Decadence looks like a terrible release at the price point.

It is effectively a rehash of the Pop Century set that came out a couple of months ago except at a higher price. I figured autos from the 1/1 only signers in Pop Century would be plentiful in Decadence -- they aren't. I also figured you wouldn't see any low end autos in Decadence, but you see lots of them.

The designs are slightly better, eclat looks good, but has a miserable name. Photos in general are much better than Pop Century.

If you are looking for cards with multiple signatures you might be really happy about Decadence -- personally I am not a fan of multi-signed cards.

So far the autographs are selling for similar prices to the Pop Century ones -- so there are a few I may chase, although I really haven't resumed much buying since the Ari Lehman situation.

Calling celebrity signed sets like this, or 258 West, or Americana, etc unlicensed is stupid. I mostly only see trolls on Blowout say that -- I tend to ignore them.

That said it is getting harder and harder to ignore all the images they use on these sets. I'm guessing some are not licensed appropriately since I never see any copyright information for the characters on the back of the card.

Amazing that Decadence is carrying all the same signers as the Pop Century Metal 2023 release. But you do get a nice little holder with a Leaf paper seal on top. Somebody thinks we're stupid.

Here's one for all the conspiracy theorists. I didn't pick up a Pete Davidson Pop autograph card because his lazy "PD" offended me. Now there are a couple of his Decadence cards on eBay and guess what? The Decadence stickers have nearly complete and readable signatures. So . . . what's up with that? More money, better autograph? Or someone is having fun, but not the buyers.

My favorite is how the 1 of 1 pop century's have a higher numbering scheme in Decadence.

When will we get that this company takes its customers for granted?

quote:

Here's one for all the conspiracy theorists. I didn't pick up a Pete Davidson Pop autograph card because his lazy "PD" offended me. Now there are a couple of his Decadence cards on eBay and guess what? The Decadence stickers have nearly complete and readable signatures.

I just picked up a Lupita Nyong'o in Decadence for actually seeing a signature I recognize....vice the "LAN" sig that Pop Century was pushing.

Interesting. I wonder if there are any more repeat signers whose handwriting has improved on the stickers earmarked for Decadence? The full autograph is always going to be more desirable than the abbreviated one. It's also harder to fake than a couple of initials.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Interesting. I wonder if there are any more repeat signers whose handwriting has improved on the stickers earmarked for Decadence? The full autograph is always going to be more desirable than the abbreviated one. It's also harder to fake than a couple of initials.

Well, for collectors like you and I at least. Most of these clowns are looking for a chiseled number under 5.

The other auto I've noticed that is different is Lil Baby -- some, but not all of the Lil Baby autographs in Decadence look nothing like the Pop Century ones.

There are signed Lil Baby card in this year's Allen & Ginter as well.

This is just my own quirk, but I can't understand Rappers like "Lil Baby" who take up stage names that do nothing for the image they are projecting. How does a grown man want to go through life answering to "Lil Baby"?

I also don't like it as an autograph. Its the same concept that bothers me about autographs from WWE wrestlers. Yes lots of actors change their names to stage names and that's who they become, but wrestlers and rappers seem to take character names or descriptions, rather than actual names. So who's "Lil Baby", who's "Bad Bunny", and why do I want that in a signature?

Personally, I don't, and that's why I stopped collecting wrestling autographs. To me, signatures from Rappers who haven't left their infant names behind don't need to be collected either.

I would say it goes back to Babyface (more of an R&B man) who is no spring chicken anymore. In fact, I thought he'd be well into his 40's by now but I checked. He's actually 64! He's older than me.

Then again, there was Babe Ruth. Only his family and old friends still called him George by the time he retired.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
This is just my own quirk, but I can't understand Rappers like "Lil Baby" who take up stage names that do nothing for the image they are projecting. How does a grown man want to go through life answering to "Lil Baby"?

Probably not worth creating a new topic for this, but there is a thread on Blowout where someone had a dual Pop Century Harrison Ford/Daisy Ridley autograph that PSA rejected due to a questionable signature -- they didn't indicate which signature was in question.

Not 2023 Pop Century, but the Ari Lehman conversation is in this thread so it seems relevant.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/...thread.php?t=1562008

At this point everyone can agree that there is a symbiotic relationship between card manufacturers and card graders/card authenticators and/or autograph card authenticators. One makes the product and the other gets fees for condition grading or certifying the authenticity of the product and/or signature. They need each other.

Authenticating signatures on certified autograph cards is very different than just authenticating an autograph on anything that has been privately obtained. Ideally there should be no reason to authenticate an autograph on a certified card, be it on-card or on a sticker, as long as the card is not a counterfeit, or a handmade altered creation.

If PSA, or any other grading services, are rejecting certified autograph cards from any card maker because they can't authenticate the signature, they should post that themselves. I don't think we ever have official announcements, just rumors of rejected cards that get spread with little to no details. Nobody knows exactly why a card was rejected, or if it even ever happened, since it's all mostly unconfirmed reports from nameless people.

Autographs are tricky, they always have been. That's why we rely on card makers to have systems in place to guarantee the signatures that they release in their products. If there are counterfeit signatures on certified autograph cards and card authenticators won't pass them, those services should have the integrity to officially put it online. That is their business, they claim to be the experts. They should stand by their decision and let the card makers respond. Conversely, if these rumors are made up, those services like PSA that has been named, should debunk them.

By allowing rumors of forgeries on certified autograph cards to perpetuate without any response from the card makers or the card and autograph authenticators, the situation devolves into one of unsubstantiated suspicions that potentially hurts all card and autograph card collectors. The only thing worse than people who see ghost signatures everywhere, is getting stuck with a bad autograph on a card you bought because it was guaranteed to be genuine.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,

PSA owes its opinions only to its customers. I haven't paid them anything for their opinion on someone else's submission, so they don't owe me any statements about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
PSA owes its opinions only to its customers. I haven't paid them anything for their opinion on someone else's submission, so they don't owe me any statements about it.

Yes, you are correct for an individual submission. However in the broader scope, if PSA or any other card authenticator, determines that a specific certified autograph card is to be rejected because the experts can't verify the signature, wouldn't you like to know that is happening before you buy that card?

A genuine certified autograph card should always bare a genuine signature and if examples are turning up that have authenticators passing on a card like that, why can't they have a warning list?

Because they don't want to have an issue with the card maker, that's the main reason. And so we get all these rumors of bad certified autograph cards, most of which will be simply variations and are genuine, but no one of authority wants to confirm that there is a problem or deny that there is any problem. And unconfirmed reports just turn up on card forums for us to talk about.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

if PSA or any other card authenticator, determines that a specific certified autograph card is to be rejected because the experts can't verify the signature, wouldn't you like to know that is happening before you buy that card?

Sure, but just because I may want it doesn't mean anything. It's not in PSA'S best interests to say so publicly, so they don't.

Given that I have only used one authentication company I must assume that like JSA, all rejections come with documentation. Would probably take another party in the process to feature authenticator rejects based on customer submissions. Is it a viable service? Who knows? Personally I would like to see a full on consumer report style investigation run against the top five authenticators where dozens of autographs from known sources (real and fake) are submitted for a combined score of accuracy.

Reading through the blowout thread it seems to lean more on side that PSA is simply screwing up. The customer never asked for the auto to be authenticated. Now that slabs are the standard for pack pulled condition ratings my guess is they are too busy counting the flood of money rolling in from less than savvy collectors.

To be fair the card in question would be a good one to get slabbed....if you're into that sort of thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

if PSA or any other card authenticator, determines that a specific certified autograph card is to be rejected because the experts can't verify the signature, wouldn't you like to know that is happening before you buy that card?

Sure, but just because I may want it doesn't mean anything. It's not in PSA'S best interests to say so publicly, so they don't.

Bingo, exactly.

As to the Blowout thread, I don't understand the case either. If the card is submitted for condition grading, they don't even look at the autograph for authentication because the customer didn't pay for it. The only thing that might have happened is if the autograph is badly damaged and they think it's a surface problem. Even then, the signature will get its own grade and the card gets another grade. The first letter of the autograph has a hitch, but that doesn't make it fake, maybe he had to sneeze.

The poster doesn't seem to know why it was rejected, so evidently PSA's report is not specifying the reason to him at least. So its left to all of us to guess about something when there isn't enough information to know the answer, but just find more questions.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

As to the Blowout thread, I don't understand the case either. If the card is submitted for condition grading, they don't even look at the autograph for authentication because the customer didn't pay for it. The only thing that might have happened is if the autograph is badly damaged and they think it's a surface problem. Even then, the signature will get its own grade and the card gets another grade.

Gets more fun doesn't it? Is sticker surface damage different than card surface or signature damage?

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

As to the Blowout thread, I don't understand the case either. If the card is submitted for condition grading, they don't even look at the autograph for authentication because the customer didn't pay for it. The only thing that might have happened is if the autograph is badly damaged and they think it's a surface problem. Even then, the signature will get its own grade and the card gets another grade.

Gets more fun doesn't it? Is sticker surface damage different than card surface or signature damage?

This is my own judgement and I don't know how grading services feel about it because I don't deal with them or their rules.

To me it's simply how the card looks to the eye and deductions for things that are noticed and take away from the overall appearance.

For an on-card signature, you can't really count placement, because the signer may write anywhere. You can deduct a card grade for smudges, blotting, fading and other flaws that mar the inking. Although some people may not want it for bad penmanship, that isn't a reason for grade deductions. The rest is based on the condition of the card.

I believe sticker autographs to be held to a higher standard, since in addition to the signer's work, placing that sticker on is part of the production process. So again to me, if that sticker is pasted unevenly, or upside down, or is the wrong signer for the card, or is torn, or is damaged in any way, then that should affect the card grade because it is part of the maker's process. After that you still look at any damage to the strokes, as you would for an on-card inking.

However, even if the sticker is the problem, that shouldn't result in a rejection. If something on the card is the problem, that doesn't result in a rejection. It means the grade is lowered, that's all.

To reject the submission entirely, it would appear the grader is saying "this is not a genuine card and/or genuine sticker and it can't be graded". That's just what I would guess it means, but without more details or proof, it's anybody's guess.

THERE it is!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Leaf Trading Cards Under New Ownership: Orange Mountain Capital Acquires Leading Sports Trading Card Manufacturer

Leaf Trading Cards, a prominent name in the sports trading card and collectibles industry, is proud to announce its acquisition by Orange Mountain Capital, a dynamic player entering the sports and pop culture space. The deal marks a significant chapter in the long and storied history of Leaf, with Orange Mountain Capital expressing enthusiasm for the brand's legacy and its commitment to further enhancing its prominence in the market.

The acquisition was spearheaded by Douglas Maxwell, representing Orange Mountain Capital, who expressed excitement about the strategic move into the sports and pop culture sector. "We are thrilled to be venturing into the sports and pop culture space, a realm we've had our sights on for quite some time. Leaf's rich history in the trading card industry is a testament to its standing, and we are eager to contribute to the continued success and evolution of this iconic brand," remarked Maxwell.

“I’d like to personally thank Brian Gray for his time and effort in assisting this transaction. We couldn’t be more excited to move forward with this new ownership group” stated Kevin O’Neil the new Leaf CEO.

In response to the acquisition, Brian Gray, the outgoing owner of Leaf Trading Cards, offered his thoughts on this transformative development: "The purchase of Leaf by a group focused on expanding and refining the incredible company we have built is exciting for both the Leaf team and the hobby as a whole. While I am sad to end an era of Leaf ownership, it is exciting to see Leaf take the next steps in its growth process."

The acquisition by Orange Mountain Capital represents a strategic move aimed for new heights in the sports trading card hobby.