<<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.>>
I agree; this whole mess has to be blamed squarely on the shoulders of the lawyers. Advising Mr. Foreman to hold on to the card in spite of repeated demands by the client for its release and then finally surrendering the card by court order wasn't very a prudent move by the "legal eagles" in my opinion and put SGC in a bad light publicly.
I wonder if keeping the card in a safe deposit box in a bank in Stanton Island was also under the advisement of legal counsel? Perhaps since Mr. Haas is '67 West Point graduate, which was during the Vietnam-era, SGC's legal counsel feared a "Rambo-type" seizure of the Parsippany grading facility to get his card back. I don't know for certain, I'm just trying to make sense of all of this.
Is it SOP to require a release statement for any big ticket card that has been submitted for grading review. Has anyone had to fill out one of these for PSA when their review gets either bumped down or the same grade? I thought by signing the submission form you are waving you right to claim the card was damaged during the review process.
It seems to me that Haas made some threat over the phone and SGC overreacted by lawyering up and holding his card hostage. Neither side probably acted correctly.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
The more I think about this whole mess the more I wonder what the heck was this Hass guy thinking? Talk of SGC's reputation taking a hit may have some validity but this guy has connections to GAI and in my opinion has basically put the nail in the coffin to any collector of high grade vintage material who was even considering having Global grade his items.
What kind of TPG requires to be indemnified AFTER they crack the case without the submitter witnessing the entire process.
It becomes a he said / she said situation and definitely casts SGC in a negative light.
If this happened on PSA's watch, I can't even imagine the uproar...
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
Me thinks as well that this guy Haas may have gone a little "funny in the head" to make accusations such as this if the accusations are false. Of course if you're dead broke and in debt, there ain't anything to be sued for so maybe he's not the least bit worried about being sued for making false statements about his dealings with SGC. Inadvertently, he might have actually made SGC stronger.
I'm not blaming the reporter so much as I am Haas at this point, unless the story turns again in some other way.
Mystery Surrounds 1952 Topps Mantle Case PDF Print E-mail Tag it: Delicious Furl it! Spurl NewsVine Reddit YahooMyWeb Technorati Digg Fark Stumble blogmarks ? Friday, 08 February 2008 A 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card is apparently going back to its owner after a strange court case involving men representing two grading companies.
A kid who opened a pack of 1952 Topps baseball cards could never have imagined his Mickey Mantle card would potentially be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone be the subject of legal wrangling.
It's happened, though, and the case itself seems destined to end not long after it began, despite two widely different versions of what led to it landing in a New Jersey courtroom.
James Haas, a New Jersey resident, filed a civil lawsuit against Sportscard Guaranty (SGC) after he claimed the company wouldn't return a 1952 Topps Mantle he had given them several months earlier.
The two parties appeared at a hearing Thursday in a Morris County, New Jersey civil court, with SGC agreeing to have the card reevaluated by a third party before it is returned to Haas within a month.
According to the civil complaint, Haas, a shareholder in Global Authentication Incorporated, had originally submitted the card to GAI where it was graded a "10" in 2006. After seeing a PSA 9 Mantle sell for over $282,000 in Memory Lane's December 2006 auction, the civil complaint indicates Haas contacted SGC owner Dave Forman.
The complaint states Haas was hoping SGC could "correct two slight imperfections so its value could be enhanced." The card, according to Haas attorney Brian Spector, had "two small spots" and according to the complaint, SGC was hired to see if it could "legitimately correct the imperfections". Working through GAI employee Mike Baker, Haas turned the card over to SGC during the Eastern Pennsylvania Collectors Club show in the spring of 2007.
The complaint further alleges Forman kept the card throughout the second half of 2007, while meeting three times with Haas in West Orange New Jersey to discuss the status of the card. The card was eventually graded and slabbed in what the complaint states was an "SGC 9" (96) holder but remained in SGC's possession as the company "made one last try" to "legitimately correct the imperfections." There is no mention of what, if anything, Haas alleges was done to the card while in SGC's possession. An invoice obtained by Sports Collectors Daily includes the words "for D Forman Review" but no other information about other assigned tasks is printed on the form.
<< <i>wow...wonder what Leon and the SGC minions are saying this morning!
what a wondeful day in PSA land!
Ha ! SGC, you and the crooks finally got nailed!
"im loving it!" >>
The only thing that we can verify for sure is that a major sharholder at GIA claims an agreement was made to alter a card and thatSGC was holding the card. I need it to come from someone else before I have any reason to think that the posted story from SGC is not exactly what happened.
Am I following this incorrectly? Has something else come out from a legitamate scource?
To bigdcards: "you are right" - cpamike "That is correct" -grote15
<< <i> The only thing that we can verify for sure is that a major sharholder at GIA claims an agreement was made to alter a card and thatSGC was holding the card. I need it to come from someone else before I have any reason to think that the posted story from SGC is not exactly what happened.
Am I following this incorrectly? Has something else come out from a legitamate scource? >>
No It was a PSA 9 that ended up a GAI 9.5 or 10 (ACTUAL reports vary) that he wanted bumped to a SGC 10 (98) Altering is just heresay in the report
Suppose a guy has a "10" from at least a reasonably regarded grading company. This person, however, knows that the card is not a 10 and that it was overgraded. He can sell the card as a 10 and hide behind the grade, possible harming his reputation, or he can sell the card for less and own up to the imperfections.
OR...
He can submit the card to another reputable and well-known grading company, knowing full-well it won't receive a 10 grade, but he doesn't care. If it comes back as less than a 10 then he can claim the imperfections came from the new grader. After all, it was a 10 before, so if it isn't now then it HAD to be due to damage from the second grading company, right?
Pretty sneaky, sis.
I'm not claiming or implying that's what happened here, but something like this is entirely plausible.
<< <i>wow...wonder what Leon and the SGC minions are saying this morning!
what a wondeful day in PSA land!
Ha ! SGC, you and the crooks finally got nailed!
"im loving it!"[/q
Am I missing the boat here? I guess I am one of those "SGC minions" you are referring to. Not sure what SGC did that was criminal? Owner cracks card out of GAI slab....submits to SGC...SGC grades it a 9, then regradesa second time as a 9 again and tells the owner that this card is not a 10...is not going to ever be a SGC 10 ....so the owner gets pissed and makes allegations and threats because he is pissed...so SGC decides to hold the card until he signs the legal form stating that the card was not damaged by them....to protect themselves from unfounded legal claims. I would think that if anything it show integrity on their part that they would not just give the owner the bump to a 10..If they were indeed criminals, only interested in making a quick buck, that would have been the easy thing to do..
<< <i>Am I missing the boat here? I guess I am one of those "SGC minions" you are referring to. Not sure what SGC did that was criminal? Owner cracks card out of GAI slab....submits to SGC...SGC grades it a 9, then regradesa second time as a 9 again and tells the owner that this card is not a 10...is not going to ever be a SGC 10 ....so the owner gets pissed and makes allegations and threats because he is pissed...so SGC decides to hold the card until he signs the legal form stating that the card was not damaged by them....to protect themselves from unfounded legal claims. I would think that if anything it show integrity on their part that they would not just give the owner the bump to a 10..If they were indeed criminals, only interested in making a quick buck, that would have been the easy thing to do.. >>
Not sure if this was ever mentioned, and if it was I must have missed it, Did this card go through the proper protocol? I mean was a submission form used when it was given to SGC?
"...An invoice obtained by Sports Collectors Daily includes the words "for D Forman Review" but no other information about other assigned tasks is printed on the form. .."
Looks like a pretty straight deal. SGC simply could not "give it back" unless the owner was satisfied that SGC did not damage the card. That satisfaction needed to be memorialized in a written release; now, it will be.
I HATE SGC, and would NEVER pay for any of their "services." BUT, I am totally missing what they allegedly did wrong.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i>I HATE SGC, and would NEVER pay for any of their "services." >>
Storm- Question for you....hate is a pretty strong word. Just curious....why do you have such strong feelings against SGC? I consider myself a fairly reasonable person...of course I am sure everyone thinks that they are reasonable! Anyways, I use SGC for all of my submissions, but buy both SGC and PSA. My collection is about 50/50 SGC/PSA. I think both are good companies...but I do prefer SGC...none the less, I was just curious why you would "hate" any grading company.
Why would SGC need a waiver before returning a card? If someone believed you damaged the card during the grading process that is their porogative, you QA standards and documentation of the process should be your protection not some strong armed forced waiver.
Currently completing the following registry sets: Cardinal HOF's, 1961 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1972 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, 1980 Pittsburgh Pirates Team, Bill Mazeroski Master & Basic Sets, Roberto Clemente Master & Basic Sets, Willie Stargell Master & Basic Sets and Terry Bradshaw Basic Set
For a big-money item that has been away from its owner for a long time, in the possession of a third-party, a simple release seems very reasonable and pretty standard.
Without the release, the owner could claim the card was harmed by SGC. Most owners acting in good faith would have no problem inspecting the card and declaring that it was OK.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
1. I feel they have always used a Collectors Society-style business model of "bashing their competitors, rather than pumping their own attributes."
2. MANY - NOT ALL - of the SGC proponents seem to be part of a cult that "hates" and bashes PSA with NO sound basis.
3. I blieve that PSA slabs will return me more money on my investment.
4. I prefer the PSA slab.
Mostly, their marketing/promotion reminds me of NGC and PMG. They seem to believe that simply bashing the BIG guy is the road to success.
NOTE: I owned PCGS coins and PSA cards long before I became a small CLCT shareholder. >>
Life is way too short for hatred of the inconsequential. Many a persons slab allegiance brings out entirely too much rhetoric as if it were something of legitimate importance i.e. politics, religion or the University you root for with passion.
Life is way too short for hatred of the inconsequential. Many a persons slab allegiance brings out entirely too much rhetoric as if it were something of legitimate importance i.e. politics, religion or the University you root for with passion. >>
1. I feel they have always used a Collectors Society-style business model of "bashing their competitors, rather than pumping their own attributes."
2. MANY - NOT ALL - of the SGC proponents seem to be part of a cult that "hates" and bashes PSA with NO sound basis.
. >>
Sounds very much like some members of this message boad when it comes to BGS,GAI and SGC, except its more of an elitist attitude that their company can do no wrong....
www.sportsnutcards.com Specializing in Certified Autograph Cards, Rookies, Rare Inserts and other quality modern cards! Over 8000 Cards in stock now! Come visit our physical store located at 1210 Main St. Belmar ,NJ
<< <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.
<<Not sure if this was ever mentioned, and if it was I must have missed it, Did this card go through the proper protocol? I mean was a submission form used when it was given to SGC?
Steve >>
Steve,
According to the article below by a hobby publication and not by a female report for a local newspaper, there was a submission form and it appears that it was to be reviewed by Dave Forman himself (see what I highlighted in bold print).
Besides the issue of the submission form, the suit contends that there were three meetings between Haas and Forman in West Orange, New Jersey over the past year pertaining to the card in question. Another odd thing is that the card was held in SGC's possession for approximately 11 months, but one has to wonder if it ever went through the door of the SGC facility, since SGC did not give Haas the card when he showed up at the SGC facility with a police officer this past November and as of several days ago it was kept in Forman's safe deposit box in Staten Island.
So to answer your question, "Did this card go through the proper protocol?", I guess it depends as what you define as "proper"?
Anyone else care to clear this up for me. Again, I'm only trying to make sense of all of this.
Mystery Surrounds 1952 Topps Mantle Case
Friday, 08 February 2008
A 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card is apparently going back to its owner after a strange court case involving men representing two grading companies.
A kid who opened a pack of 1952 Topps baseball cards could never have imagined his Mickey Mantle card would potentially be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone be the subject of legal wrangling.
It's happened, though, and the case itself seems destined to end not long after it began, despite two widely different versions of what led to it landing in a New Jersey courtroom.
James Haas, a New Jersey resident, filed a civil lawsuit against Sportscard Guaranty (SGC) after he claimed the company wouldn't return a 1952 Topps Mantle he had given them several months earlier.
The two parties appeared at a hearing Thursday in a Morris County, New Jersey civil court, with SGC agreeing to have the card reevaluated by a third party before it is returned to Haas within a month.
According to the civil complaint, Haas, a shareholder in Global Authentication Incorporated, had originally submitted the card to GAI where it was graded a "10" in 2006. After seeing a PSA 9 Mantle sell for over $282,000 in Memory Lane's December 2006 auction, the civil complaint indicates Haas contacted SGC owner Dave Forman.
The complaint states Haas was hoping SGC could "correct two slight imperfections so its value could be enhanced." The card, according to Haas attorney Brian Spector, had "two small spots" and according to the complaint, SGC was hired to see if it could "legitimately correct the imperfections". Working through GAI employee Mike Baker, Haas turned the card over to SGC during the Eastern Pennsylvania Collectors Club show in the spring of 2007.
The complaint further alleges Forman kept the card throughout the second half of 2007, while meeting three times with Haas in West Orange New Jersey to discuss the status of the card. The card was eventually graded and slabbed in what the complaint states was an "SGC 9" (96) holder but remained in SGC's possession as the company "made one last try" to "legitimately correct the imperfections." There is no mention of what, if anything, Haas alleges was done to the card while in SGC's possession. An invoice obtained by Sports Collectors Daily includes the words "for D Forman Review" but no other information about other assigned tasks is printed on the form.
After learning via an internet post that a 1952 Mantle card was being held as collateral for a loan given to "a majority shareholder in Global and a high profile Mickey Mantle card collector", and no longer able to contact Forman, Haas became concerned that the card involved was his and contacted the Parsippany Police Department.
On November 28 of last year, Haas and patrolman Richard Howell attempted to retrieve the card at SGC's offices but after waiting 40 minutes, were rebuffed and advised to contact SGC's legal counsel.
In court Thursday, SGC attorney Gordon Graber told Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis that comments appearing on internet message boards accusing SGC of intending to alter the card "are considered defamatory by the company."
SGC's official response, posted by Vice President of Operations Sean Skeffington on the company's web site, denies that any agreement took place regarding attempts to alter the card in any way:
"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."
Attorneys for both sides have not returned phone calls since Thursday's hearing.
If he couldn't get the bump, why on earth would the thing get cracked.
He is the owner of GAI... I don't think he will have any trouble getting it back in a GAI 10 holder.
The card was cracked out by GAI per SGC request.
The real troublesome point here is he tried to get the card graded by another company. If your company is not good enough for your own cards then what does that say for our cards?
<< <i>The complaint states Haas was hoping SGC could "correct two slight imperfections so its value could be enhanced." The card, according to Haas attorney Brian Spector, had "two small spots" and according to the complaint, SGC was hired to see if it could "legitimately correct the imperfections". Working through GAI employee Mike Baker, Haas turned the card over to SGC during the Eastern Pennsylvania Collectors Club show in the spring of 2007.
The complaint further alleges Forman kept the card throughout the second half of 2007, while meeting three times with Haas in West Orange New Jersey to discuss the status of the card. The card was eventually graded and slabbed in what the complaint states was an "SGC 9" (96) holder but remained in SGC's possession as the company "made one last try" to "legitimately correct the imperfections." There is no mention of what, if anything, Haas alleges was done to the card while in SGC's possession. An invoice obtained by Sports Collectors Daily includes the words "for D Forman Review" but no other information about other assigned tasks is printed on the form. >>
This is an interesting point of view. As we all know, sportscollectorsdaily is a reputable souce... Not always 100% accurate but credible.
Having said that, the part about asking SGC to "correct two slight imperfections" bothers me. If they didn't alter the card in any way, why were/are they demanding to be indemnified if they never altered the card?
If they did in fact alter the card, I have lost complete faith in them as a TPG. Having said that, their customer base should be in an uproar but for whatever reason, they continue to sweep it under the rug.
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
The way I see it at this point is that if Haas is to have any credibility on this matter, if indeed he cares about his credibility, he should produce and release documentation of his "request" and the SGC reply to his request such as written or e-mail correspondence.
Similarly, SGC may want to produce the same documentation to perhaps fully protect their reputation. It would be most interesting to see the response that SGC gave to the so-called "request" of Haas to "correct two slight imperfections" in the card.
<< <i>If they did in fact alter the card, I have lost complete faith in them as a TPG. Having said that, their customer base should be in an uproar but for whatever reason, they continue to sweep it under the rug. >>
I submit cards to SGC on occasion but I'll jump ship in a heartbeat if I think there is merit the claim made by Hass. Do you think SGC accepted any arrangement for restoration of any card? If so, why? If not, what exactly is being swept under the rug?
To bigdcards: "you are right" - cpamike "That is correct" -grote15
In SGC's formal reply to this debacle the 'fix 2 slight perfections' was not addressed.
They only stated that they are not a restoration company, nor have they ever restored cards.
Dan that is exactly what I was asking. Thanks for a well thought out reply too. Why was the card not at SGC? If proper protocols were followed it should have never left the building.
The oddest thing in all of this, which nobody seems to feel the weight of, is that this card could only be graded according to SGC's fee schedule, (for any card valued over $5,000) is "Immediate - 2 hour Walk Through". Why this took 10+ months, even with several additional reviews with multiple meetings in West Orange, New Jersey is a perplexing mystery to me.
The oddest thing in all of this, which nobody seems to feel the weight of, is that this card could only be graded according to SGC's fee schedule, (for any card valued over $5,000) is "Immediate - 2 hour Walk Through". Why this took 10+ months, even with several additional reviews with multiple meetings in West Orange, New Jersey is a perplexing mystery to me. >>
Not exactly your run of the mill card, and as mentioned earlier there appears to be other things going on including collateral on a loan. These companies do not always follow their posted rules. Kind of like how PSA has different fee schedules from what is posted for those sellers who submit thousands of cards. Just part of doing business.
In all of the newspaper articles that I've read, there is absolutely no substance to the notion that Haas was using the card as collateral on a loan and all things considered it becomes quite obvious that he wasn't.
In fact, this article in the 4th paragraph, certainly adds strong veracity that it wasn't on loan and that's why Haas demanded its immediate release - fearing that his card that he gave to Forman/SGC was being used as collateral on a loan elsewhere.
Also, if it was collateral on an outstanding loan, the defendant (Forman) would have certainly used that as grounds for not releasing the card, but obviously it wasn't the case since the judge ruled that the card be turned over to the plaintiff (Haas).
<< <i>If they did in fact alter the card, I have lost complete faith in them as a TPG. Having said that, their customer base should be in an uproar but for whatever reason, they continue to sweep it under the rug. >>
I submit cards to SGC on occasion but I'll jump ship in a heartbeat if I think there is merit the claim made by Hass. Do you think SGC accepted any arrangement for restoration of any card? If so, why? If not, what exactly is being swept under the rug? >>
SGC never thought a private conversation (please restore this card) would get out as fact.....very fishy ..that press release is only smoke and mirrors.....WHY DID THEY HAVE THE CARD SO LONG?
<< <i>These companies do not always follow their posted rules. Kind of like how PSA has different fee schedules from what is posted for those sellers who submit thousands of cards. Just part of doing business. >>
Wait, you're comparing a $200K+ card being held hostage to bulk discount rates?
I'm sorry but I don't follow that analogy at all..
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 am still questioning the smoke and mirrors layed down by SGC in response to this. I had a 40 card non-sports sub ready to go to them, but now I am just going to add those 40 cards to my next PSA sub.
So what if big submitters get discounts on submissions. Nearly every major business will do it, even Target and Wal-Mart on their clearence items will give you a price if you agree to buy it all and ask the right person.
Why do people get upset about large submitters getting better prices? In every business, if you buy in bulk you spend less money per item. If I buy 500 flatscreen TVs, you think I would expect to pay full sticker price at Best Buy? If I buy 100 Honda Accords, you think they'll give me a better deal than the guy who buys one?
<< <i>These companies do not always follow their posted rules. Kind of like how PSA has different fee schedules from what is posted for those sellers who submit thousands of cards. Just part of doing business. >>
Wait, you're comparing a $200K+ card being held hostage to bulk discount rates?
I'm sorry but I don't follow that analogy at all.. >>
The point was what is posted on a company's website is not always the case, in reply to the earlier post that was worried that SGC did not follow the rules stated on their website. Understand now?
SGC never thought a private conversation (please restore this card) would get out as fact.....very fishy ..that press release is only smoke and mirrors.....WHY DID THEY HAVE THE CARD SO LONG?
SGC JUMPED THE SHARK WITH THIS ONE >>
Why does this post not surprise me in the least? It will be alright Fandango!
<< <i>These companies do not always follow their posted rules. Kind of like how PSA has different fee schedules from what is posted for those sellers who submit thousands of cards. Just part of doing business. >>
Wait, you're comparing a $200K+ card being held hostage to bulk discount rates?
I'm sorry but I don't follow that analogy at all.. >>
The point was what is posted on a company's website is not always the case, in reply to the earlier post that was worried that SGC did not follow the rules stated on their website. Understand now? >>
So you were just looking for an opportunity to take a jab at PSA.
Sure, I understand now.
But seriously, dude brought up another interesting point of why did it take 10+ months to get to this point?
I've said it before, if this was on PSA's watch, the SGC supporters would be having a field day...
Since the shoe is on the other foot, they continue to act like nothing happened and it's business as usual.
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
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 high dollar card has been shopped or holdered by all 3 grading companies.
GAI people working with SGC people (they all buddies?) for a potential huge value bump if everyone plays along.
I wont even address the possible "restore" as the consequences are too chilling.
As these fools play "pimp my holder" , YOU and ME are the losers as yet another article exposes high end card grading as an insiders dream with a fortune to be made for just little printed number + 1.
So you were just looking for an opportunity to take a jab at PSA.
Sure, I understand now.
But seriously, dude brought up another interesting point of why did it take 10+ months to get to this point?
I've said it before, if this was on PSA's watch, the SGC supporters would be having a field day...
Since the shoe is on the other foot, they continue to act like nothing happened and it's business as usual.
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. >>
Obviously this was far from a normal submission with the meetings reported between parties. In the end I could really care less, and the entire story will never come to light so we might as well stop worrying about it.
Not sure why you posted I took a jab at PSA, as I stated a simple fact about the business world. The little men running around in your head can rest now.
Comments
I agree; this whole mess has to be blamed squarely on the shoulders of the lawyers. Advising Mr. Foreman to hold on to the card in spite of repeated demands by the client for its release and then finally surrendering the card by court order wasn't very a prudent move by the "legal eagles" in my opinion and put SGC in a bad light publicly.
I wonder if keeping the card in a safe deposit box in a bank in Stanton Island was also under the advisement of legal counsel? Perhaps since Mr. Haas is '67 West Point graduate, which was during the Vietnam-era, SGC's legal counsel feared a "Rambo-type" seizure of the Parsippany grading facility to get his card back. I don't know for certain, I'm just trying to make sense of all of this.
It seems to me that Haas made some threat over the phone and SGC overreacted by lawyering up and holding his card hostage. Neither side probably acted correctly.
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
Reporters seem to be lazy or biased.
What kind of TPG requires to be indemnified AFTER they crack the case without the submitter witnessing the entire process.
It becomes a he said / she said situation and definitely casts SGC in a negative light.
If this happened on PSA's watch, I can't even imagine the uproar...
what a wondeful day in PSA land!
Ha ! SGC, you and the crooks finally got nailed!
"im loving it!"
I'm not blaming the reporter so much as I am Haas at this point, unless the story turns again in some other way.
PDF Print E-mail
Tag it:
Delicious
Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
YahooMyWeb
Technorati
Digg
Fark
Stumble
blogmarks
?
Friday, 08 February 2008
A 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card is apparently going back to its owner after a strange court case involving men representing two grading companies.
A kid who opened a pack of 1952 Topps baseball cards could never have imagined his Mickey Mantle card would potentially be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone be the subject of legal wrangling.
It's happened, though, and the case itself seems destined to end not long after it began, despite two widely different versions of what led to it landing in a New Jersey courtroom.
James Haas, a New Jersey resident, filed a civil lawsuit against Sportscard Guaranty (SGC) after he claimed the company wouldn't return a 1952 Topps Mantle he had given them several months earlier.
The two parties appeared at a hearing Thursday in a Morris County, New Jersey civil court, with SGC agreeing to have the card reevaluated by a third party before it is returned to Haas within a month.
According to the civil complaint, Haas, a shareholder in Global Authentication Incorporated, had originally submitted the card to GAI where it was graded a "10" in 2006. After seeing a PSA 9 Mantle sell for over $282,000 in Memory Lane's December 2006 auction, the civil complaint indicates Haas contacted SGC owner Dave Forman.
The complaint states Haas was hoping SGC could "correct two slight imperfections so its value could be enhanced." The card, according to Haas attorney Brian Spector, had "two small spots" and according to the complaint, SGC was hired to see if it could "legitimately correct the imperfections". Working through GAI employee Mike Baker, Haas turned the card over to SGC during the Eastern Pennsylvania Collectors Club show in the spring of 2007.
The complaint further alleges Forman kept the card throughout the second half of 2007, while meeting three times with Haas in West Orange New Jersey to discuss the status of the card. The card was eventually graded and slabbed in what the complaint states was an "SGC 9" (96) holder but remained in SGC's possession as the company "made one last try" to "legitimately correct the imperfections." There is no mention of what, if anything, Haas alleges was done to the card while in SGC's possession. An invoice obtained by Sports Collectors Daily includes the words "for D Forman Review" but no other information about other assigned tasks is printed on the form.
<< <i>wow...wonder what Leon and the SGC minions are saying this morning!
what a wondeful day in PSA land!
Ha ! SGC, you and the crooks finally got nailed!
"im loving it!" >>
The only thing that we can verify for sure is that a major sharholder at GIA claims an agreement was made to alter a card and thatSGC was holding the card. I need it to come from someone else before I have any reason to think that the posted story from SGC is not exactly what happened.
Am I following this incorrectly? Has something else come out from a legitamate scource?
<< <i>
The only thing that we can verify for sure is that a major sharholder at GIA claims an agreement was made to alter a card and thatSGC was holding the card. I need it to come from someone else before I have any reason to think that the posted story from SGC is not exactly what happened.
Am I following this incorrectly? Has something else come out from a legitamate scource? >>
No
It was a PSA 9 that ended up a GAI 9.5 or 10 (ACTUAL reports vary) that he wanted bumped to a SGC 10 (98)
Altering is just heresay in the report
Suppose a guy has a "10" from at least a reasonably regarded grading company. This person, however, knows that the card is not a 10 and that it was overgraded. He can sell the card as a 10 and hide behind the grade, possible harming his reputation, or he can sell the card for less and own up to the imperfections.
OR...
He can submit the card to another reputable and well-known grading company, knowing full-well it won't receive a 10 grade, but he doesn't care. If it comes back as less than a 10 then he can claim the imperfections came from the new grader. After all, it was a 10 before, so if it isn't now then it HAD to be due to damage from the second grading company, right?
Pretty sneaky, sis.
I'm not claiming or implying that's what happened here, but something like this is entirely plausible.
<< <i>wow...wonder what Leon and the SGC minions are saying this morning!
what a wondeful day in PSA land!
Ha ! SGC, you and the crooks finally got nailed!
"im loving it!"[/q
Am I missing the boat here? I guess I am one of those "SGC minions" you are referring to. Not sure what SGC did that was criminal? Owner cracks card out of GAI slab....submits to SGC...SGC grades it a 9, then regradesa second time as a 9 again and tells the owner that this card is not a 10...is not going to ever be a SGC 10 ....so the owner gets pissed and makes allegations and threats because he is pissed...so SGC decides to hold the card until he signs the legal form stating that the card was not damaged by them....to protect themselves from unfounded legal claims. I would think that if anything it show integrity on their part that they would not just give the owner the bump to a 10..If they were indeed criminals, only interested in making a quick buck, that would have been the easy thing to do..
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>Am I missing the boat here? I guess I am one of those "SGC minions" you are referring to. Not sure what SGC did that was criminal? Owner cracks card out of GAI slab....submits to SGC...SGC grades it a 9, then regradesa second time as a 9 again and tells the owner that this card is not a 10...is not going to ever be a SGC 10 ....so the owner gets pissed and makes allegations and threats because he is pissed...so SGC decides to hold the card until he signs the legal form stating that the card was not damaged by them....to protect themselves from unfounded legal claims. I would think that if anything it show integrity on their part that they would not just give the owner the bump to a 10..If they were indeed criminals, only interested in making a quick buck, that would have been the easy thing to do.. >>
<< <i>If he couldn't get the bump, why on earth would the thing get cracked. >>
exactly my thinking! WHY.....mess with it?
Steve
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
/////////////////////////////////////////
I am not seeing ANYTHING criminal.
From the report above:
"...An invoice obtained by Sports Collectors Daily includes the words "for D Forman Review" but no other information about other assigned tasks is printed on the form. .."
Looks like a pretty straight deal. SGC simply could not "give it back"
unless the owner was satisfied that SGC did not damage the card.
That satisfaction needed to be memorialized in a written release;
now, it will be.
I HATE SGC, and would NEVER pay for any of their "services."
BUT, I am totally missing what they allegedly did wrong.
<< <i>I HATE SGC, and would NEVER pay for any of their "services."
>>
Storm-
Question for you....hate is a pretty strong word. Just curious....why do you have such strong feelings against SGC? I consider myself a fairly reasonable person...of course I am sure everyone thinks that they are reasonable! Anyways, I use SGC for all of my submissions, but buy both SGC and PSA. My collection is about 50/50 SGC/PSA. I think both are good companies...but I do prefer SGC...none the less, I was just curious why you would "hate" any grading company.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
1. I feel they have always used a Collectors Society-style business model
of "bashing their competitors, rather than pumping their own attributes."
2. MANY - NOT ALL - of the SGC proponents seem to be part of a cult that
"hates" and bashes PSA with NO sound basis.
3. I blieve that PSA slabs will return me more money on my investment.
4. I prefer the PSA slab.
Mostly, their marketing/promotion reminds me of NGC and PMG. They
seem to believe that simply bashing the BIG guy is the road to success.
NOTE: I owned PCGS coins and PSA cards long before I became a small
CLCT shareholder.
owner for a long time, in the possession of a third-party,
a simple release seems very reasonable and pretty
standard.
Without the release, the owner could claim the card was
harmed by SGC. Most owners acting in good faith would
have no problem inspecting the card and declaring that
it was OK.
<< <i>I "HATE" them because:
1. I feel they have always used a Collectors Society-style business model
of "bashing their competitors, rather than pumping their own attributes."
2. MANY - NOT ALL - of the SGC proponents seem to be part of a cult that
"hates" and bashes PSA with NO sound basis.
3. I blieve that PSA slabs will return me more money on my investment.
4. I prefer the PSA slab.
Mostly, their marketing/promotion reminds me of NGC and PMG. They
seem to believe that simply bashing the BIG guy is the road to success.
NOTE: I owned PCGS coins and PSA cards long before I became a small
CLCT shareholder. >>
Life is way too short for hatred of the inconsequential. Many a persons slab allegiance brings out entirely too much rhetoric as if it were something of legitimate importance i.e. politics, religion or the University you root for with passion.
Life is way too short for hatred of the inconsequential. Many a persons slab allegiance brings out entirely too much rhetoric as if it were something of legitimate importance i.e. politics, religion or the University you root for with passion. >>
Amen to that. Goodnight all.
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
<< <i>I "HATE" them because:
1. I feel they have always used a Collectors Society-style business model
of "bashing their competitors, rather than pumping their own attributes."
2. MANY - NOT ALL - of the SGC proponents seem to be part of a cult that
"hates" and bashes PSA with NO sound basis.
. >>
Sounds very much like some members of this message boad when it comes to BGS,GAI and SGC, except its more of an elitist attitude that their company can do no wrong....
Specializing in Certified Autograph Cards, Rookies, Rare Inserts and other quality modern cards! Over 8000 Cards in stock now! Come visit our physical store located at 1210 Main St. Belmar ,NJ
<< <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 >>
Bravo SGC !!!!!! chaz
Steve >>
Steve,
According to the article below by a hobby publication and not by a female report for a local newspaper, there was a submission form and it appears that it was to be reviewed by Dave Forman himself (see what I highlighted in bold print).
Besides the issue of the submission form, the suit contends that there were three meetings between Haas and Forman in West Orange, New Jersey over the past year pertaining to the card in question. Another odd thing is that the card was held in SGC's possession for approximately 11 months, but one has to wonder if it ever went through the door of the SGC facility, since SGC did not give Haas the card when he showed up at the SGC facility with a police officer this past November and as of several days ago it was kept in Forman's safe deposit box in Staten Island.
So to answer your question, "Did this card go through the proper protocol?", I guess it depends as what you define as "proper"?
Anyone else care to clear this up for me. Again, I'm only trying to make sense of all of this.
Mystery Surrounds 1952 Topps Mantle Case
Friday, 08 February 2008
A 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card is apparently going back to its owner after a strange court case involving men representing two grading companies.
A kid who opened a pack of 1952 Topps baseball cards could never have imagined his Mickey Mantle card would potentially be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone be the subject of legal wrangling.
It's happened, though, and the case itself seems destined to end not long after it began, despite two widely different versions of what led to it landing in a New Jersey courtroom.
James Haas, a New Jersey resident, filed a civil lawsuit against Sportscard Guaranty (SGC) after he claimed the company wouldn't return a 1952 Topps Mantle he had given them several months earlier.
The two parties appeared at a hearing Thursday in a Morris County, New Jersey civil court, with SGC agreeing to have the card reevaluated by a third party before it is returned to Haas within a month.
According to the civil complaint, Haas, a shareholder in Global Authentication Incorporated, had originally submitted the card to GAI where it was graded a "10" in 2006. After seeing a PSA 9 Mantle sell for over $282,000 in Memory Lane's December 2006 auction, the civil complaint indicates Haas contacted SGC owner Dave Forman.
The complaint states Haas was hoping SGC could "correct two slight imperfections so its value could be enhanced." The card, according to Haas attorney Brian Spector, had "two small spots" and according to the complaint, SGC was hired to see if it could "legitimately correct the imperfections". Working through GAI employee Mike Baker, Haas turned the card over to SGC during the Eastern Pennsylvania Collectors Club show in the spring of 2007.
The complaint further alleges Forman kept the card throughout the second half of 2007, while meeting three times with Haas in West Orange New Jersey to discuss the status of the card. The card was eventually graded and slabbed in what the complaint states was an "SGC 9" (96) holder but remained in SGC's possession as the company "made one last try" to "legitimately correct the imperfections." There is no mention of what, if anything, Haas alleges was done to the card while in SGC's possession. An invoice obtained by Sports Collectors Daily includes the words "for D Forman Review" but no other information about other assigned tasks is printed on the form.
After learning via an internet post that a 1952 Mantle card was being held as collateral for a loan given to "a majority shareholder in Global and a high profile Mickey Mantle card collector", and no longer able to contact Forman, Haas became concerned that the card involved was his and contacted the Parsippany Police Department.
On November 28 of last year, Haas and patrolman Richard Howell attempted to retrieve the card at SGC's offices but after waiting 40 minutes, were rebuffed and advised to contact SGC's legal counsel.
In court Thursday, SGC attorney Gordon Graber told Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis that comments appearing on internet message boards accusing SGC of intending to alter the card "are considered defamatory by the company."
SGC's official response, posted by Vice President of Operations Sean Skeffington on the company's web site, denies that any agreement took place regarding attempts to alter the card in any way:
"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."
Attorneys for both sides have not returned phone calls since Thursday's hearing.
http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/latest/mystery-surrounds-1952-topps-mantle-case.html
He is the owner of GAI... I don't think he will have any trouble getting it back in a GAI 10 holder.
The card was cracked out by GAI per SGC request.
The real troublesome point here is he tried to get the card graded by another company. If your company is not good enough for your own cards then what does that say for our cards?
Dave
1957 Topps 99% 7.40 GPA
Hank Aaron Basic PSA 7-8(75%)
<< <i>The complaint states Haas was hoping SGC could "correct two slight imperfections so its value could be enhanced." The card, according to Haas attorney Brian Spector, had "two small spots" and according to the complaint, SGC was hired to see if it could "legitimately correct the imperfections". Working through GAI employee Mike Baker, Haas turned the card over to SGC during the Eastern Pennsylvania Collectors Club show in the spring of 2007.
The complaint further alleges Forman kept the card throughout the second half of 2007, while meeting three times with Haas in West Orange New Jersey to discuss the status of the card. The card was eventually graded and slabbed in what the complaint states was an "SGC 9" (96) holder but remained in SGC's possession as the company "made one last try" to "legitimately correct the imperfections." There is no mention of what, if anything, Haas alleges was done to the card while in SGC's possession. An invoice obtained by Sports Collectors Daily includes the words "for D Forman Review" but no other information about other assigned tasks is printed on the form. >>
This is an interesting point of view. As we all know, sportscollectorsdaily is a reputable souce... Not always 100% accurate but credible.
Having said that, the part about asking SGC to "correct two slight imperfections" bothers me. If they didn't alter the card in any way, why were/are they demanding to be indemnified if they never altered the card?
If they did in fact alter the card, I have lost complete faith in them as a TPG. Having said that, their customer base should be in an uproar but for whatever reason, they continue to sweep it under the rug.
Similarly, SGC may want to produce the same documentation to perhaps fully protect their reputation. It would be most interesting to see the response that SGC gave to the so-called "request" of Haas to "correct two slight imperfections" in the card.
-
<< <i>If they did in fact alter the card, I have lost complete faith in them as a TPG. Having said that, their customer base should be in an uproar but for whatever reason, they continue to sweep it under the rug. >>
I submit cards to SGC on occasion but I'll jump ship in a heartbeat if I think there is merit the claim made by Hass. Do you think SGC accepted any arrangement for restoration of any card? If so, why? If not, what exactly is being swept under the rug?
They only stated that they are not a restoration company, nor have they ever restored cards.
Dan that is exactly what I was asking. Thanks for a well thought out reply too. Why was the card not at SGC? If proper protocols were followed it should have never left the building.
Steve
The oddest thing in all of this, which nobody seems to feel the weight of, is that this card could only be graded according to SGC's fee schedule, (for any card valued over $5,000) is "Immediate - 2 hour Walk Through". Why this took 10+ months, even with several additional reviews with multiple meetings in West Orange, New Jersey is a perplexing mystery to me.
<< <i>Steve,
The oddest thing in all of this, which nobody seems to feel the weight of, is that this card could only be graded according to SGC's fee schedule, (for any card valued over $5,000) is "Immediate - 2 hour Walk Through". Why this took 10+ months, even with several additional reviews with multiple meetings in West Orange, New Jersey is a perplexing mystery to me. >>
Not exactly your run of the mill card, and as mentioned earlier there appears to be other things going on including collateral on a loan. These companies do not always follow their posted rules. Kind of like how PSA has different fee schedules from what is posted for those sellers who submit thousands of cards. Just part of doing business.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The negotiated fee is NOT a bad thing.
If you have thousands of cards you want graded,
you will be glad you can negotiate a discount.................."Just part of doing business."
I too think the 'loan' had something to do with that.
Steve
Go Phillies
In all of the newspaper articles that I've read, there is absolutely no substance to the notion that Haas was using the card as collateral on a loan and all things considered it becomes quite obvious that he wasn't.
In fact, this article in the 4th paragraph, certainly adds strong veracity that it wasn't on loan and that's why Haas demanded its immediate release - fearing that his card that he gave to Forman/SGC was being used as collateral on a loan elsewhere.
Also, if it was collateral on an outstanding loan, the defendant (Forman) would have certainly used that as grounds for not releasing the card, but obviously it wasn't the case since the judge ruled that the card be turned over to the plaintiff (Haas).
Again, its all very bizarre to me.
<< <i>
<< <i>If they did in fact alter the card, I have lost complete faith in them as a TPG. Having said that, their customer base should be in an uproar but for whatever reason, they continue to sweep it under the rug. >>
I submit cards to SGC on occasion but I'll jump ship in a heartbeat if I think there is merit the claim made by Hass. Do you think SGC accepted any arrangement for restoration of any card? If so, why? If not, what exactly is being swept under the rug? >>
SGC never thought a private conversation (please restore this card) would get out as fact.....very fishy ..that press release is only smoke and mirrors.....WHY DID THEY HAVE THE CARD SO LONG?
SGC JUMPED THE SHARK WITH THIS ONE
<< <i>These companies do not always follow their posted rules. Kind of like how PSA has different fee schedules from what is posted for those sellers who submit thousands of cards. Just part of doing business. >>
Wait, you're comparing a $200K+ card being held hostage to bulk discount rates?
I'm sorry but I don't follow that analogy at all..
So what if big submitters get discounts on submissions. Nearly every major business will do it, even Target and Wal-Mart on their clearence items will give you a price if you agree to buy it all and ask the right person.
<< <i>
<< <i>These companies do not always follow their posted rules. Kind of like how PSA has different fee schedules from what is posted for those sellers who submit thousands of cards. Just part of doing business. >>
Wait, you're comparing a $200K+ card being held hostage to bulk discount rates?
I'm sorry but I don't follow that analogy at all.. >>
The point was what is posted on a company's website is not always the case, in reply to the earlier post that was worried that SGC did not follow the rules stated on their website. Understand now?
<< <i>
SGC never thought a private conversation (please restore this card) would get out as fact.....very fishy ..that press release is only smoke and mirrors.....WHY DID THEY HAVE THE CARD SO LONG?
SGC JUMPED THE SHARK WITH THIS ONE >>
Why does this post not surprise me in the least? It will be alright Fandango!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>These companies do not always follow their posted rules. Kind of like how PSA has different fee schedules from what is posted for those sellers who submit thousands of cards. Just part of doing business. >>
Wait, you're comparing a $200K+ card being held hostage to bulk discount rates?
I'm sorry but I don't follow that analogy at all.. >>
The point was what is posted on a company's website is not always the case, in reply to the earlier post that was worried that SGC did not follow the rules stated on their website. Understand now?
So you were just looking for an opportunity to take a jab at PSA.
Sure, I understand now.
But seriously, dude brought up another interesting point of why did it take 10+ months to get to this point?
I've said it before, if this was on PSA's watch, the SGC supporters would be having a field day...
Since the shoe is on the other foot, they continue to act like nothing happened and it's business as usual.
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
This high dollar card has been shopped or holdered by all 3 grading companies.
GAI people working with SGC people (they all buddies?) for a potential huge value bump if everyone plays along.
I wont even address the possible "restore" as the consequences are too chilling.
As these fools play "pimp my holder" , YOU and ME are the losers as yet another article exposes high end
card grading as an insiders dream with a fortune to be made for just little printed number + 1.
Loves me some shiny!
<< <i>
So you were just looking for an opportunity to take a jab at PSA.
Sure, I understand now.
But seriously, dude brought up another interesting point of why did it take 10+ months to get to this point?
I've said it before, if this was on PSA's watch, the SGC supporters would be having a field day...
Since the shoe is on the other foot, they continue to act like nothing happened and it's business as usual.
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. >>
Obviously this was far from a normal submission with the meetings reported between parties. In the end I could really care less, and the entire story will never come to light so we might as well stop worrying about it.
Not sure why you posted I took a jab at PSA, as I stated a simple fact about the business world. The little men running around in your head can rest now.
Always looking for 1957 Topps BB in PSA 9!
Anything that valuable I would drive there, watch them grade it, and give them CASH for their quick services!!! (my 2 cents)_
Go Phillies