it differently, but that is ok. No hard feelings.
Exactly, all I was just trying to do was give another point of view and yes when GAI first started many of the big dealers gave Mike Baker a shot. Was this Ruth one of the cards?
Nobody knows. Only people that know are Baker and the submitter for sure.
To say now in HINDSIGHT that GAI never sold above PSA is basically Monday morning quarterbacking.
With bumps, those dealers HOPED they would.
And in many cases I would think they did.
The message boards here were hot back then when GAI first came on the scene.
I didn't write down the cert # from GAI. When I get it back I will look it up and see when it was slabbed. I think they keep that information, don't they?
Can someone PLEASE give me the cliff notes version for this thread.
Please?
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>Can someone PLEASE give me the cliff notes version for this thread.
Please?
>>
No way. You should have to read it in it's painful entirety like everyone else. >>
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I don't wanna!
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
This is the only sports card forum I've posted on. Of course it's a PSA board. A quick search through some of the other neutral forums certainly finds different opinions regarding GAI. Here's just one example of a post on another board: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I work for a vintage sports card store. We have over 300,000 sports cards online, and as much as we hate PSA due to the inconstant grading, they carry the most value. Sometimes if the PSA grade you get isn't good, you can snap it out of the case and send it back to get a better one.
Now our store only carries older cards (nothing past 1985) so we have some harder cards to grade. Outside of PSA I would recommend GAI since they do half grades, and also Beckett.
That said, we mostly do baseball and football cards, and all of the hockey we sell is from the early 1900's up to the 70's.
Edit: If the card isn't worth more than $50 Near Mint price, we don't even consider it. Also, GAI is ex-members of the PSA grading team, and they grade $3 a pop for us. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm starting to get the idea that I showed up at Yankee Stadium in a Red Sox jersey!
Maybe I'll just leave my GAI 4.5 Ruth right where he is and simply live with the fact that I have one silver flip and 17 red flips in my display case. Maybe having the Ruth in a different holder will make it stand out more as a special card.
It's your card, it looks nice, don't worry. If you are hell-bent on getting it reholdered send it to GAI and have them review it, if they say it's unaltered send it back to PSA w/o minimum grade designation. Or list it FS on the Ebay and buy one in a PSA slab with the money made. I do agree PSA should tell you why it wouldn't meet minimum grade, if you put the holder in a plastic sleeve SGC will circle the problem areas with a Sharpie.
I know you said you're keeping it, but if you ever did decide to sell this card, one thing this thread has surely done is take hundreds of potential bidders out of the mix.
<< <i>I know you said you're keeping it, but if you ever did decide to sell this card, one thing this thread has surely done is take hundreds of potential bidders out of the mix. >>
If I sell this card it will be a decade or two down the road. I don't think this thread will mean much of anything by that time.
Based on just the look in the scan this card looks like a tremendous 4 or 5. The card received Minimum Grade not met, not trimmed. Some people say PSA is the authority so it is not trimmed. As to why it is not getting a 4, I have no idea other than GAI bias. If it has a wrinkle it still should be a 4. Has anyone looked at some Goudey 3's and 4's lately? 3's usually don't have any appeal at all. This Ruth card looks very nice. Send this card to SGC or leave it in the holder it is in. You have given PSA enough money regarding this card. Mickey71
Matt has taken his case to the 54 boards. And of course he has no good words for us. I don't want to search through this entire thread but has anyone seen the reverse of this card?
From 54:
Here's a Ruth I submitted to PSA as a crossover with a minimum grade of 4. It didn't make it. I got flamed to death on the PSA board because everyone there said it must have been trimmed. I've looked at it for a long time under bright light and a 10X magnifying glass and I just don't see evidence of trimming. For one thing, it doesn't have sharp corners. Wouldn't it have sharp corners if it was trimmed? Anyway, they are all PSA worshipers on that board so I thought I might get some neutral opinions here. I don't have a photobucket account so I'm posting the URL of the scan. I realize it's only a front view. The only flaw I find on the back is about 2 drops of ink worn off.
Now I for one have not 'flamed' him, and I also have not claimed it was trimmed.
also, and it just dawned on me perhaps PSA sees the '2 drops of worn ink' differently and see them as paper loss? thus the best this card could get from them is a 2.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Stop blaming PSA, plifter. >>
Why can't I blame them for not providing me an explanation? I paid a lot of money for their service.
Also, am I allowed to blame them over my Sue Bird screw up? They wouldn't even refund my money after I told them that she signed it right in front of me.
I'm just trying to get one of you die hard PSA guys to admit that PSA is not the final authority on these issues. >>
Sorry PSA is the final authority over what gets into their holders. I'm also VERY skeptical over the idea that you can't get them to tell you why they won't holder it. I specifically gave you the direct questions to ask PSA in reguards to your card.
Did you ask them specifically if a card that gets the "MG" is potentially altered or is it simply a good card that didn't make grade?
It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not.
<< <i>
<< <i>Allen, your comment about De Nile is original. For the record, about half of De Nile is in Sudan. The origin of the Nile, the Blue Nile, begins in Ethiopia. >>
So are you telling me that the Nile River does not flow through Egypt? Please educate me if that is the case. >>
Of course it does silly. About half of it. The other half is in Sudan. The Blue Nile is in Ethiopia and Sudan where it becomes a tributary to the Nile.
<< <i>I may be a little naive, but doesnt PSA have an obligation here...PSA doesnt see these types of cards everyday, wouldnt there be an obligation to let the customer know if it is trimmed, thus the customer saving $$ on PSA submissions? >>
By them NOT offering an explanation is better for business. Just on this example the OP has submitted the card twice now, doubling their money on just him alone. No telling just how many times they have seen this exact card now.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Not to do so could easily be seen as "fee churning."
That should give the OP some hope - until told differently -
that PSA has NOT decided the card is trimmed.
<< <i>
<< <i>I may be a little naive, but doesnt PSA have an obligation here...PSA doesnt see these types of cards everyday, wouldnt there be an obligation to let the customer know if it is trimmed, thus the customer saving $$ on PSA submissions? >>
By them NOT offering an explanation is better for business. Just on this example the OP has submitted the card twice now, doubling their money on just him alone. No telling just how many times they have seen this exact card now. >>
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That is also my view.
<< <i>"It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not. "
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That is also my view. >>
So, with this being said, we all concede at very best, the card is a 3, or at worse, it may indeed be altered?
Either way, a 3 is what, maybe $1500-$2000? And altered is how much??
He will lose on this card no matter how it turns, so if it was me, I would just submit to PSA and tell them to slab it one way or another. That way, the truth is out, the card is slabbed, and life can move on, one way or another. For better or worse..
<< <i>
Sorry PSA is the final authority over what gets into their holders. I'm also VERY skeptical over the idea that you can't get them to tell you why they won't holder it. I specifically gave you the direct questions to ask PSA in reguards to your card.
Did you ask them specifically if a card that gets the "MG" is potentially altered or is it simply a good card that didn't make grade?
It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not. >>
PSA of course has the final say over what they slab but they aren't the final authority for determining card alterations. Yes, I specifically asked if MG meant that it could have been altered. Noah, in customer service explained that MG means that it did not make the grade. When asked if they note whether they believe a card has been altered, Noah's response was that it would not be noted anywhere. I have had other people tell me that they were advised that their cards were altered on a failed crossover. So, something is not consistent with their policy. Perhaps it was changed.
The reason I have not cracked it out and submitted it raw is simply out of total fear of damaging the card while cracking the slab. I was under the assumption that PSA would have more experience in doing so and would also have no problems paying up if they damaged the card. I tested cracking a GAI slab with a Randy Moss autographed rookie card. I got the card out undamaged but it was not a pretty sight.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
IF the OP has any recourse against GAI, it would be lost if he did that.
IF the card is altered, he needs a written opinion from SGC or PSA to
make his case.
NOTE: I have NO idea how GAI handles this kind of problem. As a
highly litigious person, I would pursue the matter if GAI was not
cooperative.
<< <i>
<< <i>"It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not. "
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That is also my view. >>
So, with this being said, we all concede at very best, the card is a 3, or at worse, it may indeed be altered?
Either way, a 3 is what, maybe $1500-$2000? And altered is how much??
He will lose on this card no matter how it turns, so if it was me, I would just submit to PSA and tell them to slab it one way or another. That way, the truth is out, the card is slabbed, and life can move on, one way or another. For better or worse.. >>
You were 100% positive that the card was trimmed. Now you say that everyone concedes that the card is a 3 at best. Where are you pulling this cr*p from? Are you just trying to play games here or are you serious? The reason everyone jumped on the whole idea that it was trimmed is because it sure as he!! would be the best looking 3 ever seen.
<< <i>If the card is not for sale, if the sole purpose for the PSA holder is uniformity, and if it is certain to not be altered, if any grade is nothing more than mere opinion, why even request minimum grade? >>
This is a valid question. I'll answer as best I can. The card's value is somewhat of a concern to me. Whether right or wrong, PSA slabbed cards bring in more money than cards from GAI in the SAME GRADE. However, I strongly believe that I could get considerably more out of this card as a GAI 4.5 than a PSA 3. I was already offered $2200 from a dealer who obviously must leave room for a minimum $400-$500 mark up.
<< <i>"...I would just submit to PSA and tell them to slab it one way or another. ..."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
IF the OP has any recourse against GAI, it would be lost if he did that.
IF the card is altered, he needs a written opinion from SGC or PSA to
make his case.
NOTE: I have NO idea how GAI handles this kind of problem. As a
highly litigious person, I would pursue the matter if GAI was not
cooperative. >>
Well, then I would be getting GAI the phone, Monday, and see what could be done, instead of dancing the issue on this message board, if I truly wanted a solution. I would ask them what proof they needed, in order buy the card back, and I would get to collecting the evidence right away.
Blaming PSA, being in denial, and making excuses, is going to result in plifter taking the hit on this one. Heck, he may very well take the loss either way it goes. I would want the truth, and go down fighting, rather than living in denial, as to what I am stuck with(a potentially altered Goudey Ruth).
<< <i>As noted, even if it was deemed a 3.5, it would NOT have met MG. >>
Exactly, this is where my problem with PSA comes into play. You can't torture an explanation out of them. This leaves a frustrated customer like myself. Can't they just at least have different wording for a card that simply doesn't meet the grade and a card that shows signs of alteration?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>"It is my belief without holding or seeing your card that their is some technical flaw that is preventing it from grading a four. It is probably a good card, but GAI is very soft on paper loss and wrinkles/creases. PSA is not. "
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That is also my view. >>
So, with this being said, we all concede at very best, the card is a 3, or at worse, it may indeed be altered?
Either way, a 3 is what, maybe $1500-$2000? And altered is how much??
He will lose on this card no matter how it turns, so if it was me, I would just submit to PSA and tell them to slab it one way or another. That way, the truth is out, the card is slabbed, and life can move on, one way or another. For better or worse.. >>
You were 100% positive that the card was trimmed. Now you say that everyone concedes that the card is a 3 at best. Where are you pulling this cr*p from? Are you just trying to play games here or are you serious? The reason everyone jumped on the whole idea that it was trimmed is because it sure as he!! would be the best looking 3 ever seen. >>
I believe the card is altered, yes.
But, if we take the evidence at hand, we know the card will not grade a PSA 5, nor a PSA 4, so at best, it's a PSA 3.5 or less......or else it is altered. Period....
I have never changed my thoughts, and am not pulling anything, just trying to get a general concession on the card from the other guys that was discussing this matter. I do not play games, I speak honestly as to how I feel. This is just the way I am.
You seem to want to blame everyone for this problem, including PSA, and other members of this forum. That is silly.
Does PSA not state evidence of trimming when they deny cards for this reason? I know I have seen a number of pops on these forums where that information was specifically stated by PSA. I would also add that many of the posters with these pops have said they pulled the card out of wax themselves back when the product was brand new.
I am uncertain as to how it became fact that PSA rejected this card for evidence of trimming to some people. It is just speculation at this point and it is important to keep that context in mind.
Incidentally, I personally do not believe that PSA makes significantly more, or less, mistakes than BGS/BVG, SCG, or GAI relatively speaking. I reject the notion that a card in anything other than a PSA holder is there because PSA would not slab it, or slab it as generously as others.
The main reason I collect PSA over these others for my personal graded collecting interests is I value consistency, meaning all my slabs (especially in my sets) look the same. With PSA being the undisputed market share leader, there are simply more cards available for me to draw from. I think this dynamic and the resulting demand is often overlooked when explaining why PSA realizes a premium in many instances over their competition.
Back to the original topic though, I personally would wait to get some definitive feedback from PSA regarding their findings before I gave the matter any further thought. Oh... and I would resist any and all urges to tell anyone online that I could kick their butt.
I do hope this all ends well for you and that Babe finds himself in the PSA fold as you had originally hoped.
Snorto~
<< <i>You seem to want to blame everyone for this problem, including PSA, and other members of this forum. That is silly. >>
Yes, it would be silly which is why I'm not "blaming" anyone. I just want a specific answer from PSA. They have so far refused to provide one. I do blame PSA for that. My last 3 e-mails last week to Joe Orlando went unanswered. The first one he got back to me quickly saying that he would try to stop it from shipping. 24 hours later I got the e-mail saying it had been shipped. I guess 24 hours wasn't enough time to stop it from shipping.
I've sent 3 follow up e-mails and none have been answered. Maybe he's on vacation.
Ditto, PSA customer service.
That was tossed around early and mentioned so many times that some here have come to the conclusion that
it is fact. I guess if something is said enough times the person saying it and those reading it could take it as fact.
It is not.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>You seem to want to blame everyone for this problem, including PSA, and other members of this forum. That is silly. >>
Yes, it would be silly which is why I'm not "blaming" anyone. I just want a specific answer from PSA. They have so far refused to provide one. I do blame PSA for that. My last 3 e-mails last week to Joe Orlando went unanswered. The first one he got back to me quickly saying that he would try to stop it from shipping. 24 hours later I got the e-mail saying it had been shipped. I guess 24 hours wasn't enough time to stop it from shipping.
I've sent 3 follow up e-mails and none have been answered. Maybe he's on vacation. >>
plifmeister
Ya could've saved yourself a lot of heartache and bandwidth if ya had just called JO first - got to the bottom of this - ask him for a review - politely explain this was a lot of money you spent - ask for advice etc.
BTW - have ya contaced GAI for "their" input - again - this coulda saved ya too.
I'm behind ya just like Steve - I can sure empathize with this - you're worried - this was a big expense - please - make the calls - consider sending it to SGC.
Then, let us know what happened.
mike
The card is still a Ruth in a GAI 4.5 holder with breathtaking eye appeal. No matter what PSA says they can't take that away from you. Call PSA in the morning Monday and escalate until you get a satisfactory answer from the grader.
<< <i>PSA REALLY needs to change its policy to make it PERFECTLY clear what
a problem is. "MG" really is not sufficient. >>
Mark
--------------------------------------------
NFL HOF RC SET
That's all we know. That's all anyone paying attention knows I mean. Others seem to want to make up crap and twist words.
In time, if he does follow up for the truth, as to what is truly going on, it will all come out. One way or the other, for better or worse.. But for me, I would not touch that card, even for half of what he paid for it(I highly doubt anyone else in this thread would either). Sorry, but this is just how I feel about it.
It's a bad deal all the way around, but it's always wise to do homework before dropping $3000+ for a card. I wonder how many times PSA has seen this card, before GAI holdered it? I venture to say it made a trip or two to PSA, before GAI slabbed it. But, that is just my opinion.
Why do you keep insisting that he did not want such?
I see no evidence of that, he like YOU is entitled to his opinion too.
Your opinion is just as valuable as his.
Steve
Speculation nothing more.
Steve
<< <i>I venture to say it made a trip or two to PSA, before GAI slabbed it
Speculation nothing more.
Steve >>
My opinion, Steve. Everyone is entitled to theirs....
Anyone who is fortunate enough to come across a 33' Goudey Ruth, and knows enough that they want to have it graded, is going to use PSA or SGC, first off, not GAI. This is my reasoning for my thoughts and opinions of the route it took to get in a GAI holder. GAI has been, and probably will always be one of the last resorts for slabbing a vintage card, that is refused by PSA, SGC, or BGS. There is only one tier lower, but then we start mentioning GEM and PRO.
imploded.
And yes, your speculation was opinion. I never said you were not entitled to one.
Steve
<< <i>For all anyone knows it was in a PSA holder FIRST and the owner had GAI grade and itto get a bump. Year ago b4 GAI
imploded.
And yes, your speculation was opinion. I never said you were not entitled to one.
Steve >>
Anyone fortunate enough to own a 33' Goudey Ruth in a PSA holder, is highly unlikely to want to cross it over to GAI if they had any brains at all about vintage, or the card business in general. GAI has never sold for PSA prices, even at their highest point.
Yes they even crossed 33 Ruths. Especially ones where they could get a bump.
Steve
So all those dealers had/have no brains at all?
They seem to have done pretty well after all these years.
Perhaps this particular card was in a PSA 3 holder back in the day, and one of these 'brainless'
dealers was able to cross it into a GAI 4.5 holder and were able to get 3,300.00 for it when in a PSA 3
holder at the time it was worth less.
It is all speculation on my part, but then again so is everything that you have said too.
Just another point of view.
Steve
<< <i>if they had any brains at all about vintage,
So all those dealers had/have no brains at all?
They seem to have done pretty well after all these years.
Perhaps this particular card was in a PSA 3 holder back in the day, and one of these 'brainless'
dealers was able to cross it into a GAI 4.5 holder and were able to get 3,300.00 for it when in a PSA 3
holder at the time it was worth less.
It is all speculation on my part, but then again so is everything that you have said too.
Just another point of view.
Steve >>
I don't recall too many "dealers" running to get their PSA material into GAI slabs, even if the grade could go up a point. This is based on merely the fact that GAI graded vintage never really sold for premiums over PSA, even at 1 or .5 higher.
At one time, the "1st graded" notation was the only real hot thing with GAI, but with time, that passed as well. I guess it could be called a novelty slab? Who knows, but I personally never had any interest in them.
Anyway, we just see it differently, but that is ok. No hard feelings.
first started many of the big dealers gave Mike Baker a shot. Was this Ruth one of the cards?
Nobody knows. Only people that know are Baker and the submitter for sure.
To say now in HINDSIGHT that GAI never sold above PSA is basically Monday morning quarterbacking.
With bumps, those dealers HOPED they would.
And in many cases I would think they did.
The message boards here were hot back then when GAI first came on the scene.
Steve
Please?
Text
<< <i>Can someone PLEASE give me the cliff notes version for this thread.
Please?
No way. You should have to read it in it's painful entirety like everyone else.
<< <i>
<< <i>Can someone PLEASE give me the cliff notes version for this thread.
Please?
No way. You should have to read it in it's painful entirety like everyone else. >>
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I don't wanna!
<< <i>
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I don't wanna!
And in all honesty you shouldn't. You will not be any the wiser for having done it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I work for a vintage sports card store. We have over 300,000 sports cards online, and as much as we hate PSA due to the inconstant grading, they carry the most value. Sometimes if the PSA grade you get isn't good, you can snap it out of the case and send it back to get a better one.
Now our store only carries older cards (nothing past 1985) so we have some harder cards to grade. Outside of PSA I would recommend GAI since they do half grades, and also Beckett.
That said, we mostly do baseball and football cards, and all of the hockey we sell is from the early 1900's up to the 70's.
Edit: If the card isn't worth more than $50 Near Mint price, we don't even consider it. Also, GAI is ex-members of the PSA grading team, and they grade $3 a pop for us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm starting to get the idea that I showed up at Yankee Stadium in a Red Sox jersey!
Maybe I'll just leave my GAI 4.5 Ruth right where he is and simply live with the fact that I have one silver flip and 17 red flips in my display case. Maybe having the Ruth in a different holder will make it stand out more as a special card.
<< <i>I know you said you're keeping it, but if you ever did decide to sell this card, one thing this thread has surely done is take hundreds of potential bidders out of the mix. >>
If I sell this card it will be a decade or two down the road. I don't think this thread will mean much of anything by that time.
<< <i>If I sell this card it will be a decade or two down the road. I don't think this thread will mean much of anything by that time. >>
Two decades from now neither may your card.
Steve
<< <i>That card now needs to be sent to SGC.
Steve >>
I agree Steve.
mike
Mickey71
entire thread but has anyone seen the reverse of this card?
From 54:
Here's a Ruth I submitted to PSA as a crossover with a minimum grade of 4. It didn't make it. I got flamed to death on the PSA board because everyone there said it must have been trimmed. I've looked at it for a long time under bright light and a 10X magnifying glass and I just don't see evidence of trimming. For one thing, it doesn't have sharp corners. Wouldn't it have sharp corners if it was trimmed? Anyway, they are all PSA worshipers on that board so I thought I might get some neutral opinions here. I don't have a photobucket account so I'm posting the URL of the scan. I realize it's only a front view. The only flaw I find on the back is about 2 drops of ink worn off.
Now I for one have not 'flamed' him, and I also have not claimed it was trimmed.
also, and it just dawned on me perhaps PSA sees the '2 drops of worn ink' differently and see them as paper loss? thus the best this card could get from them is a 2.
Steve
harping of this card got him the boot.
Steve