Quote:
Originally Posted by Caseyatbat
This story is incomplete and also may be misleading. This item was sold at auction, so I am assuming it most likely had an "auction letter of authenticity", rather than a full letter. It is pretty common knowledge that their "auction letters" are pretty much quick opinions. And are far from the same thing as fully authenticating the item. They do not give detailed results everytime on auction letters. Since they are just looking at the items briefly and moving on to the next, I am sure they are not getting caught up on things like: removals, enhancements, etc. Those are things that the buyer may not find out until later when they are sent in to be fully authenticated. Some people say, "why should I send it in to be fully authenticated when it already has an auction LOA? Well that is why, your "auction letter" is really just a quick opinion (which is better than nothing, but far from fully certified). Also you may be saying, "well they why would I buy an expensive item that has only an auction letter?" The answer is, it is risky. The item usually does not sell for as much because of the reasons stated above. Or if you do buy it, make sure to get it upgraded to a Full LOA immediately, just like it says to on the auction letter. So you still have the option to return it.
In the article, my assumption is further backed up when Nash mentions that Spence noted in the so called "LOA" the autographs were all 9's and 10's. This is the tall tail sign that this item carried an "auction" letter of authenticity rather than a full letter. Because Spence does not grade autographs. This most likely happened because in an auction letter, the actual "lot description" from the auction house is entered into the auction LOA as the description. So when Nash says, "Spence noted they were 9's and 10's". That was most likely the auction house noting in that in their own description and used in the auction LOA which is still common practice to this day.
Also, this "incident" occurred 11 and 13 years ago. That was literally the first few years this type of authentication was introduced. I am sure they have learned a lot since and moved on. Good Luck trying to get something like that by them now, especially if it was being fully authenticated. I am sorry, if this is the best the criticizers have, this is not good enough. In my opinion, the good they do far outweighs the few instances such as these.
|
For me personally, I think there is something wrong when an authenticator is charging for his quick opinion, then charging someone again for their "real" opinion. Step back for a minute, doesn't that just not seem right?
I mean an authenticator gets paid by the auction house to authenticate something with an auction LOA, and basically they are saying this piece of paper means nothing until whoever buys it from the auction house gets it "upgraded" to a "real" LOA. Meanwhile the auction house is marketing the item as real because it has the "approval" of the alphabet boys and the alphabet boys get paid twice!
Doesn't this almost seem like a conflict of interest? The authenticator takes money out of his pocket and the auction house's pocket if he doesn't pass stuff. If you ask me, the auction houses and the authenticators are greedy because I don't believe most auction houses are holding these authenticators responsible for this garbage. Why? because they are getting paid by people who eat this garbage up in their auctions. Meanwhile, the alphabet boys get paid twice and smile all the way to the bank!
It is my belief that if you are paid by someone to authenticate something, you take your time and do it right the first time and charge what you are going to charge. I have seen to many cases where something got an auction LOA when it was obvious it wasn't even looked at by anyone who was knowledgeable about autographs