[drcy]

Considering the margin of error and lack of time they give examining each autograph (I read that PSA/DNA examines 300,0000+ autos a year), the hobby problem is that sellers and auction houses use them as final arbiter including visa vie sales returns.

I think JSA and PSA/DNA give a worthwhile service-- offering an independent third opinion. But obviously they make mistakes and there is a margin of error, and obviously their opinions should be a supplement not a replacement for seller and buyer knowledge and opinion.

If there is a bad autograph and PSA (or JSA) has made a mistake, the seller doesn't or auction house doesn't allow refund/return because "PSA is the final word" and PSA only allows refund of the opinion, there is an institutional problem in the hobby.

It's like with card grading-- where grading involves subjectivity and margins of error-- but entities treat the numbers of the label as 100% accurate. The problem isn't that there is a margin of error-- there is a margin of error in everything--, but when people an entities treat it as being 100% accurate.

In my opinion, the seller is responsible for the refund when an item is fake. And I think legally, that is the case. The authenticators are saying they are offering an opinion-- and if others treat it as something else, that is the others' misinterpretations and misuse. An old saying of mine is: "If you go to a Three Stooges movie expecting Orson Welles, that's your fault not the movie's."

Not to pick on anyone, but I remember a game used collector who posted here that had an LOA from years back and a previous sale, and he thought the LOA should apply forever, he should be refunded what he spent (as opposed to the original sale price) and by the original seller/LOA writer even though he wasn't involved in that sale. It said nothing to that effect on the LOA, but he thought that should be the case. Golly gee, life would be easy and we'd all be rich if we could years later magically rewrite contracts, change guarantees and cross out "in my opinion"and replace it with in "word from God, and if we're wrong we buy you a new house."

However, I do agree that, even if they are just saying they are offering their opinions and people should take their opinions as opinions, authenticators can or should be held liable if they misrespresent their abilities or don't do their due diligence. The numbers of of autographs PSA/DNA examines was an eye opener, and, if push came to shove, it could be evidence of shoddy work and bring up the question of how exactly were all these autographs examined.

One thing to remember is that you should buy items-- autographs or cards-- on the merits of the items themselves, not just by a LOA or grade label. If the LOA opinion or grade assists you that is fine. I always encourage collectors to get second opinions, even if it's just acting a collecting buddy. However, you don't know the future of grading or grading companies, and you don't know the future value of the of a particular company's LOA or label. Remember that 15 years ago GAI was widely respected as a grader and autograph authenticator. Maybe PSA will be around in 20 years and still be the hobby institution that it is (And I am in no way suggesting they won't be), but will change their grading system and you will have to your card re-graded.

Or, as my other old saying goes: "Collectors should only collect what they can authenticate themselves."