That was my point exactly. As you stated with the feedback, you need to
read it all, which was why I bothered to post. I posted some of the other
side that these boards aren't talking about. In no way am I saying
PSA/DNA
is great, sorry, wish I could, and as you stated, I believe they could be
great, but for whatever reasons, are not there yet. I don't even think
they
are far from there, but I do see the benefit that they've done to the
hobby,
and appreciate that. I can't point out one instance where PSA/DNA has
helped forgers survive but as I pointed out, I believe they've rid ebay of
countless forgers.
--
Michael Kasmar
www.AutographPros.com
UACC Registered Dealer #237
Accredited Better Business Member with a lifetime flawless record
"Have you joined our emailer yet? If not, please do so immediately by
going
to http://www.autographpros.com/newsletter.php
"Sue H" <dahoov2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ik5m2491ql63euo7sov5d17o93k0vncnlh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ah, but we don't know their stats. How much are they doing a year?
>
> As for the people complaining, let me ask you one question... if you
> paid for something (doesn't matter what it is, say designer ****rt or
> watch or perhaps a fancy dinner) and then you learned it was fake or
> perhaps made from canned food, would you be unhappy and complain? or
> want your money back? Would you think it was a molehill if someone
> took 119 dollars of your money and you got nothing for it but
> aggravation?
>
> If you had a Picasso in your home and went to an authenticator who
> said it was fake and it wasn't and you trashed it because of their
> opihnion, would you be mad if someone took it out of the trash and
> sold it at an auction house for 20 million? THIS is why this is so
> im****tant for them to get it right! I am not saying graphs equate to
> that, but whether it's a thousand dollars or a million, it's all
> relative. It's SUPER im****tant they don't have as many mistakes as
> they do.
>
> As for feedback, I think 59 people is significant even if 10000.
> However, I would definately give you the benefit of the doubt (was
> your rating 99.5?). I don't like bidding on anything below 99.7 but
> it will depend on how many and the comments. Someone can have a
> feedback rating of 50 because they've got one bad and one good rating
> total. That doesn't mean anything if the person leaving the negative
> is just a jerk. You need to read it all and see why. If it's all
> "slow ****pping", that's not a big deal. Or one damaged item, 20 slow
> ****ppings, 5 "slow to email", two "never got item" etc. That shows
> accidents happen and most of your problem is overworked. No big deal
> if I am a patient person. So customers have to be fair but you also
> have to understand people are just wanting to protect themselves.
>
> If they can't authenticate one way or another is another issue. Do
> they keep your money (I actually have no clue but if they do, it's
> wrong). THey need to revamp their business practices.
>
> Those forgers come back. As in the case of andys.soulbox, he was
> booted off according to the person. After a period of time he came
> back under a different ID and then another and then sold stuff under a
> new credit card in a relative's name. There are ways to come back.
> So I'd say no, not 90% are off there. What you need to know about
> criminals (I learned this in an AIB course) is that they are brazen
> and really are career... that is to say they are ingenious in their
> schemes, finding new ways to get around the system.
>
> If PSA/DNA got rid of a forger that's one good thing like you say.
> However, if PSA/DNA enables a forger to continue by okaying their
> items, then they also did equal damage. Just my opinion.
>
>
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:42:01 -0400, "AutographPros.com"
> <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(romovethispart)autographpros.com> wrote:
>
>>I remember when I was selling on ebay and had about 10,000 positive
>>feedbacks and 59 negatives. I'd get people not doing business with me
>>because I had 59 negatives. Those people forget that people are much
more
>>apt to complain than to praise in many instances, and I am confident
>>that's
>>the same with PSA/DNA. They have authenticated what, millions of
>>autographs? I can name 10 incorrect newsworthy mistakes they made, and
>>I'd
>>have to imagine there are probably 20 more that are newsworthy but never
>>surfaced. People have to remember, PSA/DNA is a target because they
>>excelled above the other authenticators. They are a target by other
>>'self-proclaimed' experts, and they are surely a target by FORGERS! A
lot
>>of the internet ba****ng that PSA/DNA has taken have been posted by
>>forgers.
>>Please note, I'm not referring to any of Mr. Black's posts but I've seen
>>countless forger blogs that push these stories making the mountain out
of
>>the mole hill. The forgers don't want a proven method to prove what
they
>>are selling is bad. By peddling these few stories constantly and
jumping
>>on
>>every mistake, it allows them to forge and discredit all authenticators.
>>Also a lot of these stories are taken out of context. I don't recall a
>>non-profit organization (UACC) and it's Registered Dealer program ever
>>meeting and publicly voicing an opinion one way or the other on PSA/DNA.
>>That statement makes no sense to me, as no one asked me my opinion and
I'm
>>a
>>Registered Dealer.
>>
>>I'm not one of these guys that bashes my competitors, never have. I
>>sup****t
>>them when I see good things and I am also authenticating items so in
>>direct
>>competition with PSA/DNA and could easily come in and join the
bandwagon.
>>No where near the scale they are, and I never intend to be. I just base
>>my
>>judgment on what I've seen. I've probably seen over 5,000 items
>>authenticated by PSA/DNA and only a few times did I see items that were
>>'questionable' of these 5,000 items, and again this was just by a quick
>>review. I sup****t what James Spence (2 or 3 newsworthy mistakes?),
Rodger
>>Epperson, Bob Eaton, PSA/DNA, and GAI are doing, as well as my own work.
>>You see, when you see so many in-person autographs, it's very easy to
know
>>the difference from the real and fakes, especially when you know when
the
>>item was supposedly signed. It's like barefootmk pointed out about
>>Strickler having fake autographs of current films. His autographs
looked
>>nothing like East or West coast examples of this year's signatures. Yes
>>people's signatures change, but not that significantly, and not when
every
>>single other in-person example looks the same.
>>
>>Do I disagree with PSA/DNA's work ethics, customer service, and policy
>>standards, absolutely. I base this on the fact that they issued COAs
with
>>stamped signatures from authenticators that never looked at the items,
and
>>also based on their Better Business Bureau ratings which are horrible.
I
>>often wonder how many signatures they send back, stating it's outside of
>>their expertise. I can assure you I've done this with my authentication
>>services and refunded the payments. Outside of that, I feel they have
>>done
>>great things for the hobby. Their COA is far above an average COA in my
>>opinion. Anyone notice how many of the big name forgers that are on the
>>X-list are now "No Longer A Registered User" on ebay? This means they
are
>>kicked off and we all know why. I'd dare say 90% of those large forgers
>>are
>>now off ebay and I believe it was with the help of ebay adding PSA/DNA
to
>>it's authentication team. You may want to try contacting ebay and ask
>>them
>>if PSA/DNA's 'quick opinion' had any help with the removal of these
>>forgers?
>>Ask them what happens if a seller gets a few of those failed PSA/DNA
Quick
>>Opinions. If PSA/DNA got rid of even 1 forger, they did more for the
>>hobby
>>than most of us have, and that's a good thing if you ask me.
>
|
