Posted By:
PASJDLet me state up front that I am not a memorabilia collector (I collect cards). My interest in these ongoing issues stems from a general love of the game but also from an interest, as a lawyer, in the ethical questions presented.
My general view, be it cards, memorabilia, stocks, or houses, is that sellers should disclose all material facts. That has been a fundamental principle of the law forever. Generally speaking, a material fact is one a reasonable buyer would want to know BEFORE purchasing. So applying that standard to memorabilia, and I am not persuaded that memorabilia is different from anything else, it seems to me that if an authenticator has a financial interest in an item, that should be disclosed, up front. Let people make their own judgments as to whether it matters, or how if at all it affects their bidding.
I do not understand the continued reluctance (with the apparent exception of Robert Edwards) of auction houses, and presumably authenticators (who even if they don't set policies are surely in a position to exert influence), simply to adopt a full, up-front, disclosure policy. I have yet to hear a justification for it. Perhaps there is one, but I have yet to hear it. One would like to think the purpose is NOT to sell items at a higher price than they would sell for absent disclosure, but until the real reason is revealed it is reasonable to draw that inference. I could speculate that there may be other less sinister reasons -- for example, auction houses are reluctant to make changes unless others follow step for fear of losing authenticator business -- but again, unless I have missed it, noone has EXPLAINED the reasons for not disclosing.
As far as SCDA's new policy goes, while I agree it is a step in the right direction, I don't think it constitutes full disclosure and I agree with Aaron. First, it is after-the-fact. Second, it puts an unfair onus on the buyer to disprove authenticity within a short time frame. With due respect, knowing up front an item I am bidding on is both owned and authenticated by (for example) Dave Bushing is just not the same as learning that fact when the item shows up on my doorstep, and the paperwork tells me that if I don't like it, I have 30 days to find an expert (and how many are there, truly) to prove Mr. Bushing was wrong about the item. I am sure that if I picked 12 people at random off the street, they would agree that the disclosure I suggest is fuller than the one offered by SCDA.
I have no reason to doubt Mr. Bushing's expertise, or that of other members of SCDA or anyone else for that matter, in authenticating memorabilia. And I am on record as saying that I thought Mr. Bushing's degree or lack thereof was much ado about nothing. But the continued reluctance to disclose authenticator interest before-the-fact puzzles me.