Slipping One/Not Slipping One Past PSA/DNA?
JackWESQ
Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭
Fake autograpsh are a dime a dozen. But I wonder, has anyone ever submitted an autograped [fill in the blank] to PSA/DNA that you knew, with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, was authentic, e.g., the athlete signed it in your presence, but PSA/DNA rejected it as a fake?
Or alternatively (and not that anyone would do such a despicable act), submitted an autograped [fill in the blank] to PSA/DNA that you knew, with ABSOLUTELY CERTAINTY, was fake, e.g., you signed it yourself (again, not implying that anyone would do such a despicable act), and PSA/DNA accepted it as authentic.
I suppose if there is a "yes" to either question, this just demonstrates that PSA/DNA is human and is prone to error.
But I wonder, when PSA says that there is evidence of trimming, what level of evidence are they referring to? To be sure, we're not dealing with the legal world, but is it a preponderance of the evidence (51%), clear and convincing evidence (some say around 80%), or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (say around 90% to 95%). For PSA to reject the card, does it have to cross the 51%, 80% or even 90%/95% threshold?
/s/ JackWESQ
Or alternatively (and not that anyone would do such a despicable act), submitted an autograped [fill in the blank] to PSA/DNA that you knew, with ABSOLUTELY CERTAINTY, was fake, e.g., you signed it yourself (again, not implying that anyone would do such a despicable act), and PSA/DNA accepted it as authentic.
I suppose if there is a "yes" to either question, this just demonstrates that PSA/DNA is human and is prone to error.
But I wonder, when PSA says that there is evidence of trimming, what level of evidence are they referring to? To be sure, we're not dealing with the legal world, but is it a preponderance of the evidence (51%), clear and convincing evidence (some say around 80%), or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (say around 90% to 95%). For PSA to reject the card, does it have to cross the 51%, 80% or even 90%/95% threshold?
/s/ JackWESQ
0
Comments
there's your first problem!
I suspect that this is the case.
Trimmed? If they can scan the cards at high resolution it makes that easy to see. I never saw them grade cards but if I was grading I would want a 2000+ dpi scan, you can see everything. And it makes it pretty easy to see trimmed or not. You just can't see that good without help and we have technology, why not use it?
- Say I have the ability to forge any signature perfectly, or about 98% accurately. Do you think I'll be able to slip my forgeries past PSA/DNA if they look exactly like the real ones? Of course I will.
I'm not sure what you're looking for here- proof that PSA/DNA makes mistakes? Do you really not know the answer to this question?
Yes many times.
<But I wonder, when PSA says that there is evidence of trimming, what level of evidence are they referring <to? To be sure, we're not dealing with the legal world, but is it a preponderance of the evidence (51%), <clear and convincing evidence (some say around 80%), or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (say <around 90% to 95%). For PSA to reject the card, does it have to cross the 51%, 80% or even 90%/95% <threshold?
PSA rejects a huge number of cards for trimming that have never been trimmed.
Some dont even make any sense. I have a Gene Crowder slabbed index card. Try looking him up in the baseball almanac. He doesnt exist!
Its actually Alvin "General" Crowder who used to sign his name Gen Crowder. How would you even imagine authenticating an auto from a person that doesnt even exist?
I wonder what exemplar they used for that one?
Found all this on the web:
"There was a recent problem with them authenticating a fake Bronko Nagurski 1988 Swell Football autograph. Nagurski's grandson contacted them and said his grandfather was bedridden with a stroke and unable to sign such a legible signature during 1988 and beyond."
"The UACC, which is a blanket organization that polices autograph dealers, won't accept anything authenticated by PSA/DNA since they have found numerous mistakes made by them. Up until this January, the Better Business Bureau had given them the lowest grade possible of "F" stating “We strongly question the company’s reliability for reasons such as that they have failed to respond to complaints, their advertising is grossly misleading, they are not in compliance with the law’s licensing or registration requirements, their complaints contain especially serious allegations, or the company’s industry is known for its fraudulent business practices.” In January, someone may have put a lot of pressure on the Better Business Bureau because they raised their grade to a "B"
"Some complainants allege the company fails to return items sent in for authentication, and in some cases deny ever receiving the item. Other customers complain that the company fails to provide services as agreed, returning items without explanation as to why they are determined not to be authentic. Some complainants allege items sent are lost, misplaced, or that the company replaces the high quality items sent in, with lesser valued items before returning to the customer. A few customers complain the company misrepresented the value of the cards they purchased, and found after spending considerable amounts of money, a second opinion determined the item as worthless. Most customers report they experience difficulty contacting the company to resolve problems, claiming calls are not returned, and voice-mail or e-mail messages are not answered. The company disputes most allegations, and refunds or credits are usually not issued."
Matt
"I have a split personality, and he is a regular SOB"