We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

PSA/DNA Quick Opinion - Multiple signed Items

Hi, Gang.

I wanted to tell you about my recent adventure with PSA/DNA Quick Opinion. I have only used the service a few times, but when I was reading through the terms and conditions on the PSA/DNA website, I noticed the following clause:

“It is fairly common for auction lots to contain more than one autograph. In fact, some lots may contain hundreds of them. In those cases, in order for the expert to opine on the autographs, each one must be available for viewing. The good news is that if the lot contains multiple autographs and each one is available via scan, our expert can review the entire lot for only $10.00 (or $7.49 for eBay auctions)! “

So, I decided to try this out. For the last 20 years, I have slowly put together a collection of 56 signed Magnum PI cards from the set produced in the early 1980’s. There are 66 cards in the original set, and I have 46 of them signed, with an additional 10 duplicates signed. They include cards signed by John Hillerman, Larry Manetti, Roger E. Mosley, and, of course, Tom Selleck. I have always wanted to have the group authenticated, so I decided to post an eBay auction for all 56 cards as one lot, and requested a PSA/DNA Quick Opinion. About a day and a half later an email arrived from PSA/DNA saying simply “Likely genuine”. I can’t tell you how happy that made me, especially when you think of how much it would of cost to get a QO on each card individually (56 x $7.49 = $419.44).

The question I have is - what if one of the signatures was not authentic but the other 55 were? I have heard that when multiple items are included in an auction being assessed, PSA/DNA will only give one opinion, either “Likely genuine”, if every item is deemed legitimate, or “Likely not genuine” if even one of the items is judged not authentic. If this is the case, then it may not be practical to create auctions with multiple signed items for PSA/DNA to opine on as, if the verdict is “Likely not genuine”, it is difficult to know if in fact one or all of the items are not legitimate.

I have sent an email to PSA/DNA asking their policy on multiple signed items and their Quick Opinion service to clarify these issues. I’ll let you know if I get a response.

Has anyone else had similar experiences with PSA/DNA?

Thanks,

Pete

Views: 2211

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DB on September 18, 2012 at 9:57am

SInce it would be from a buyer's perspective or that is the intent then i would suspect they are looking at the lot as a whole (if that is the way it's being submitted) thus it gets a thumbs up or thumbs down.   Should be interesting to see what the response is.

their disclaimer though still gives me fits (as this time it worked to your viewpoint) Certification and authentication involves individual judgments that are subjective and require the exercise of professional opinion, which can change from time to time. CU does not guarantee that any opinion rendered by QuickOpinion will agree with the opinion(s) of any other autograph experts, or with the opinion rendered by CU itself should the item be submitted for physical inspection immediately following purchase or at any time in the future.

with the further disclaimer; CU makes no warranty or representation and shall have no liability whatsoever to Customer for the opinion rendered by QuickOpinion with respect to any item, including, but not limited to, losses or damages incurred by any person as a result of relying upon any QuickOpinion opinion in connection with the purchase (or non-purchase) or sale of any item.

thus they get to call it both ways (which is disgraceful imo) but the result lessens the reliability of the opinion good or bad except perhaps when it comes out the way the submitter was hoping it would.

Permalink Reply by Peter Lougheed on September 18, 2012 at 10:08am

The only thing I can add, DB, is that the PSA/DNA Quick Opinion service is notorious for erring on the side of being very conservative and responding with "Likely not genuine" if they have any doubts about the item(s) they are assessing. This is another way for them to cover their a****.

Permalink Reply by DB on September 18, 2012 at 10:49am

which is what devalues the reliance on the opinion from my perspective. 

just a hypothetical - you have 46 signed and blessed via QO.  Then someone submits them directly and based on the disclaimer (or perhaps a different reviewer) one (for sake of argument) comes back not genuine.  Their disclaimer allows for that possibility while enabling them to walk away with both fees and as such the reliance is greatly diminished.

Overall as a purchaser, I find QO one step above the "pre-cert" nonsense.  I've taken the tact if it comes back Neg (and it's not my item) then I move on... if it comes back pos then I take it with a grain of salt as only one input as to making a purchase investment. 

Of course we have heard the claims of items failing that have been obtained in person which gives rise to the "very conservative" but there again I also take issue that it is not "conservative" but several other factors driving the outcome the least of which is "conservative decision making".

Permalink Reply by Peter Lougheed on September 18, 2012 at 11:00am

The point of this discussion is that if a PSA/DNA Quick Opinion tells you that an auction for a group of signed items is "Likely not genuine" they may only be referring to one of the items, and that the rest of the items, if posted alone, could be deemed "Likely genuine". My point is that this presents another element of uncertainty when using the QO service.

Permalink Reply by DB on September 18, 2012 at 11:07am

expressed earlier, I'd venture to say since it's submitted as a lot its up or down but again it will be interesting to see what their response indicates.  It does, as you say though, add a bit of more uncertainty to it.  I'd further wonder if the thumbs down is based on one (or two or three using your 46) do they identifiy which ones were negative.  probably not if they are simply doing an up or down on the lot.

Permalink Reply by Peter Lougheed on September 18, 2012 at 11:16am

As far as I can tell, and, hopefully their response email will confirm this, they answer each QO with one of two responses: "Likely genuine" or "Likely not genuine", that's it, and that's all. I have yet to hear of anyone getting even one more word of response, no matter what was in the auction. The PSA/DNA website does add that they can opt to refund your money and choose not to respond for various reasons.

Permalink Reply by Brandon Mysinger on September 21, 2012 at 6:47pm
In the case of a NASCAR item that has multiples (or a group of single signed items ) I have ALWAYS taken the time to remark on which items are authentic and which are not.

On a single item with multiple signatures, many times, someone will have an item (such as a poster, helmet, or flag) with a mix of authentic signatures and fake signatures. I will fail the overall piece. However, I will make it very clear which signatures are authentic and which are not.

That's my duty to the person requesting my opinion on the item as a whole.
Permalink Reply by Mike P on September 18, 2012 at 11:03am
True. the Pacino that aring sold me failed quick opinion, then came up as undecided when I handed it in for examination (as well as the three other non-Hollywood pieces I sent in). Imo, it's either likely or unlikely, this undecided crap just leaves the customer in a ditch choosing a side to believe.
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on September 19, 2012 at 1:06pm

Mike,

I'm surprised you got "No Decision" responses on all four pieces you sent in. PSA/DNA and JSA used to use that sparingly. In fact, dealers would often complain they didn't use "No Decision" enough. I wonder if that's indicative of a change in policy, or simply the nature of what you sent in.

Besides Pacino, what did you submit? Do you mind posting them?

Permalink Reply by Mike P on September 21, 2012 at 11:15am
When I get home I will post them, but they're soccer pieces. The thing that bothers me is that it's not like I handed in things that they said they can't authenticate; all the names have a clear price and are present on their website. they had said they were running late on orders, and I emailed them numerous time because it was two months since I mailed it to them. A woman said she put the order on high priority with her manager, and that I would be shipped soon. It's either they really couldn't decide in the autographs, or they quickly put indecisive because I was emailing them about my order to frequent for their standards. Either way I am really disappointed. The soccer pieces in particular are from andy hemington, and he is top class in the industry and I know they're authentic. It's just I like to have corresponding paper work with all my items. Which is something Mike aring never took well.
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on September 19, 2012 at 12:37pm

Quick Opinion is a tool to help protect buyers from getting burned on forgeries, so they tend not to OK anything that isn't clearly genuine. And it's exactly what they call it—a quick opinion. They don't spend much time on each one. That's why PSA leans conservatively.

Permalink Reply by DB on September 19, 2012 at 1:02pm

however, when they indicate that something is "not likely" it also causes the seller's items to be removed from EBAY.  And last I knew if you get 3 of these your account get's suspended.

thus there are unfortunate repercussions with their lack of due diligence.  Quick Opinion, Auction House LOA (no longer done but still exist) and Pre-Certifications are all ruses to make money with the claim "it helps protect buyers".

A case in point was Vanderhoven's resubmission of a Jackie gleason secretarial that came back "likely genuine".  While that is but one example it is indicative of the overall issue that Mike P., alludes to; "essentially" what does the requestor believe. 

Unfortunately, the non-informed general collector will swallow it hook, line and sinker (good or bad) and maybe that's a good thing but frankly I have become disenchanted with this lack of due diligence on behalf of an organization that claims PSA/DNA authentication supremecy.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service