Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Null on January 9, 2014 at 5:16pm

Is it "Upside Down Day"?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carlos on January 9, 2014 at 5:28pm

I think people are confused - I'm not attacking psa at all. Heck I use their services.
What I am critical of is the quick opinion. I think they should have a middle option. I don't think its fair on collectors and sellers to be told something isn't genuine when if they sent it on it would be found genuine.
If that makes sense

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carlos on January 9, 2014 at 5:31pm

I saw on another forum that a member did a quick opinion on a Kobe auto as a test. It was said it wasn't genuine. The member then posted the photo of Kobe actually signing the jersey to prove his point.
I've even seen some UDA autos that deviate a little from normal autos that I feel if the sticker was cropped out that psa wouldn't pass it at first glance.
Again, I think there should be another, middle option

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Gregory on January 9, 2014 at 5:52pm

I've seen a few things fail quick opinion but then pass full authentication. It can be frustrating but for $10 you get what you pay for!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erich Jerozal on January 9, 2014 at 7:16pm

I sell a few things on ebay from time to time.  I sometimes will post the quick opinion link into my description so people can check it right then and there.  I believe it was 7.50 to do this and now it is 10 bucks. 

Maybe ebay should make it mandatory to have something in your description or have it mandatory for the seller to have a quick opinion done and post the results.  IDK> 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carlos on January 9, 2014 at 8:17pm

The problem with that is that not all items that the quick opinion says are not genuine are not genuine
As stated by me and others, some fail that but go on and get a full letter

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Ryan on January 9, 2014 at 9:11pm

I have to disagree wiht the OP. The PSA quick opinion does a huge service to new and unsure collectors. But as others pointed out, you get what you pay for. They just give an opinion of good or bad, and most of the time that quick opinion is correct.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Stone on January 10, 2014 at 6:09am

I don't think they are correct a lot of the time. I saw a heath ledger sig from a known forger pass quick opinion. I know what they did, they broke out the exempler on file and compared. Of course it will look good since Ledger is so easy to forge. As a result someone spent $400 on what was likely a forgery.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Stone on January 10, 2014 at 6:06am

I think it is a big waste of money. You just can't tell online and they will always be cautions. They aren't doing anything a novice can't do themselves. Go to RR auctions, get some exemplars, and compare it. Save yourself the $10 or $15.

The worst is when they come back with their "likely not genuine" and don't tell you why. It leads me to believe that you got some 17 year old kid doing quick internet searches to compare. I mean does John Rez really do quick opinions? I am sure he has better things to do.

I think it is a joke. Keep in mind I am a relatively  new collector.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Null on January 10, 2014 at 7:02am

You get exactly what you pay for, a $7.50 "Quick Opinion".

If you're buying a used car, and send a web link to a mechanic and pay him $7.50 to recommend what he thinks based on that link, you're going to get whatever gut reaction he has in that 2-5 minutes he looks at it (if they even spend that much time). Since you are paying him for his recommendation, obviously he is going to side with caution so you don't get stuck with a lemon based on his recommendation. 

It doesn't matter if the previous owner has paperwork showing the car has had no issues, and drove like a charm, the mechanic could still not recommend it based on the 2 minutes staring at a web link you sent him... You could hire the best mechanic in the world, and there could be a 100% reliable car, but based on that web link, he may see one little thing he isn't comfortable with, and therefore not feel comfortable RECOMMENDING you buy the car... 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Stone on January 10, 2014 at 11:01am

Well its $10....$15 for non ebay.

 I  think it is flushing money down the toilet. What you get from them is something even a novice can accomplish on their own. Take out some exemplars, compare, make determination. Done. All for free. Or better yet, post the autograph here for opinions.

 I have used Quick opinion and never again, its a waste. We don't even know who is looking at this stuff. I imagine it is someone they hired to say "take these exemplars and compare take their $10 and then we laugh all the way to the bank."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on January 10, 2014 at 7:26am

As others have stated, Quick Opinion will weed out known mass-produced forgery styles and obvious fakes. The quality of your opinion will probably also vary with the subject area. That is, they are pretty on top of sports and some other areas. Does Quick Opinion make much sense if you are looking at a pricey historical autograph or something obscure? I doubt it, but that's my opinion. I think it's a safe bet Quick Opinion items are not being handled by the senior authenticators or being farmed out to the specialized consultants, e.g., John Reznikoff.

In my opinion and experience, if it is not a standard textbook example, they will offer no opinion or fail it.

Some time ago, someone sent me a Neil Armstrong to review and he was concerned because it had failed Quick Opinion. Within 3 seconds of opening the package, I could easily see the indentations from a washed off personalization. The signature was perfect in my opinion, plus the fact that there was a washed off personalization, leads me to believe the item was undoubtedly authentic.

So, take QO for what it is... a quick, cursory review that will probably catch obvious fakes and may fail good items. Just be aware of its limitations.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page