Question:  When were the 1986 Star Best Best and Magic Johnson subsets printed?
Answer:  No one to this day has been able to prove when the Best Best and Magic Johnson subsets were printed. However, they were not released to the public until the early 1990's after the original Star Co. auction in 1990. Schonco won the right to purchase these cards which were released primarily on the same sheet of cards (a small number may have been sold by Levin already cut). While prior photos were sometimes used by the Star Co., Best Best was the first time an entire set used prior photos. GAI and SCD did not grade the Best Best and Magic Johnson subsets. Beckett only grades the cards from the Schonco Collection which were likely all sheet cut by Schonco. The players included in the Best Best set exemplify those popular players that likely would have been included if the set was printed in 1986. However, there has been no explanation as to why the Best Best and Magic Johnson subsets were not released until after the 1990 auction. Star purists tend to avoid these sets because of the lack of proof as to when they may have been printed and because most cards were not cut by the Star Co. There remain numerous uncut sheets that contain these two subsets.

Question:  When were Type II's printed - before or after the original Star Co. cards?
Answer:  It is generally agreed that the Type II's were pre-print samples printed off-register that were meant to be destroyed stolen by two print shop employees. They are considered counterfeits because they were not sold to any original Star Co. dealer, were not authorized for release by Levin, and can be distinguished from original Star Co. cards. When these cards were submitted to PSA, PSA graded some and, rather than learn to distinguish them from original Star Co. cards, as a young grading company, simply folded on grading Star. Likely due to the fact that it was the first grading company, its marketing power, that there are not many of the Star Co. cards to grade, and because Star was such a small company that was already defunct, PSA turned a blind eye to the cards.

Question:  Why does PSA not grade Star Co. basketball cards?
Answer:  This is a question that should be directed to PSA. Those that have asked PSA's President, Joe Orlando, have been told that he cannot deny the importance of the cards, that the door is always open, and that he will never say never. However, he has been making similar statements for years and has not taken any action. Arguably if PSA were an elite and full-service grading company, it should grade the cards. Whether or not it will gain enough financially should not be the determining factor due to the importance of the cards. The reasons PSA uses why it cannot grade the cards are false excuses and people have come to realize that Orlando's comments are merely patronizing to repeatedly avoid an issue. Generally, people are interested in protecting their interests during the time of their employment or position of power to protect their financial interests and do not always make the appropriate decision.

Grading companies typically do not grade cards when it cannot distinguish originals from counterfeits, which is no longer the issue here due to the training that Steve Taft has created. PSA has not taken the time or initiative to be trained to distinguish originals from counterfeits. It merely shut down when "Type II's" were submitted for grading when PSA was a young grading company and the very concept of grading was in its infancy. However, at the time, there was not information available for PSA to learn to tell the difference between the originals and "Type II's" as there is today. At the time that PSA stopped grading Star Co. basketball cards, its President was Stephen Rocchi, who later founded GAI, which subsequently graded Star Co. cards during its existence.

The administration at PSA that allegedly knowingly decided to grade the infamous Wagner card, despite it being both sheet cut and trimmed, was the same one that decided to stop grading Star Co. basketball cards. PSA then drew up advertisements showing the PSA 8 Wagner card, claiming it could detect trimmed cards, did not grade sheet cut cards, and would not grade Star Co. basketball cards. Notably, the current owner of the Wagner card, who owns many valuable PSA cards, provides an endorsement of the company on its web site:  http://www.psacard.com/About/Testimonials/

PSA's site also has endorsements from collectors that have opened high end material, but were unable to grade a valuable card in high grade. They see no potential problem with the contradiction that they have only been able to buy an expensive card already graded.

Despite an FBI investigation, a court case and Mastro’s confession of altering the card (which somehow remains in a PSA 8 holder), a list of additional cards which Mastro altered or for which he received preferential grades has never been produced. With PSA offering a buyback policy, it seems at risk financially if such information were ever revealed. Perhaps because Collectors Universe is a public company with many invested in the stock or its cards, it received a free pass. Similarly, it seems continually at risk with prices having increased on many key cards if other dealers confessed publicly about having trimmed and altered valuable graded cards. While dealers have confessed confidentially to other dealers, they have not done so publicly or to PSA. In essence, if we had full disclosure from all card submitters, PSA would unlikely be able to keep up with its buyback policy because the humans it employs to grade cards simply cannot detect all professionally trimmed cards. We would hate to see the buyback policy be an excuse not to properly learn to grade legitimate Star Co. cards.

The current administration at PSA does not seem to be willing to admit recent lapses in judgment. It concluded on July 9, 2013, without any proper support, that the George Bush cards that a former employee sold, and may have allegedly printed without authorization, were original. It is of the opinion of the author of this site that for a card to be authentic, whether or not it was stolen by an employee, it must be of the same characteristics as an original or have been from a printing authorized by the card company. There is no proof that the George Bush non-White House version cards were authorized by Topps, only that a former employee sold them after he left the company. All evidence leads to the suggestion that they were an unauthorized reprint with characteristics that do not match the originals that were authorized to be printed for the White House.

There does not appear to be anything complicated with the George Bush cards as Orlando alleges in one article. It sounds like there are two different versions and there is in fact a question of authenticity. The articles alleged both versions are real. It appears that the version that does not match did not go to the White House because it was reprinted by a former Topps employee and sold after he left the company.

psa-confirms-two-types-1990-topps-george-bush-baseball-cards

hobby-update-by-george-its-complicated-1990-topps-bush-baseball-card

Orlando's opinion is certainly a different viewpoint than the unbiased one written in a July 9, 2013 Associated Press article entitled "Fake George Bush baseball cards could cost some collectors":

http://www.pressherald.com/2013/07/09/fake-bush-baseball-cards-could-cost-some-collectors_2013-07-10/

There are many PSA supporters that back PSA's decision not to grade Star that often lack proper facts about Star Co. cards and confuse what the role of PSA is. PSA was the first major grading company that was a business created to make money on grading sports cards and other collectibles. PSA is not necessarily a neutral third party such as a court of law, but is a business that protects its own interests. The creation of its registry was a key innovation which increased the popularity of its cards and lead to people competing for cards.

PSA and the Wagner PSA 8 inevitably took the sports card market to another level. Where money is to be made and cards are graded by humans, PSA alleged it could detect trimmed cards, yet its very existence lead to more counterfeiting and more trimming of sports cards. Prior to PSA, the only main counterfeits in the marketplace were the 1963 Topps Pete Rose #537 rookie and the 1984 Donruss Don Mattingly #248 rookie, neither of which were difficult to detect. Post-PSA more improved and a greater number of counterfeits hit the marketplace, in essence justifying PSA's existence. Before PSA, trimming of cards for their improved appearance was not widespread. Post-PSA, dealers have made a living doing it in order to chase high dollar key cards or low population cards that would not otherwise exist. For example, individuals on public forums have alleged that an individual who ironically advertises on PSA's web site has trimmed cards. However, they made this allegation after they claimed he purchased and altered modern cards which they recognized because they were numbered. Logic dictates that if he was doing it to numbered cards, he was doing it to unnumbered cards as well that they could not track and the problem was more widespread.

Supporting PSA's decision not to grade Star Co. cards suggests deferring to and giving importance to a decision made by a company that was attempting to become relevant by, allegedly grading a Wagner card that was knowingly trimmed and sheet cut and has shown a history of responding slowly to issues that relate to customer concerns. For example, after the WIWAG scandal, PSA was put on notice that its cases were being compromised. For links to information about WIWAG, one can see:

http://www.net54baseball.com/archive/index.php?t-63402.html or

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1106799568/1/Collectors+Universe+%28PSA%29+Settles+with+Real+Legends

Despite some PSA backers claiming that the problem was limited to fake PSA cases and slabs coming from China, its own cases were being popped open with fake cards or lower quality cards inserted into its slabs. There are also unconfirmed rumors that some PSA employees stole slabs and labels. PSA's response is generally to suggest buying from the auction houses or those that pay to advertise with it. However, even some of those sellers have had to take items down due to compromised PSA cases. Most of the auction houses that sell cards endorse them endlessly with extra descriptions of graded cards that sometimes do not fit.

If one purchases a card worth over $10,000 and is unsure if the PSA flip is real or the case has been compromised, one can elect to pay PSA a whopping $700 to review it. This allows the company to become unjustly enriched and take advantage of customers contrary to established consumer protection law by making more money for making inferior cases. Does PSA expect us to believe that it charges some of the auction houses it has a close relationship with $700 for the possibility of a card crossing or bumping in grade? Or does it only charge those auction houses if a cross or bump is successful? In essence, when buying an expensive PSA card, one needs to learn to authenticate the card, the validity of the PSA case and the PSA insert label, which is what the grading company was supposed to do.

Although its President's slogan is to "Never get cheated", it did not announce until November 12, 2013 that it would make a stronger case in terms of sonic weld, but the case can still be compromised. This has not prevented some sellers from falsely listing a card claiming it was recased in a new tamper proof case which does not exist. In April 2015, PSA subsequently added a new embedded hologram logo on its insert label which also does not prevent a case from being compromised. While both the stronger weld and hologram will allow PSA to make money on recasing cards and reviewing cards to confirm the slabs are authentic and unaltered, it still does not provide a case that cannot be compromised and these purported security measures came about a decade after the WIWAG scandal.

As an apparent admission that the weld and hologram were not solving the problem, in December 2015, PSA then added a barcode and certification number on the reverse of its inserts as a third step. Perhaps one step from the start - making a tamper proof case - would have been the proper step rather than taking these inferior purported security measures which will continue to lead to fraud, but allow PSA to produce cheaper cases and collect money for recasing. Its web site inexplicably states in the fifth paragraph of its Security section that it cannot make a case that cannot be compromised even though Beckett does so: 

For a number of reasons, it is important that the holder is not actually tamper-proof. For example, if the outside of the PSA holder is scratched or damaged in some way, it must be possible to safely remove the contents so a re-holder service can be performed without harming the collectible inside. http://www.psacard.com/Services/PSASecurityABuyersGuide/

Despite making a case that can be compromised and fully aware of all the incidents that have occurred for over a decade, on June 14, 2015, PSA had the audacity to send out solicitations for people to pay a membership fee to sign up for its Collectors Club with a subject line entitled "Card Security that Soars Above the Rest":

            Just Like His Airness, PSA Holders Come in Clutch

            As a leader in the collectibles world, we're devoted to
the steadfast pursuit of the most secure collectibles technology.
Our sonically-sealed, ultra-secure holders are the result of that pursuit.

            Get the Highest Form of Protection for Your Cards

           There are other cardholders on the market, but none as secure
and trusted as ours - because securing your collectibles is our
first priority.

Join our Collectors Club that secure your cards.

Even though it does not grade his first 24 NBA licensed cards, PSA used Michael Jordan's name, and sought credit for making a stronger holder and jazzing up its insert label over ten years after it knew its cases were being compromised while misrepresenting that a Beckett holder is not as secure and trusted as its holder. What PSA's purported improvements do for the compromised cases that continue to float around with counterfeit cards or lower quality cards already inserted is known only to PSA.

Collectors have been cheated of PSA cases that have been compromised by the repeated refusal to make a tamper proof case. Arguably making a case that one cannot trust, in part, defeats the purpose of third-party grading. Collectors are also being cheated of PSA properly educating people about the earliest cards of Michael Jordan (arguably the greatest player of all-time), Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, James Worthy, Isiah Thomas, Dominique Wilkins, Clyde Drexler, and others, by its repeated refusal to address the issue. In fact, it was these very players, primarily Michael Jordan, that made basketball cards popular in the early 1990's wherein previously baseball cards had dominated the sports card market. Despite the popularity today of rookie cards such as George Mikan, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or the key rookies from the 1961 Fleer set, it was primarily these players headed by Michael Jordan that made basketball cards popular and helped change the sports card industry from focusing predominantly on baseball cards. PSA, in turn, has made a lot of money grading less valuable cards due to these players and the interest Star initially brought to basketball cards. While the company receives a lot of submissions, its public financial statements and cards for sale on ebay reveal that several high volume graders provide significant financial support in submitting cards of far less historical significance.

It is arguably time that PSA either grades the Star Co. cards or provides a reason why it cannot. While the FBI concluded its investigation years ago that no Star Co. cards were reprinted from the original plates, PSA has not addressed this issue in over two decades. Is PSA implying that it is smarter than the FBI? Is PSA ignoring the FBI's investigation and the NBA's investigation and lawsuit? Are Beckett graders smarter and more capable than PSA graders? There are too many people that interpret PSA's decision not to grade the cards as meaning that one cannot learn to tell the difference between real and counterfeit cards or that original Star Co. cards were reprinted from the original plates (the "PSA Effect"). However, this is merely due to that fact that PSA refuses to do its job and learn to authenticate the cards. Because of all the false information spread about these cards, PSA appears to get away with it. Also because the cards were limited in production and distributed to a limited number of dealers, there does not appear to be anyone standing up to PSA. There are individuals who wonder whether PSA would grade Star Co. cards if there were more Star Co. basketball cards to grade and more financial incentive to do so, or if the cards were in the hands of its high volume submitters.

People sometimes lack courage to stand up to PSA for fear of being banned from using the company's services. Collectors Universe forums are notorious for having statements deleted or modified and if Collectors Universe does not like statements of individuals, it will often ban those people.

After the growth in collecting sports photographs, PSA announced it would authenticate photographs in January 2006. In order to do so, it hired as consultants two of the hobby's most respected experts, Marshall Fogel and Henry Yee, who had previously co-authored the book entitled A Portrait of Baseball Photography (2005).

After PSA saw that GAI was building a popular division in grading unopened packs, it announced in September 2006 that it would grade unopened packs and hired Steve Hart, then one of the nation's highly respected card specialists as a consultant. Hart is now considered the foremost authority and expert on pack grading.

PSA was also slow to respond to consumer requests with respect to its grading system and did not add .5's until February 1, 2008. However, when it did so, no 9.5 grade was added which allowed the Gem Mint 10 grade to remain of paramount importance and have a competitive advantage in the registry and appeal to buyers. Despite sellers sometimes making such a representation, a PSA 10 is not considered a pristine card. The new system allowed PSA to make a significant amount of money on reviewing cards for the .5 level. The PSA grading system inherently subjects itself to less criticism by not having sub grades. In other words, even with the addition of .5 grading levels, it gives a number but no reason for the grade. Numerous people have experimented with cracking out PSA 10's that came back PSA 9's or did not receive any numerical grade.

PSA was also slow to respond to consumer requests to grade a card and autograph. On December 28, 2015, likely in an attempt to compete with Beckett's popular and superior service of offering card grading by offering dual grades of the card and autograph at a reasonable cost which is popular on modern cards, PSA announced that it would offer a dual service to grade a card and autograph at a significant cost per card.

However, despite the importance and increasing popularity of Star Co. cards, PSA has refused to retain Steve Taft, the person who is already considered the foremost authority on them.

PSA has also failed to take other innovative measures over time. Despite offering a service of authenticating unopened packs, it has not developed a system to grade and designate "pack pulled" cards. Even if such a system were costly, cards could be graded directly out of packs or the means of their original distribution, which would preserve the integrity of the unaltered state of the cards. Conversely, the very creation of PSA has indirectly lead to cards being altered prior to being submitted for grading for financial gain.