From: dahoov2@cox.net   
      
   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 shirt 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   
   important 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 important 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 shipping", that's not a big deal.  Or one damaged item, 20 slow   
   shippings, 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"   
    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 bashing 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 support   
   >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 support 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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)