Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DB on April 25, 2012 at 5:48am

It ought to be interesting to see if Orlando will make any statements to Cyrkin.  I know the seller isn't answering and EBAY has gone quiet, at the moment as well.

To repost some information from the earlier blog which gives an impression that with the detail of the posts we have seen and explanations of the items being sold - someone appears to be either lying or stretching the truth.  Neither one is a crime but it would appear to me that someone should just be upfront about it if it is indeed a legitimate business arrangement;

 

Comment by harry wayne kuchee   I would have to say yes. The ebay site schu45 is registered to Matthew Shuman of Granite Bay CA . He runs the site for PSA authenticator Brian Sobrero of Pleasanton CA . This is one of several sites where Mr. Sobrero sells his signed goods on. Brian is a major player in the memorabilia business. He has two full time employees that do Hollywood and celebrities full time and several in Northern CA. He also works for a non profit Charityworks.net as an auctioneer where they supply all the framed memorabilia for charity events like the Biletnikoff Foundation crab feed and golf tournament. Also the San Francisco 49ers Northern California alumni events with Charityworks owner Ira Klein. Mr. Klein also owns a memorabilia store in Las Vegas called Legends of the Game. Mr. Sobrero has worked for Ira for 20 years and they are the best of friends. Charityworks needs lots of signed photos and items to keep the money rolling in. Brian even finds time to authenticate all his buddies stuff the same day at his home or the in and out parking lot on Hopyard Road in Pleasanton CA. A few examples are Bababaldwin. Brian has such a checkered past it is only ovious that Joe Orlando and PSA does not do back grounds checks . Brian has many outlets he supplies with his autographed goods, the extra go to ebay for mad money pocket change. Brian was best man at Matt Schuman's wedding. If you look at the site they were selling very little until Mr. Sobrero got the PSA hook up. Then the site took off. PSA authenticators even slept at Brians house a few years ago before he worked for them. Something does not seem right here. I can only think that it might be possible that he is kicking back a piece of his network to the chieftains of PSA. I think it might be time to pass this on to a independent branch of the goverment to investigate .

Permalink Reply by Richard S. Simon on April 28, 2012 at 5:13am

Steve - still waiting for you to get an answer from PSA on this issue.

Have you contacted them?

Are they stonewalling you?

Have you contacted them as you said you would??? On April 18 you said this week. It is now 9 days.

This whole thing really stinks. REALLY STINKS.

Permalink Reply by DB on April 29, 2012 at 4:18am

Richard - what constitutes your perspective?   If the items are legit and so far noone seems to cast any doubts on them as this junction then the items are good.

If a PSA/DNA employee (and we presume the individual is still an employee) has been tagging them with the "guaranteed authentic" PSA/DNA sticker - then they are on the hook for the authenticity if some goes sour, right?

But of course, some have questions certain celebrities and how they could obtain a "guaranteed" sticker in the quantities that have appeared.  That is a legitimate question but I have reservations if we will ever get to an answer since they don't (seldomly) say "nuttin" about "nuttin" when it comes to their practice - formally anyway.

The question of the business arrangement and how this particular seller seems to be the beneficiary of so many items but none of that is illegal except perhaps the item description embellishments and that still wouldn't be illegal.

so, if a buyer is overpaying for an item that has a guaranteed PSA/DNA sticker that they are on the hook for - then what really is the problem?

Permalink Reply by Richard S. Simon on April 29, 2012 at 5:41am

How are they on the hook if something goes sour? They don't reimburse the buyer if the autograph is not authentic.

It seems to me that guaranteeing that a PSA employee WITNESSED the signing means one thing, that a PSA employee WITNESSED the signing. I would like to know if that is true. If Exxon tells you they are selling you premium gasoline but it turns out to be the crappy low grade gasoline how would you feel if you paid a premium price for it?

I know for a fact, and have written proof, that in the distant past, a different PSA employee gave WITNESSED COA's to a dealer when they did not witness the signing. The Joe DiMaggio autographs then were absolutely bogus. I have no idea if these autographs are authentic or not. I am not accusing the seller of selling bad autographs. I am saying I don't know and the 800+ COA's are highly dubious. Is PSA taking someone's word that the autographs are good and just slapping COA's on them? That is not what the public believes. The public believes that a PSA employee WITNESSED the signing.

I think it is highly unethical for a company to LIE about WITNESSING an autograph signing when we don't know how they did that.

Steve is a good guy and told us he would get an answer to this issue. I would hope that he is following up on his promise. I would hope that he is not an apologist for PSA and that he gets an answer for this.

I am still waiting.

And though I am no lawyer, I think issuing a COA saying that a signing was WITNESSED when that is not true does constitute business fraud.

 

Permalink Reply by DB on April 29, 2012 at 5:58am

If they are simply handing out guaranteed autographs as you have suggested has been done in the past then that would constitute fraud in the simlar manner of Nicolas Burczyk but unlike good ole Nick there is a location for PSA/DNA.  It would be interesting to know if the "dealer" you reference took action or not and if so what was the outcome.

as far as the "guaranteed" part, if they were associated to an item and turned out to be fakes then I'm fairly certain it would be dealt with if the owner of the item brought it to Orlando's attention. that he would address the issue.  

So the crux of the issue is whether or not these COAs are simply being handed out without the "in-person" signed observation.  For me, it is that as well as the verbiage that is written in the listings that also needs to be clarified as accurate or not.

Permalink Reply by Richard S. Simon on April 29, 2012 at 6:01am

"the crux of the issue is whether or not these COAs are simply being handed out without the "in-person" signed observation."

That is what I have been saying all along. I thought that was rather obvious.

Permalink Reply by DB on April 29, 2012 at 6:10am

Nothing around here is obvious at times.

Just as, "Is this seller a PSA representative too, besides being a seller of autographs?? Conflict of interest I would think if that is the case. Is the seller a friend of someone on the PSA authentication staff? I am just asking a question."

has certain implications especially the conflict of interest portion.  If it were then just about every dealer who "authenticates" their own, sells them and provides such would be as guilty.  And I think the 2nd question is rather irrelevant since one was a best man at the other's wedding.

Thus, in the scheme of bigger things I just wanted to get back to the crux of the matter.

Permalink Reply by Richard S. Simon on April 29, 2012 at 6:33am

Every dealer should guarantee his own autographs, and legitimate ones do, but guaranteeing the autograph and guaranteeing that you got it in person is two different things.

Permalink Reply by DB on April 29, 2012 at 7:53am

I agree and without timeframe (so long as they are in business) which many don't.

I also see a number of places indicate "in-person" obtained but it is typically fuzzy about exactly who obtained and when obtained. 

Nonetheless, we share some of the same questions and it would be nice if we could just clear the air on it.   While Cyrkin is well intended he isn't Joan D'Arc when it comes to PSA/DNA making statements the he can republish.

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on April 29, 2012 at 11:51am

Richard,

I've been away and won't be back until tonight. Joe and I have been playing phone tag, and for the last couple of weeks I've been busy with some urgent matters that have taken priority.

I'll follow up on it this week, but I wish you had even one-percent the interest in helping collectors of vintage sports on this site--your specialty--as you've had for years in trying to harm PSA/DNA anyway you can.

Not that it these in-person COAs aren't an important topic that needs to be researched. They are. But to try to hype it up into a scandal, when you don't know any of the facts or procedures and are just throwing anything you can on the wall to see what sticks, is a disservice to the autograph collecting community. No one has even pointed out one autograph that may be bad.

Richard, I think you need to tell about your history with PSA/DNA so those who read this discussion can better understand where you're coming from.

I'll be back tonight.

Permalink Reply by DB on April 29, 2012 at 3:25pm

what history are we speaking of, por favor?

Permalink Reply by Richard S. Simon on April 29, 2012 at 4:10pm

Yes i don't know the facts, all I know is what I have printed and I have drawn conclusions from that.

Seems to me the apologists for PSA are unhappy about that.

My history with PSA is that I was one of the original four authenticators when the autograph division was first formed. Jim Stinson, Ron Gordon, Jimmy Spence and myself. Three of us, over a period of time were asked to leave. Dissenting opinions were not viewed kindly. That is my history personally.

Was there anything else you were referring to Steve? My knowledge of certain activities perhaps?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page