Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Fuddjcal on January 3, 2019 at 7:45am

I used them back in the day to dial in what I thought I knew, when I purchased a fewe Dimaggio's and Mantle's I wasn't then sure about.

I used the service at least 5 times and I feel they were very accurate and still would be a good insurance policy before paying for an item you're not sure about. Of course dummies with the "something for nothing personality" hopin to jack a grand slam on every deal, will never spend the $$$ because they are too cheap and would rather get sheared like a lamb with their stupid dime store phony instead of spending the 10 bucks. AND that's Fudd's quick opinion.... Worth more on the open market than PSA.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Kaminski on January 3, 2019 at 8:40am

I used to use the service starting out, but have stopped. I felt their opinions were pretty accurate for a few autographs that I was after (namely Mantle/DiMaggio/Ted like Fudd above me), but that they were very cautious on just about every other autograph and would almost always issue a "Likely Not Genuine" opinion for it. It may be good for them to err on the side of caution, but I definitely missed out on some deals looking back haha. I still do believe it is a good service for a collector just starting out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 3, 2019 at 8:47am

Interesting takes so far in this discussion. Has anyone received a "Likely Not Genuine" quick opinion which later was certified by them with a full authentication? Or vice versa?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Kaminski on January 3, 2019 at 8:52am

I wish I could provide you a specific example, but I do remember starting out a few years ago and getting a "Likely Not Genuine" opinion for an item that later received full authentication, I just don't remember if it was from PSA though. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on January 3, 2019 at 10:01am

A member here received a "Likely not genuine" opinion for a Hendrix autograph that subsequently received full authentication. The twist is that I believe that the Quick Opinion result was correct.

Another member complained about passing on a Hendrix autograph that also received a "Likely not genuine" opinion prior to receiving full authentication. That one was authentic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 3, 2019 at 10:56am

Very interesting, Ballroom. So what I'm getting, at least in this particular instance, is that Quick Opinions have little to no bearing on a full, hands on authentication.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Spillane on January 3, 2019 at 9:18am

Very accurate in my opinion. Before coming here, I used them several times, and all their assumptions turned out to be on target.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 3, 2019 at 3:19pm

Personally, I don’t trust their QO service at all.  I received a “Likely Not Genuine” response on an item that turned out to be very much genuine.  This happened to me on another item as well.  I think this has happened to many people in fact.  So when a person is considering to purchase an eBay item and they receive an LNG response from PSA QO, they often decide not to buy an item that may indeed be genuine.  It’s a big loss for both the prospective buyer and seller.  

It’s been said that PSA’s QO tends to error on the side of caution, but to me, that’s not acceptable.  It can cause a seller to lose a lot of money and the buyer to possibly forgoe a “dream” item.  Personally, I don’t think PSA’s QO service gives these items much effort.  In other words, they take the money and run.  And I don’t think it’s usually one of PSA’s top people reviewing these items for the QO service.

In my opinion, the best quick opinions usually come from our members right here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 3, 2019 at 5:10pm

James, all you said is true. Inaccurate quick opinions are costly and eBay pushes that convenient link to get an "expert opinion".  Everyone loses if it's not done correctly with high standards.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on January 3, 2019 at 3:37pm

Unless you know the background of the individual and their qualifications I don't see the value of a faceless/nameless opinion. I think there is more benefit coming from the masses who collect on sites like this or RACC...IF you know the competency of those giving their opinions. 

That is why I have to give autographcoa.com credit. They have varying ip backgrounds as well as an established example file from in person collectors and dealers. They might not be as well known a company as PSA or Beckett at this point, but they are a distruptor of the big business TPA service that has proven time and again that they can be bought by the big super ebay players. 

Otherwise there are individuals on this site that I would ask opinions of first if I weren't sure before using PSA. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel S. on January 3, 2019 at 6:26pm

I am curious, Joe, how many times a high profile item has quick opinions rendered on average.  For example, do 15 people request the same quick opinion on a Mantle signed ball and hence psa collects $150 (plus another $100 when the winning bidder pays for the loa)?  Seems like the more efficient approach is for the auction house to request a quick opinion and make it publicly available. 

Btw, I used this service more regularly prior to registering here and soliciting the thoughts of this boards resident experts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 3, 2019 at 6:45pm

Hypothetically, it makes sense that multiple QP requests are purchased on high demand signatures. Perhaps reaping more money than a singular full authentication.

That's what makes it important is that their QPs are as accurate as possible. As previously discussed, an incorrect QP has the potential to do more damage than good.

• ▶ Reply

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