<< <i>Ummmmmm, if he's a majority shareholder in GAI, why wouldn't he send it there? Certainly he would get a beneficial grade, not to mention the fact that it would be great press for the company to grade a mint Mantle RC. There's all kinds of behind-the-scenes stuff going on here that we don't know about. >>
I would imagine there would a conflict of interest type issue here. For a high-profile card like this, I would not have my own company or a company in which I was affliated with do the grading.
<< <i>Sure they are, and then you stop hearing from them because they get banished... >>
But they are given a looooooong leash.
If they only bash and never contribute, their leash gets a tad shorter.
99 out of 100 times, they get bammed for something else (ie word censors, PM harrassment).
This is, afterall, a message board for a publicly traded company.
Go to the other board anonymously and bash them (the owners, SGC, Mastro) and see how long you last.
Comparatively speaking, you have a lot more leeway here than over there. And you know that to be fact...
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>Ummmmmm, if he's a majority shareholder in GAI, why wouldn't he send it there? Certainly he would get a beneficial grade, not to mention the fact that it would be great press for the company to grade a mint Mantle RC. There's all kinds of behind-the-scenes stuff going on here that we don't know about. >>
Word is, and this is heresay, that the card had previously been in a PSA 9 holder and most recently in a GAI 9.5 (GEM). Apparently, after its alleged use for collateral, there was an attempt to get it holdered in an SGC 98, but that it would at best be an SGC 96.
Now, one might speculate that since Forman allegedly wanted a release signed that something may have happened to it that might keep it from returning to a PSA 9 grade. Or perhaps it was still being held as collateral?
I'm sure we'll never know the real story, but it seems that the woman doing the reporting doesn't know the difference between her backside and her elbow. And her lack of research and broadstroke reporting may have made a mountain out of a mole hill.
<< <i>I hear what you're saying, but the banishment of some people isn't warranted IMO...cardbender, for instance... >>
Don't know what happened to him nor what he did, so I have no idea. And to be honest, I don't even remember the alias. Not minimalizing who he is, just honestly doesn't ring a bell.
Having said that, would be willing to bet he broke a rule that everyone else has been guilty of doing.
Difference being, he had a short leash.
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 have a bunch of friends who are dedicated collectors of SGC graded cards and also know several honest, hard-working dealers who specialize in SGC graded cards as well and I hope for their sake this is an isolated incident of some type of misunderstanding between the two parties. But quite honestly, we'll probably never know the real, full story, but the circumstances raise a lot of tough questions.
I've never seen Dave Forman before. He looks a lot younger than I had imagined. Here's a pic of him with his attorney (wearing the suit):
<< <i>Stevek, why are you assuming Foreman is guilty?? based on the errornus report in the article? >>
I'm not "assuming" anything - I'm basing my opinion on the news story. However I have to "assume" that the reporter gleaned the information from the lawsuit which is logical right? Perhaps the reporter added additional commentary based on what she had uncovered, but the story in my view does not seem erroneous.
<< <i>Now, one might speculate that since Forman allegedly wanted a release signed that something may have happened to it that might keep it from returning to a PSA 9 grade. >>
I.
FREAKING.
LOVE.
IT.
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
Those articles have left me totally confused, as it appears the reporter was mixing terminology and does not have a clue about grading. Still not sure why one of the owners of GAI was going to SGC to grade his card, and then the card was held hostage.
Not my board, but if it was, I would give ONE stern warning for most types of violations before I pulled the plug.
There are some violations that ZERO-tolerance fits, and some not so much.
This is still the most liberal semi-moderated board that I frequent. (Yahoo is NOT moderated, and deletes profiles ONLY on third-party complaints. EBAY is heavily moderated; LiveWorld operates the boards, makes posts and deletes posts, AND can IP-block a poster w/o warning.)
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>Still not sure why one of the owners of GAI was going to SGC to grade his card, and then the card was held hostage. >>
Allegedly, it was for collateral on a $100K loan.
otw gave a perfectly reasonable explination.
<< <i>Now, one might speculate that since Forman allegedly wanted a release signed that something may have happened to it that might keep it from returning to a PSA 9 grade. Or perhaps it was still being held as collateral? >>
Taking that path, one could speculate even further.
Perhaps SGC thought GAI would go under.. Under this assumption, SGC thinks they have a new flagship to boast.. Perhaps doing a little something to clean it up and then puts it in a SGC holder...
Maybe that's why it took so long to hand it over?
Oh the conspiracies we could think of....
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
And why doesn't Forman just quickly come out and make a statement instead of having some lawyer make veiled threats to people voicing their opinions on the internet?
Another really fishy thing about the story, which makes me think the reporter is pretty much an idiot, is what collector would ever scream "Hey, they were supposed to doctor my card, but they wont return it"? Even if you win and get the card back, that makes the card virtually worthless in the maketplace to a huge majority of collectors.
<< <i>And why doesn't Forman just quickly come out and make a statement instead of having some lawyer make veiled threats to people voicing their opinions on the internet? >>
Because, in my honest and humble opinion, he's a WEASEL.
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
Sounds like the guy was desperate and that is why he said what he did. He felt that he was getting the run around and so he turned on Mr. Forman. I doubt very much that he would make such a commen if it wasn't true.
Also, how could he sign a release before he got the card?
I do not think that card would be devalued since it remained in the PSA 9 holder.
Had it been re graded then yes I would agree with you.
<< <i>And why doesn't Forman just quickly come out and make a statement instead of having some lawyer make veiled threats to people voicing their opinions on the internet? >>
Because, in my honest and humble opinion, he's a WEASEL.
Haas, a majority shareholder in another baseball card grading company called Global Authentication, said he’ll be content when he has his card back.
After reading sevral articles about this...alot of hazy unclear information. Maybe this is what happened:
Card is sent to SGC for a possible bump. SGC typically does not accept crossovers of this amount without the owner of the card contacting them and working out arrangements. In order to bump a 9 to a 10...you obviously would have to crack holder to grade it. The owner agrees to allow SGC to crack it open. SGC cracks it , regrades it and tells owner that the card does not warrant an upgrade...maybe even that the card was altered. Owner who I am sure would have to pay some serious coin to cross over a card of this magnitude gets pissed and says that SGC damaged the card or altered it as retribution. Sgc tells owner that we are not going to release the card back to you until you sign a statement saying that the card was in the same condition as when it was submited. Owner says...I am not going to sign. SGC says we will hold your card until you do. Once I saw that the owner was a primary shareholder of GAI, it really waved a red flag to me. Maybe he is trying to come into some cash, insurance money or "bribe" money from SGC to help keep GAI alfloat in their troubled times.???
who knows..it will be interesting to see the real facts of this case.
<< <i>Haas, a majority shareholder in another baseball card grading company called Global Authentication, said he’ll be content when he has his card back.
After reading sevral articles about this...alot of hazy unclear information. Maybe this is what happened:
Card is sent to SGC for a possible bump. SGC typically does not accept crossovers of this amount without the owner of the card contacting them and working out arrangements. In order to bump a 9 to a 10...you obviously would have to crack holder to grade it. The owner agrees to allow SGC to crack it open. SGC cracks it , regrades it and tells owner that the card does not warrant an upgrade...maybe even that the card was altered. Owner who I am sure would have to pay some serious coin to cross over a card of this magnitude gets pissed and says that SGC damaged the card or altered it as retribution. Sgc tells owner that we are not going to release the card back to you until you sign a statement saying that the card was in the same condition as when it was submited. Owner says...I am not going to sign. SGC says we will hold your card until you do. Once I saw that the owner was a primary shareholder of GAI, it really waved a red flag to me. Maybe he is trying to come into some cash, insurance money or "bribe" money from SGC to help keep GAI alfloat in their troubled times.???
who knows..it will be interesting to see the real facts of this case. >>
Okay fine, that's an interesting premise...so then why hasn't Forman come out by now and told...you know it's called...lemme think...oh yea...THE TRUTH. Does he need some scumbag clever lawyer to prepare some spin job legal statement for him? He's got his company's life on the line here...come out immediately and tell the truth...otherwise the suspicions are going to get stronger - much stronger!
All very interesting theories in regard to what went on between these two behind closed doors. I'll tell you one thing that you can bet the house on and that is PSA would not touch this card now with a ten foot pole (or Jewlers glass) lol
If the card was only intended for collateral, it shouldn't have been cracked, right?
So if it wasn't cracked, why would SGC want a disclaimer letter? It's certified by GAI, right?
Cracking a GAI case that was on loan, delaying the return to be indemnified while the card was on their watch, and already making legal threats??
Oh, I could go on and on and on...
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>Where is everyone getting the loan and collateral story? >>
From the article:
<< <i>The lawsuit alleged that Forman at first said he was working on the restoration and then stopped returning Haas’ calls. Haas later learned of a blog on an Internet site that referred to “a high-profile Mantle card collector” borrowing $100,000 from someone and turning over a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card as collateral on the loan. Fearing it was his card being referred to in the blog, Haas again demanded his card back and allegedly was rebuffed. >>
Rumor has it the $100K was a loan for GAI and the Mantle was collateral.
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
Here is SGC's side of the story that was posted on their website
The following is SGC's official response to the unfortunate events the past few days. If anyone has any questions, please feel fee to post them here or contact me directly at sskeffington@sgccard.com We thank you for your patience and understanding concerning this matter.
At some point in 2007, Jim Haas submitted a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card to SGC for grading. The card had been graded a "10 Pristine" by Global Authentication. At SGC's request, a representative from Global removed the card from its holder so that it could be properly examined by SGC.
After reviewing the card, in accordance with its normal standards, SGC awarded the card the grade of "96 - Mint 9", due to two minor imperfections on the surface. Mr. Haas asked SGC to review the card a second time. After reviewing the card a second time, it was determined once again to be a "96 - Mint 9."
At no point did any representative of SGC perform - or agree to perform - any "restoration" on the card to improve its condition. SGC does not restore cards. SGC is a grading company, and its role is simply to assess the condition of trading cards. Mr. Haas seemed unhappy with the result.
When Mr. Haas requested return of the card, on the advice of counsel Mr. Forman requested a release protecting Mr. Forman from any allegation that SGC damaged the card, diminishing its value. Mr. Haas was provided with the identity of SGC's legal counsel. Until this week, SGC's counsel never received a call from either Mr. Haas or Mr. Haas' attorney. While waiting for Mr. Haas to contact SGC's counsel, the card remained safely in SGC's custody. Today, the parties entered into a consent order transferring the card to a third party for inspection prior to its return to Mr. Haas.
We feel that it is important to note that a number of inaccuracies about how this story has been reported - largely due to unfamiliarity with our industry - have cast SGC in a negative light. Hopefully this statement will explain that SGC is a "grading and authentication" company and not a "rating and restoration" company, and that our business remains to assess the authenticity and condition of trading cards. We categorically deny any allegation that SGC or Dave Forman agreed to restore the card for Mr. Haas, and hope that this episode can now be put to rest so that we may continue on our mission to remain the highest quality grading company in our industry.
<< <i>Here is SGC's side of the story that was posted on their website
The following is SGC's official response to the unfortunate events the past few days. If anyone has any questions, please feel fee to post them here or contact me directly at sskeffington@sgccard.com We thank you for your patience and understanding concerning this matter.
At some point in 2007, Jim Haas submitted a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card to SGC for grading. The card had been graded a "10 Pristine" by Global Authentication. At SGC's request, a representative from Global removed the card from its holder so that it could be properly examined by SGC.
After reviewing the card, in accordance with its normal standards, SGC awarded the card the grade of "96 - Mint 9", due to two minor imperfections on the surface. Mr. Haas asked SGC to review the card a second time. After reviewing the card a second time, it was determined once again to be a "96 - Mint 9."
At no point did any representative of SGC perform - or agree to perform - any "restoration" on the card to improve its condition. SGC does not restore cards. SGC is a grading company, and its role is simply to assess the condition of trading cards. Mr. Haas seemed unhappy with the result.
When Mr. Haas requested return of the card, on the advice of counsel Mr. Forman requested a release protecting Mr. Forman from any allegation that SGC damaged the card, diminishing its value. Mr. Haas was provided with the identity of SGC's legal counsel. Until this week, SGC's counsel never received a call from either Mr. Haas or Mr. Haas' attorney. While waiting for Mr. Haas to contact SGC's counsel, the card remained safely in SGC's custody. Today, the parties entered into a consent order transferring the card to a third party for inspection prior to its return to Mr. Haas.
We feel that it is important to note that a number of inaccuracies about how this story has been reported - largely due to unfamiliarity with our industry - have cast SGC in a negative light. Hopefully this statement will explain that SGC is a "grading and authentication" company and not a "rating and restoration" company, and that our business remains to assess the authenticity and condition of trading cards. We categorically deny any allegation that SGC or Dave Forman agreed to restore the card for Mr. Haas, and hope that this episode can now be put to rest so that we may continue on our mission to remain the highest quality grading company in our industry.
Sean Skeffington Vice President >>
What I figured all along. Gotta love internet speculation and fan boys.
I am very experienced with how IDIOT news reporters can mess up a story.
I think that is pretty much what happened here.
SGC's request for the release is SOP in many industries in sundry types of transactions. It could have been suicidal for SGC to return the card w/o such a release.
For me, case closed.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>Haas, a majority shareholder in another baseball card grading company called Global Authentication, said he’ll be content when he has his card back.
After reading sevral articles about this...alot of hazy unclear information. Maybe this is what happened:
Card is sent to SGC for a possible bump. SGC typically does not accept crossovers of this amount without the owner of the card contacting them and working out arrangements. In order to bump a 9 to a 10...you obviously would have to crack holder to grade it. The owner agrees to allow SGC to crack it open. SGC cracks it , regrades it and tells owner that the card does not warrant an upgrade...maybe even that the card was altered. Owner who I am sure would have to pay some serious coin to cross over a card of this magnitude gets pissed and says that SGC damaged the card or altered it as retribution. Sgc tells owner that we are not going to release the card back to you until you sign a statement saying that the card was in the same condition as when it was submited. Owner says...I am not going to sign. SGC says we will hold your card until you do. Once I saw that the owner was a primary shareholder of GAI, it really waved a red flag to me. Maybe he is trying to come into some cash, insurance money or "bribe" money from SGC to help keep GAI alfloat in their troubled times.???
who knows..it will be interesting to see the real facts of this case. >>
Not that SGC's explanation is 100% truth...always two sides to a story, but my guess to what happened earlier tonight was fairly close to SGC's explanation. seems logical to me.
<< <i>Here is SGC's side of the story that was posted on their website
The following is SGC's official response to the unfortunate events the past few days. If anyone has any questions, please feel fee to post them here or contact me directly at sskeffington@sgccard.com We thank you for your patience and understanding concerning this matter.
At some point in 2007, Jim Haas submitted a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card to SGC for grading. The card had been graded a "10 Pristine" by Global Authentication. At SGC's request, a representative from Global removed the card from its holder so that it could be properly examined by SGC.
After reviewing the card, in accordance with its normal standards, SGC awarded the card the grade of "96 - Mint 9", due to two minor imperfections on the surface. Mr. Haas asked SGC to review the card a second time. After reviewing the card a second time, it was determined once again to be a "96 - Mint 9."
At no point did any representative of SGC perform - or agree to perform - any "restoration" on the card to improve its condition. SGC does not restore cards. SGC is a grading company, and its role is simply to assess the condition of trading cards. Mr. Haas seemed unhappy with the result.
When Mr. Haas requested return of the card, on the advice of counsel Mr. Forman requested a release protecting Mr. Forman from any allegation that SGC damaged the card, diminishing its value. Mr. Haas was provided with the identity of SGC's legal counsel. Until this week, SGC's counsel never received a call from either Mr. Haas or Mr. Haas' attorney. While waiting for Mr. Haas to contact SGC's counsel, the card remained safely in SGC's custody. Today, the parties entered into a consent order transferring the card to a third party for inspection prior to its return to Mr. Haas.
We feel that it is important to note that a number of inaccuracies about how this story has been reported - largely due to unfamiliarity with our industry - have cast SGC in a negative light. Hopefully this statement will explain that SGC is a "grading and authentication" company and not a "rating and restoration" company, and that our business remains to assess the authenticity and condition of trading cards. We categorically deny any allegation that SGC or Dave Forman agreed to restore the card for Mr. Haas, and hope that this episode can now be put to rest so that we may continue on our mission to remain the highest quality grading company in our industry.
Sean Skeffington Vice President >>
I'll "buy" it, and kudos to SGC for a company representative posting this rather than their lawyer. An old saying is when lawyers start running your business, then your business is in trouble...and that is the truth.
Did the reporter even get the age of Haas correct? He says Haas is 62? then "Haas, a 1963 West Point graduate." wouldn't that make him atleast 66? or could you graduate at West point at 18 years old?
Looking for in PSA graded 1. 75-76 Topps Keith/Jamaal Wilkes in Psa 8+ 2. 1971-72 Trio stickers PSA 8+ 3. BSKB 1977-78 topps psa 10
Basketball Autos 1992 Courtside Flashback Action Packed HOF Autos(need elvin hayes,both bill bradley,and the 1st bill walton) 2001 and 2005 Greats of the Game UD=retro,epic,legends,legendary,generations and chronology 2006 Topps Style 1952 Fan Favorites Autos #/10 (Refractor Autos) Press Pass Legends
Comments
<< <i>"Yeah, that doesn't go on at all over here on the CU boards... "
//////////////////////////////////
Yes, it does.
CU is, however, NOT a dictatorship.
Posters here are given wide latitude to pump/bash.
Sure they are, and then you stop hearing from them because they get banished...
<< <i>Ummmmmm, if he's a majority shareholder in GAI, why wouldn't he send it there? Certainly he would get a beneficial grade, not to mention the fact that it would be great press for the company to grade a mint Mantle RC. There's all kinds of behind-the-scenes stuff going on here that we don't know about. >>
I would imagine there would a conflict of interest type issue here. For a high-profile card like this, I would not have my own company or a company in which I was affliated with do the grading.
<< <i>Sure they are, and then you stop hearing from them because they get banished... >>
But they are given a looooooong leash.
If they only bash and never contribute, their leash gets a tad shorter.
99 out of 100 times, they get bammed for something else (ie word censors, PM harrassment).
This is, afterall, a message board for a publicly traded company.
Go to the other board anonymously and bash them (the owners, SGC, Mastro) and see how long you last.
Comparatively speaking, you have a lot more leeway here than over there. And you know that to be fact...
<< <i>
<< <i>Sure they are, and then you stop hearing from them because they get banished... >>
But they are given a looooooong leash.
If they only bash and never contribute, their leash gets a tad shorter.
99 out of 100 times, they get bammed for something else (ie word censors, PM harrassment).
This is, afterall, a message board for a publicly traded company.
Go to the other board anonymously and bash them (the owners, SGC, Mastro) and see how long you last.
Comparatively speaking, you have a lot more leeway here than over there. And you know that to be fact... >>
I hear what you're saying, but the banishment of some people isn't warranted IMO...cardbender, for instance...
<< <i>Ummmmmm, if he's a majority shareholder in GAI, why wouldn't he send it there? Certainly he would get a beneficial grade, not to mention the fact that it would be great press for the company to grade a mint Mantle RC. There's all kinds of behind-the-scenes stuff going on here that we don't know about. >>
Game, set, match
Now, one might speculate that since Forman allegedly wanted a release signed that something may have happened to it that might keep it from returning to a PSA 9 grade. Or perhaps it was still being held as collateral?
I'm sure we'll never know the real story, but it seems that the woman doing the reporting doesn't know the difference between her backside and her elbow. And her lack of research and broadstroke reporting may have made a mountain out of a mole hill.
<< <i>I hear what you're saying, but the banishment of some people isn't warranted IMO...cardbender, for instance... >>
Don't know what happened to him nor what he did, so I have no idea. And to be honest, I don't even remember the alias. Not minimalizing who he is, just honestly doesn't ring a bell.
Having said that, would be willing to bet he broke a rule that everyone else has been guilty of doing.
Difference being, he had a short leash.
I've never seen Dave Forman before. He looks a lot younger than I had imagined. Here's a pic of him with his attorney (wearing the suit):
<< <i>Stevek, why are you assuming Foreman is guilty?? based on the errornus report in the article? >>
I'm not "assuming" anything - I'm basing my opinion on the news story. However I have to "assume" that the reporter gleaned the information from the lawsuit which is logical right? Perhaps the reporter added additional commentary based on what she had uncovered, but the story in my view does not seem erroneous.
-
<< <i>Now, one might speculate that since Forman allegedly wanted a release signed that something may have happened to it that might keep it from returning to a PSA 9 grade. >>
I.
FREAKING.
LOVE.
IT.
Ummmmmm, if he's a majority shareholder in GAI, why wouldn't he send it there?
The DR. does not reside there.
Steve
J
///////////////////////////////////////
Not my board, but if it was, I would give ONE stern warning
for most types of violations before I pulled the plug.
There are some violations that ZERO-tolerance fits, and
some not so much.
This is still the most liberal semi-moderated board that I
frequent. (Yahoo is NOT moderated, and deletes profiles
ONLY on third-party complaints. EBAY is heavily moderated;
LiveWorld operates the boards, makes posts and deletes
posts, AND can IP-block a poster w/o warning.)
//////////////////////////////////
Yup.
I am not sure but the scuttlebutt was that GAI needed a loan and used that card as collateral. Haas the owner of said card is also an owner of GAI.
Steve
<< <i>Wonder if this thread will reach 100 posts? >>
I'm gonna guess it will pass 250, no problem.
Where? over at 54 if you take away my posts the thread will barely reach 30.
Steve
<< <i>Still not sure why one of the owners of GAI was going to SGC to grade his card, and then the card was held hostage. >>
Allegedly, it was for collateral on a $100K loan.
otw gave a perfectly reasonable explination.
<< <i>Now, one might speculate that since Forman allegedly wanted a release signed that something may have happened to it that might keep it from returning to a PSA 9 grade. Or perhaps it was still being held as collateral? >>
Taking that path, one could speculate even further.
Perhaps SGC thought GAI would go under.. Under this assumption, SGC thinks they have a new flagship to boast.. Perhaps doing a little something to clean it up and then puts it in a SGC holder...
Maybe that's why it took so long to hand it over?
Oh the conspiracies we could think of....
<< <i>Wonder if this thread will reach 100 posts?
Where? over at 54 if you take away my posts the thread will barely reach 30.
Steve
Admittedly, I looked over there at their thread on this topic. Your comments and a few others were all that made sense.
-
<< <i>And why doesn't Forman just quickly come out and make a statement instead of having some lawyer make veiled threats to people voicing their opinions on the internet? >>
Because, in my honest and humble opinion, he's a WEASEL.
Sounds like the guy was desperate and that is why he said what he did. He felt that he was getting the run around and so he turned on Mr. Forman. I doubt very much that he would make such a commen if it wasn't true.
Also, how could he sign a release before he got the card?
I do not think that card would be devalued since it remained in the PSA 9 holder.
Had it been re graded then yes I would agree with you.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>And why doesn't Forman just quickly come out and make a statement instead of having some lawyer make veiled threats to people voicing their opinions on the internet? >>
Because, in my honest and humble opinion, he's a WEASEL.
I'll second that.
Got his hand caught in the cookie jar.
-
After reading sevral articles about this...alot of hazy unclear information. Maybe this is what happened:
Card is sent to SGC for a possible bump. SGC typically does not accept crossovers of this amount without the owner of the card contacting them and working out arrangements. In order to bump a 9 to a 10...you obviously would have to crack holder to grade it. The owner agrees to allow SGC to crack it open. SGC cracks it , regrades it and tells owner that the card does not warrant an upgrade...maybe even that the card was altered. Owner who I am sure would have to pay some serious coin to cross over a card of this magnitude gets pissed and says that SGC damaged the card or altered it as retribution. Sgc tells owner that we are not going to release the card back to you until you sign a statement saying that the card was in the same condition as when it was submited. Owner says...I am not going to sign. SGC says we will hold your card until you do. Once I saw that the owner was a primary shareholder of GAI, it really waved a red flag to me. Maybe he is trying to come into some cash, insurance money or "bribe" money from SGC to help keep GAI alfloat in their troubled times.???
who knows..it will be interesting to see the real facts of this case.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>Haas, a majority shareholder in another baseball card grading company called Global Authentication, said he’ll be content when he has his card back.
After reading sevral articles about this...alot of hazy unclear information. Maybe this is what happened:
Card is sent to SGC for a possible bump. SGC typically does not accept crossovers of this amount without the owner of the card contacting them and working out arrangements. In order to bump a 9 to a 10...you obviously would have to crack holder to grade it. The owner agrees to allow SGC to crack it open. SGC cracks it , regrades it and tells owner that the card does not warrant an upgrade...maybe even that the card was altered. Owner who I am sure would have to pay some serious coin to cross over a card of this magnitude gets pissed and says that SGC damaged the card or altered it as retribution. Sgc tells owner that we are not going to release the card back to you until you sign a statement saying that the card was in the same condition as when it was submited. Owner says...I am not going to sign. SGC says we will hold your card until you do. Once I saw that the owner was a primary shareholder of GAI, it really waved a red flag to me. Maybe he is trying to come into some cash, insurance money or "bribe" money from SGC to help keep GAI alfloat in their troubled times.???
who knows..it will be interesting to see the real facts of this case. >>
Okay fine, that's an interesting premise...so then why hasn't Forman come out by now and told...you know it's called...lemme think...oh yea...THE TRUTH. Does he need some scumbag clever lawyer to prepare some spin job legal statement for him? He's got his company's life on the line here...come out immediately and tell the truth...otherwise the suspicions are going to get stronger - much stronger!
-
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
Steve
Kidding about the 9.5, but the card was returned.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
If the card was only intended for collateral, it shouldn't have been cracked, right?
So if it wasn't cracked, why would SGC want a disclaimer letter? It's certified by GAI, right?
Cracking a GAI case that was on loan, delaying the return to be indemnified while the card was on their watch, and already making legal threats??
Oh, I could go on and on and on...
It is my understanding that it was and is a PSA 9 card. A minority owner at GAI used it as collateral in a loan that Forman (SGC) gave them.
The card is still in the PSA 9 slab as far as I know.
Steve
<< <i>Where is everyone getting the loan and collateral story? >>
From the article:
<< <i>The lawsuit alleged that Forman at first said he was working on the restoration and then stopped returning Haas’ calls. Haas later learned of a blog on an Internet site that referred to “a high-profile Mantle card collector” borrowing $100,000 from someone and turning over a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card as collateral on the loan. Fearing it was his card being referred to in the blog, Haas again demanded his card back and allegedly was rebuffed. >>
Rumor has it the $100K was a loan for GAI and the Mantle was collateral.
Last yr a 52 Mantle in PSA 9 was used as collateral. I think that is where it started.
If it is not the same card then the story still basically remains the same doesn't it?
Haas gave Forman his 52 mantle in a PSA 9 slab and according to Hass, Forman was going to work on it and try to get it into a higher slab.
I of course am only going by what I read in tose articles that have been posted.
Steve
The following is SGC's official response to the unfortunate events the past few days. If anyone has any questions, please feel fee to post them here or contact me directly at sskeffington@sgccard.com We thank you for your patience and understanding concerning this matter.
At some point in 2007, Jim Haas submitted a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card to SGC for grading. The card had been graded a "10 Pristine" by Global Authentication. At SGC's request, a representative from Global removed the card from its holder so that it could be properly examined by SGC.
After reviewing the card, in accordance with its normal standards, SGC awarded the card the grade of "96 - Mint 9", due to two minor imperfections on the surface. Mr. Haas asked SGC to review the card a second time. After reviewing the card a second time, it was determined once again to be a "96 - Mint 9."
At no point did any representative of SGC perform - or agree to perform - any "restoration" on the card to improve its condition. SGC does not restore cards. SGC is a grading company, and its role is simply to assess the condition of trading cards. Mr. Haas seemed unhappy with the result.
When Mr. Haas requested return of the card, on the advice of counsel Mr. Forman requested a release protecting Mr. Forman from any allegation that SGC damaged the card, diminishing its value. Mr. Haas was provided with the identity of SGC's legal counsel. Until this week, SGC's counsel never received a call from either Mr. Haas or Mr. Haas' attorney. While waiting for Mr. Haas to contact SGC's counsel, the card remained safely in SGC's custody. Today, the parties entered into a consent order transferring the card to a third party for inspection prior to its return to Mr. Haas.
We feel that it is important to note that a number of inaccuracies about how this story has been reported - largely due to unfamiliarity with our industry - have cast SGC in a negative light. Hopefully this statement will explain that SGC is a "grading and authentication" company and not a "rating and restoration" company, and that our business remains to assess the authenticity and condition of trading cards. We categorically deny any allegation that SGC or Dave Forman agreed to restore the card for Mr. Haas, and hope that this episode can now be put to rest so that we may continue on our mission to remain the highest quality grading company in our industry.
Sean Skeffington
Vice President
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>Here is SGC's side of the story that was posted on their website
The following is SGC's official response to the unfortunate events the past few days. If anyone has any questions, please feel fee to post them here or contact me directly at sskeffington@sgccard.com We thank you for your patience and understanding concerning this matter.
At some point in 2007, Jim Haas submitted a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card to SGC for grading. The card had been graded a "10 Pristine" by Global Authentication. At SGC's request, a representative from Global removed the card from its holder so that it could be properly examined by SGC.
After reviewing the card, in accordance with its normal standards, SGC awarded the card the grade of "96 - Mint 9", due to two minor imperfections on the surface. Mr. Haas asked SGC to review the card a second time. After reviewing the card a second time, it was determined once again to be a "96 - Mint 9."
At no point did any representative of SGC perform - or agree to perform - any "restoration" on the card to improve its condition. SGC does not restore cards. SGC is a grading company, and its role is simply to assess the condition of trading cards. Mr. Haas seemed unhappy with the result.
When Mr. Haas requested return of the card, on the advice of counsel Mr. Forman requested a release protecting Mr. Forman from any allegation that SGC damaged the card, diminishing its value. Mr. Haas was provided with the identity of SGC's legal counsel. Until this week, SGC's counsel never received a call from either Mr. Haas or Mr. Haas' attorney. While waiting for Mr. Haas to contact SGC's counsel, the card remained safely in SGC's custody. Today, the parties entered into a consent order transferring the card to a third party for inspection prior to its return to Mr. Haas.
We feel that it is important to note that a number of inaccuracies about how this story has been reported - largely due to unfamiliarity with our industry - have cast SGC in a negative light. Hopefully this statement will explain that SGC is a "grading and authentication" company and not a "rating and restoration" company, and that our business remains to assess the authenticity and condition of trading cards. We categorically deny any allegation that SGC or Dave Forman agreed to restore the card for Mr. Haas, and hope that this episode can now be put to rest so that we may continue on our mission to remain the highest quality grading company in our industry.
Sean Skeffington
Vice President >>
What I figured all along. Gotta love internet speculation and fan boys.
can mess up a story.
I think that is pretty much what happened here.
SGC's request for the release is SOP in many industries
in sundry types of transactions. It could have been
suicidal for SGC to return the card w/o such a release.
For me, case closed.
<< <i>Haas, a majority shareholder in another baseball card grading company called Global Authentication, said he’ll be content when he has his card back.
After reading sevral articles about this...alot of hazy unclear information. Maybe this is what happened:
Card is sent to SGC for a possible bump. SGC typically does not accept crossovers of this amount without the owner of the card contacting them and working out arrangements. In order to bump a 9 to a 10...you obviously would have to crack holder to grade it. The owner agrees to allow SGC to crack it open. SGC cracks it , regrades it and tells owner that the card does not warrant an upgrade...maybe even that the card was altered. Owner who I am sure would have to pay some serious coin to cross over a card of this magnitude gets pissed and says that SGC damaged the card or altered it as retribution. Sgc tells owner that we are not going to release the card back to you until you sign a statement saying that the card was in the same condition as when it was submited. Owner says...I am not going to sign. SGC says we will hold your card until you do. Once I saw that the owner was a primary shareholder of GAI, it really waved a red flag to me. Maybe he is trying to come into some cash, insurance money or "bribe" money from SGC to help keep GAI alfloat in their troubled times.???
who knows..it will be interesting to see the real facts of this case. >>
Not that SGC's explanation is 100% truth...always two sides to a story, but my guess to what happened earlier tonight was fairly close to SGC's explanation. seems logical to me.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>Here is SGC's side of the story that was posted on their website
The following is SGC's official response to the unfortunate events the past few days. If anyone has any questions, please feel fee to post them here or contact me directly at sskeffington@sgccard.com We thank you for your patience and understanding concerning this matter.
At some point in 2007, Jim Haas submitted a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card to SGC for grading. The card had been graded a "10 Pristine" by Global Authentication. At SGC's request, a representative from Global removed the card from its holder so that it could be properly examined by SGC.
After reviewing the card, in accordance with its normal standards, SGC awarded the card the grade of "96 - Mint 9", due to two minor imperfections on the surface. Mr. Haas asked SGC to review the card a second time. After reviewing the card a second time, it was determined once again to be a "96 - Mint 9."
At no point did any representative of SGC perform - or agree to perform - any "restoration" on the card to improve its condition. SGC does not restore cards. SGC is a grading company, and its role is simply to assess the condition of trading cards. Mr. Haas seemed unhappy with the result.
When Mr. Haas requested return of the card, on the advice of counsel Mr. Forman requested a release protecting Mr. Forman from any allegation that SGC damaged the card, diminishing its value. Mr. Haas was provided with the identity of SGC's legal counsel. Until this week, SGC's counsel never received a call from either Mr. Haas or Mr. Haas' attorney. While waiting for Mr. Haas to contact SGC's counsel, the card remained safely in SGC's custody. Today, the parties entered into a consent order transferring the card to a third party for inspection prior to its return to Mr. Haas.
We feel that it is important to note that a number of inaccuracies about how this story has been reported - largely due to unfamiliarity with our industry - have cast SGC in a negative light. Hopefully this statement will explain that SGC is a "grading and authentication" company and not a "rating and restoration" company, and that our business remains to assess the authenticity and condition of trading cards. We categorically deny any allegation that SGC or Dave Forman agreed to restore the card for Mr. Haas, and hope that this episode can now be put to rest so that we may continue on our mission to remain the highest quality grading company in our industry.
Sean Skeffington
Vice President >>
I'll "buy" it, and kudos to SGC for a company representative posting this rather than their lawyer. An old saying is when lawyers start running your business, then your business is in trouble...and that is the truth.
-
Micckey71
then "Haas, a 1963 West Point graduate."
wouldn't that make him atleast 66? or could you graduate at West point at 18 years old?
1. 75-76 Topps Keith/Jamaal Wilkes in Psa 8+
2. 1971-72 Trio stickers PSA 8+
3. BSKB 1977-78 topps psa 10
Basketball Autos
1992 Courtside Flashback
Action Packed HOF Autos(need elvin hayes,both bill bradley,and the 1st bill walton)
2001 and 2005 Greats of the Game
UD=retro,epic,legends,legendary,generations and chronology
2006 Topps Style 1952 Fan Favorites Autos #/10 (Refractor Autos)
Press Pass Legends