What happens when JSA changes their mind???

[whiteymet]

Hi Guys:

I am NOT an autograph collector. A friend has a Jackie Robinson autographed HOF postcard that he won from what I would consider a major/mid major auction house a few years back. It came with a JSA COA. See below. I have hidden personal info and the auction house who sold it info as well

He asked me to consign it to REA because I was taking some of my items to them. REA said they would resubmit to JSA. I asked why when there is already a COA from them. They replied, "sometimes they change their minds"! REA later notifies me just that. They are returning item for lack of authenticity after JSA examined it. I have no problem whatsoever with REA.

My main question is what recourse does my friend have from the initial auction house? What is JSA's policy if this happens?

Has this happened to any of you? If not what would you do if this situation happened to you?

Any info I can pass along to my friend would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Fred

[David Atkatz]

To put it bluntly, when they change their minds, you're shit out of luck.

[doug.goodman]

The people who get paid for their opinions, gotta luv em...

[keithsky]

That's why the whole TPA is a joke. Its authentic one time then the next it's not? Its all about money.

[Rookiemonster]

I thought that the Perez post card came out years after Jackie Robinson was deceased .

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

I thought that the Perez post card came out years after Jackie Robinson was deceased .

Dustin:

It's a HOF PC not a Perez. See photo in the first post

[mighty bombjack]

This is a very interesting situation.

First, I want to point out that this might not be the same postcard that was purchased originally. That's the thing with these auction LOAs, they are designed to be good for one purchase only and give peace of mind to the auction customer only. I have purchased items on eBay that came with one of these letters, but they are worthless and I have always thrown them away. Anything I purchase that has a full JSA will stay with that letter because some people love (demand) those and I imagine that the situation you describe wouldn't happen because the auction house wouldn't resubmit (I could be wrong about that; perhaps REA submits everything they are consigned regardless of previous letters). This is also why they push you to pay up afterward and upgrade to the full letter with a photo and all that. I think, but am unsure, that there is a time limit for upgrading, or maybe it has to be done before the item is sent? Has anyone ever asked for the upgrade but then been told that the item is no good? The auction house should refund in that case, but this one is less clear only because the auction house can claim that a switcher oo was made, I guess. Can this thing be definitively be photo matched to a catalog?

If it is the same item, we can say that JSA has made an error, either in this judgement or the previous one. The question is which one. I mean, isn't it desirable that an authenticator would reconsider and be willing to reverse a previous judgement? We would hope that the answer is always the same, but we know these companies use multiple authenticators, and some have to be better than others. The question is, how many times have they changed their minds on an item the other way?

Auction houses love the alphabets, don't they? These certs are like shields for them, they need make no judgements or be held liable for issues of authenticity because they lean on a third party. It certainly seems that if an auction house is going to say that they trust a company, they should trust them all of the time, even when the decision isn't in their favor.

If your friend can prove this is the same item (which shouldn't be that hard), it would seem that the auction house should either refund the purchase or stop using JSA.

Like I said, an interesting one.

[Mr. Zipper]

Like all humans, all authenticators make mistakes. No one has a 1000% batting average, including the outspoken members in this thread.

And, if an authenticator is good, he or she should always be learning. Yep... sometimes you learn to identify a deceptive fake style that may have slipped by in the past. Ideally, this is a very small percentage for credible authenticators, but only a fool or liar claims to be perfect.

I have no opinion if this Robinson is good or bad. But assuming it is suspect and JSA made a mistake the first time, should they continue to approve a style they now know is suspect?

How many of you think every professional judgement you ever made was 100% correct and given the opportunity would never change anything? Let's see a show of hands.

In full disclosure, I am a professional authenticator who gets paid to provide opinions <GASP>. JSA is one of my clients.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Like all humans, all authenticators make mistakes. No one has a 1000% batting average, including the outspoken members in this thread.

And, if an authenticator is good, he or she should always be learning. Yep... sometimes you learn to identify a deceptive fake style that may have slipped by in the past. Ideally, this is a very small percentage for credible authenticators, but only a fool or liar claims to be perfect.

I have no opinion if this Robinson is good or bad. But assuming it is suspect and JSA made a mistake the first time, should they continue to approve a style they now know is suspect?

How many of you think every professional judgement you ever made was 100% correct and given the opportunity would never change anything? Let's see a show of hands.

In full disclosure, I am a professional authenticator who gets paid to provide opinions <GASP>. JSA is one of my clients.

Steve, you took the words right out of my mouth.

How many of those who sell autographs or who give opinions today, would deem those same autographs forgeries that they passed 5, 10 or 15 years ago?

Whether it's Jeter, Mantle, DiMaggio, etc., there are some-variation of autographs that I might have had trouble with five years ago that today I would dismiss in a millisecond and I continue to improve my eye.

That's the key; continuing the knowledge that we have and improving on it.

Great write-up, Steve.

[botn]

The buyer relied on the LOA by JSA that the sig was authentic when making the purchase. Seems either JSA or the house should refund the buyer. The item pictured in the first post is in fact the same item that was in the auction.

Two submissions to JSA and two opinions. If their recent assessment is the right one then yes it is reassuring to know they are willing to correct a previous error but the buyer is now out some money. Do we know if JSA knew they had previously authenticated it for the auction house? If not then that shows how little credibility should be placed in an opinion.

There is an interesting thread http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218934 on the main board about LOA's and their validity.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by botn

The buyer relied on the LOA by JSA that the sig was authentic when making the purchase. Seems either JSA or the house should refund the buyer. The item pictured in the first post is in fact the same item that was in the auction.

Two submissions to JSA and two opinions. If their recent assessment is the right one then yes it is reassuring to know they are willing to correct a previous error but the buyer is now out some money. Do we know if JSA knew they had previously authenticated it for the auction house? If not then that shows how little credibility should be placed in an opinion.

There is an interesting thread http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218934 on the main board about LOA's and their validity.

Thanks for that link, there is a lot of relevance there and a lot of good arguments.

I will echo here what drcy says so well in that thread: These are not really LOAs, they are LOOS, meaning that they communicate opinions only. Furthermore, it would be a mistake for any issuer of these opinions to become insurers of the item or any selling price. As such, JSA should never have to refund any purchase price for anything. There should be loss of credibility of their opinion (and there probably is, though around here it is negligible due to the low baseline opinion of those authenticators).

The auction house is another story. If I were your friend, I would consign the postcard to the original auction and see what transpires.

[David Atkatz]

That's all true, Steve. But what of the collector who purchased a piece based on an authenticator's opinion, who now is told--by that self-same authenticator--that he owns a forgery? The authenticator is not affected in the slightest. He made his money. But the collector is screwed.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's all true, Steve. But what of the collector who purchased a piece based on an authenticator's opinion, who now is told--by that self-same authenticator--that he owns a forgery? The authenticator is not affected in the slightest. He made his money. But the collector is screwed.

The authenticator made their money not once, but twice! Maybe send it to them a third time...


Of course that's a joke. The only issue I take with your post here is that he has not been told that he owns a forgery, he has been told that the authenticator has changed their opinion. Hopefully, the buyer has changed their own opinion of that authenticator.

And who knows, maybe they get that lesson AND an authentic autograph! Anyone want to give their own opinion of this example?

I will reiterate that I think this collector should consign the item to the original auction house.

[mighty bombjack]

I will also add that, while I'd like to hold it in hand, of course, I would inquire about the price if I were in the market for an authentic Robinson. Looks good to me from here.

[whiteymet]

Hi Guys:

Since I started this thread I wanted to comment on a few things said above by others.

Steve: I think you are correct that authenticators should increase their learning. It is best for the hobby and those that need/want authentication services. However, as Greg said, my friend bought this at auction based on JSA saying it was legit. Seems to me once a LOA is issued they should stand behind it in one form or another.

Greg: interesting question if JSA knew they authenticated it before. I have reached out to REA for an answer to that question. I know I left the original LOA with the Robinson PC with REA. I will be interested to find out the answer.

Wayne: I don't think it would be honest for my friend to consign it with the original auction house knowing that JSA now says it is not legit. Others should not have to go through what he is going through.

Curious if anyone has consigned an items with a LOA and also notes in the description that a later examination of the same item by the same authenticator now does not think it authentic. What would buyers think?

Would an auction house with ties to JSA even list an item this way where it sort of throws egg on the face of JSA? Just wondering.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's all true, Steve. But what of the collector who purchased a piece based on an authenticator's opinion, who now is told--by that self-same authenticator--that he owns a forgery? The authenticator is not affected in the slightest. He made his money. But the collector is screwed.

Good point, David, but that has been part of the evolution of both "autograph authentication" and our own improving-knowledge.

It's part of the arena that will deal in and enjoy.

[Mr. Zipper]

What's missing from this discussion is the concept of risk. Autograph collecting is a risky hobby. There is a tremendous amount of fraud and the barriers to entry are low. Minting a fake coin or printing a counterfeit baseball card is difficult and expensive. Not so with putting a pen to paper.

Every collector should understand that they are accepting some level of risk by participating in this hobby. If your stockbroker recommends an investment in good faith that doesn't do well, do you expect him or her to "make you whole?" If you lose a case in court, do you expect your lawyer to pay the tab?

You can build a solid collection and minimize risk by using all the tools at your disposal: buying from reputable sources, employing a credible authenticator, networking with other knowledgable collectors and using common sense. But there are no guarantees in life!

If anyone would be positioned to make you whole, that would be the seller subject to reasonable limits. They sold and profited from the item.

The authenticator is not a guarantor and does not indemnify. If they make too many mistakes, their reputation and business should suffer accordingly. If you expect TPAs to indemnify, prepare for massive price increases and even more reluctance to "correct past mistakes."

When I first entered this hobby over 20 years ago, a wise and experienced collector told me, "Everyone gets fooled once in a while. It's the price of admission to this hobby. What you want to do is take steps to make that price of admission as low as possible."

[Leon]

Here is a card guys view.

If I sell a card raw and I say it's good, and it turns out to be not good. I give a refund. I guess I don't understand why an autograph company would't refund the original money to authenticate the item when they have now admitted a mistake in their own authenticating. So basically, they make a mistake, admit it and keep your money? How does that make sense again?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

What's missing from this discussion is the concept of risk...

This is spot on and why I asked this question above: What is the purchaser's opinion of the item itself?

If we are not interested in that question, then we are abdicating the judgement of an item's authenticity wholly to the alphabets, something most people on these boards are loathe to do. If the buyer thinks this is legit, he should go back to the original auction house and say so, telling them to resell it regardless of who has changed their minds (he will probably be unsuccessful, but at least he will be able to stand on principle and have an argument that the auction house, if unable to resell, should refund the original purchase price due to the fact that they profited from what THEY THEMSELVES think is an inauthentic item). If he now thinks the item is bogus, he should admit his acceptance of risk and then look in the mirror and slap himself for abdicating to the alphabets in the first place.

Just my opinion