Should auction houses honor all items that accompany their own LOA?

[drcy]

Duly note that I am not suggesting buyers (within reasonable return period) shouldn't get a refund from their buyer if an item is fake or materially misdescribed (of course they should), but the certificate says "In our opinion." Are you claiming that that wasn't their opinion?

As Adam said, LOAs are letters of opinion (unless they state some specific fact, such as "I witnessed the player sign this ball" or "I personally got this jersey directly from the player") and collectors should treat them as such. If the letters have some guarantee on them or claim 100% certainty as to the identity, then that guarantee or claim of 100% certainty is on them. I'm not an Antonin Scalia Republican, but LOAs are documents of words and you go by what they say. You don't get to turn your head the other way, close your eyes and make up what it says.

Bob at antique store: "In your opinion, do you think this postcard is original?"
Bob's friend John: "Let me look at it . . . Hmm, my opinion is yes."
Bob: "So you are saying 100% that the postcard is 100% original."
John: "No. Do you have any idea what the word 'opinion' means?"

Now, maybe the theory is when a document officially says at the top "Letter of Authenticity" or "Certificate of Authenticity," instead of "My idle thoughts" or "Musings on my lunch break after a martini" or is a return reply to someones's email message that signifies something officially official or gives it more legal document whatever in the minds of the hobby-- and collectors may be right in this sentiment and a lawyer would have better legal insight than I on that. But I still take the Scalia textualist approach that you read a LOA by what it says. There's no line item veto, proverbial double spacing for the collector to insert his own lines nor scratching out words and phrases to put in his own. The document says what it says. We'd all be rich if we could legally erase and rewrite LOAs to our benefit, leaving the expert's signature at the bottom. I'd change "One month return period" to "300 million billion years" and "It is my opinion" to "Fifty times your money back even if I'm correct" and would be living in my Manhattan penthouse right now. I'd also change "Thank you you for your patronage" to "Bring in this letter and I'll set you up on a date with Natalie Portman."

And, of course, at auction a bidder would be rightly pissed and deserving of a refund if a seller misrepresented what a letter of provenance or LOA really says at sale. If the seller didn't post the letter, but paraphrased "We aren't certain and cannot make certain claim, but evidence, including that it came from his family friend in Hollywood and the date etched on the side, does seem to support the consignors opinion that this silver flask may have actually belonged to Humphrey Bogart and may have even been on the set of Casablanca" to "The LOA states the silver flask belonged to Humphrey Bogart and he had it with him during the filming of his most famous movie Casablanca" the buyer might consider this fraud and immediately demand a refund. Even though the letter really has "Letter of Authenticity" in embossed text at top and has the original hologram and watermark just as the seller claimed, the text was misrepresented and the high bidder would rightly complain "The document nowhere states the things you said it stated." And if one isn't allowed to rewrite or re-imagine the document in this instance, how can it be claimed that one should be allowed to in others?

An even better example is if at sale you say "The included Company X LOA has a lifetime 100% lifetime money back guarantee of authenticity for what you paid for the item" and the winning bidder demands a refund because nowhere on the letter does it state any such guarantee or anything even resembling that guarantee. You can say "It's implied" or "That's the unwritten rule" all you want, but the winning bidder will likely still demand his money back.

In short, the hobby would be a saner, more intelligent place of collectors making saner, more intelligent choices if people took LOAs a "Some Dude's Opinion" or "Some Dude's Take" and valued the letters at their face value (You can say the same thing about professional grading, by the way). Read and consider what the text says, judge the value of the source and compare it to the actual item and your own research. A letter from an experienced and learned hobbyist can serve as a valuable opinion about the item and can help facilitate a sale as a worthwhile second opinion (the seller's is the first opinion and the buyer's is the third-- and there may be forth, fifth and sixth opinions involved in there too), but it should still be treated by seller and buyer as just one document in a body of evidence including examination of the item. And of course, some LOAs from some sources are worthy of being tossed in the trash can and actually lower bidding on the item when included in the auction description. And, yes, I see the chasm when a collector says at one time "You can't rely only on an LOA. You have to do your own research before you buy an item" or, in some cases, "LOAs aren't worth the paper they're printed on," while at at another time treats an LOA as golden ticket of 100% infalliblness that guarantees 100% authenticity until the sun stops rising. I ask them "So, which is it? Because it can't be both."

Do you know what would be my collecting rule for collectors world-wide? Collect what you are able to authenticate yourself. If you are spending thousands of dollars on T206s or Babe Ruth autographs or ming vases or 1952 Topps Mickey Mantles and you yourself have no clue how to if they are real or fake, you shouldn't be buying them. If your budget is $5 every other week for shiny trinkets for your window sill or to pin to your backpack or wear as funky earrings then that rule doesn't apply. I'm sure you're getting your $5 worth out of them.

"David, how come your theoretical examples always end up with you going a date with Natalie Portman?"
"That's not true. Sometimes it's Charlize Theron."

[sox83cubs84]

It has been brought to my attention that I have been disparaged on this board and I have joined to respond to that. I do not know who David Hernandez is (but will confirm with the forum operator or whatever means needed to do so). He made several negative comments about me and my work which I am here to refute. The most egregious comment was one stating he believe I do not even review every jersey. This is completely false

I have been in the game used business since 1978. I have written for Sports Collectors Digest on game used jerseys from 1982-99. I currently perform authentication services for multiple auction companies and individuals, including Goldin Auctions and Huggins and Scott. If my name is on a LOA and my signature is on an LOA, I inspected the jersey personally. By way of example, with respect to Goldin Auctions, I perform the work in their office. They have on hand for my use both a light table and a black light, as well as computer with internet access so I can search for photo matches and style matches. In addition, I fill out and sign a worksheet for each item I inspect. Any item that I fail does not run in their auction. In addition, Goldin Auctions offers a guarantee on anything that I authenticate that it will pass a MEARS certification or it can be returned for a refund.

If anyone including Mr. Hernandez makes further statements that I rubber stamp an LOA and do not actually inspect items I issue an LOA for, they will be hearing from my attorney. I also see that in post 33 where my name was originally posted by Mr. Hernandez and a link to a thread about me was posted, the name ‘Dave Mustaine’ is now listed with no link, which I assume
he did to cover his tracks.

Dave Miedema

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by sox83cubs84

It has been brought to my attention that I have been disparaged on this board and I have joined to respond to that. I do not know who David Hernandez is (but will confirm with the forum operator or whatever means needed to do so). He made several negative comments about me and my work which I am here to refute. The most egregious comment was one stating he believe I do not even review every jersey. This is completely false

I have been in the game used business since 1978. I have written for Sports Collectors Digest on game used jerseys from 1982-99. I currently perform authentication services for multiple auction companies and individuals, including Goldin Auctions and Huggins and Scott. If my name is on a LOA and my signature is on an LOA, I inspected the jersey personally. By way of example, with respect to Goldin Auctions, I perform the work in their office. They have on hand for my use both a light table and a black light, as well as computer with internet access so I can search for photo matches and style matches. In addition, I fill out and sign a worksheet for each item I inspect. Any item that I fail does not run in their auction. In addition, Goldin Auctions offers a guarantee on anything that I authenticate that it will pass a MEARS certification or it can be returned for a refund.

If anyone including Mr. Hernandez makes further statements that I rubber stamp an LOA and do not actually inspect items I issue an LOA for, they will be hearing from my attorney. I also see that in post 33 where my name was originally posted by Mr. Hernandez and a link to a thread about me was posted, the name ‘Dave Mustaine’ is now listed with no link, which I assume
he did to cover his tracks.

Dave Miedema

From what I have read through forums and Google findings you did not leave SCD in the most eye to eye agreement . Can you elaborate further and on that same King Jammy post it goes on to infer that at the locations where an a FBI bust took place they found numerous blank LOAs but signed by you . Can u also elaborate on that .
Thanks

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by drcy

but the certificate says "In our opinion." Are you claiming that that wasn't their opinion?"

I just have to shake my head with so much of this bull crap with playing on words in this hobby. I'm out! Happy Collecting fellas!

[sox83cubs84]

Originally Posted by mickeymao34

From what I have read through forums and Google findings you did not leave SCD in the most eye to eye agreement . Can you elaborate further and on that same King Jammy post it goes on to infer that at the locations where an a FBI bust took place they found numerous blank LOAs but signed by you . Can u also elaborate on that .
Thanks

The blank LOAs were produced by one of the individuals charged in the scam, Steven D. Berg. He apparently used a computer printer to take a legit LOA of mine, erase most of the print, create his own text, and not touch my signature. Because of the probe, SCD terminated me as a columnist at that time. I was invited back in 2004, but declined based on their previous actions.

As far as the FBI probe went, I got a couple of phone calls from one of the investigators but was never brought in or visited for an official interview and/or questioning. I hope this satisfies your concerns.

Dave Miedema

[WindyCityGameUsed]

Originally Posted by sox83cubs84

It has been brought to my attention that I have been disparaged on this board and I have joined to respond to that. I do not know who David Hernandez is (but will confirm with the forum operator or whatever means needed to do so). He made several negative comments about me and my work which I am here to refute. The most egregious comment was one stating he believe I do not even review every jersey. This is completely false

I have been in the game used business since 1978. I have written for Sports Collectors Digest on game used jerseys from 1982-99. I currently perform authentication services for multiple auction companies and individuals, including Goldin Auctions and Huggins and Scott. If my name is on a LOA and my signature is on an LOA, I inspected the jersey personally. By way of example, with respect to Goldin Auctions, I perform the work in their office. They have on hand for my use both a light table and a black light, as well as computer with internet access so I can search for photo matches and style matches. In addition, I fill out and sign a worksheet for each item I inspect. Any item that I fail does not run in their auction. In addition, Goldin Auctions offers a guarantee on anything that I authenticate that it will pass a MEARS certification or it can be returned for a refund.

If anyone including Mr. Hernandez makes further statements that I rubber stamp an LOA and do not actually inspect items I issue an LOA for, they will be hearing from my attorney. I also see that in post 33 where my name was originally posted by Mr. Hernandez and a link to a thread about me was posted, the name ‘Dave Mustaine’ is now listed with no link, which I assume
he did to cover his tracks.

Dave Miedema

Dave

How about telling us what your job title was when you were employed by Mears and what your criteria is for issuing a COA calling a jersey game used?

Can you explain how sports jerseys (especially star players) that show little to no use but display characteristics of being spec correct can and are being given IMO the determination of game used time and again thru COA's by industry authenticators such as yourself? With the prevalent misrepresentation and fraud that has been proven to exist industry wide don’t you think the burden of proof should be much more than the appearance of spec correct especially with jerseys that show little to no use?

IMO the task of certifying all aspects of the thousands of different style jerseys in existence as being spec correct is at times impossible without known exemplifiers on hand that are beyond reproach in their own authenticity. If the main reliance of proof is based on images of other examples which are also not in hand and may or may not be authentic is in and of itself problematic in my eyes.

IMO the huge money that is also being made through misrepresentation and forgeries at the collectors expense by some individuals over the years has gotten so good to the untrained eye (its like playing “Where’s Waldo”) that without actually handling both the item being certified and the exemplifier beyond reproach side by side will lend itself to countless mistakes.

Even if a jersey you are certifying as game used is beyond reproach spec correct but still shows next to or no use shouldn’t the burden of proof then be based on some other tangle evidence (especially star type players) such as a photo match prior to a jersey being called anything more than say pro cut or best case possibly team issued?

With the thousands of different combinations of sports teams jersey’s in existence how is it possible for anyone to keep track of all this information outside of over reliance upon pictures of other items that appear to be similar in nature when common sense would dictate that an inventory of thousands of jerseys that are beyond reproach in authenticity would need to be on hand in some cases to make the proper/correct determination?

I’m also not sure why your chapped at Dave H. when IMO the reality is that EVERY BUYER in order to not get ripped off on some transactions has to be their own expert/authenticator while following their own burden of proof checklist. Its also my opinion Dave that almost all COA’s/LOA’s carry next to no value to an experienced collector and only hold perceived value in the eyes of the untrained and under informed buyer purchasing things that they don’t know enough about to make an intelligent decision on.

It would also be interesting to hear you explain how any COA is supposed to be taken seriously when they are being drafted by authenticators being paid by the same auction house that will be selling the item being authenticated along with the fact that the COA’s are being written in such a manner that the authenticator assumes no responsibility for an opinion that collectors are being told they can rely upon?

In closing Dave with your 40+ years in this industry it would also be interesting and vastly informative of your character what your opinion is of the apparent behavior of the individuals whose names appear on the Doug Allen FBI court documents concerning Mastro consignors/shill bidders especially with all of the well known names that appear and your current employers disturbing self imposed on the record silence along with the apparent associated information suppression thats occurred on your employers website GUU to which you happen to remain a major contributor.

[mickeymao34]

In my beginning stages of zero collecting knowledge i bought a totally bogus 92/93 road Pat Ewing size 46 +4. Was bought from that crook and turd Rob Wolchnik (sic?) from sports warehouse (currently rjwenterprisesinc on Ebay) in Wilsonville Ore for 1200! This was the year that Champion sold numerous pro-cut jerseys of major stars in NBA which never happened before. A lot of people believed that it being spec correct that it the real McCoy. Ewing actually wears a 46 or 48 +6. The jersey I had displayed zero wear and looked right off retail rack. I sent the jersey to you and you forwarded to me a LOA that was a photocopy boilerplate style fill in the blank letter. Not saying that was wrong b/c thats how you did things back then. But you did give it a thumbs up as definitely game worn based on spec correct (although it wasn't). The turd who sold me the jersey would not take it back b/c he wanted to see what your opinion was. Not attempting to have a "cat piss raining on Dave parade" but just noting that every single LOAs (past and to current) are worded almost exact in each letter. It would be easy to allude to the thought process of initial post to this topic. I respect you for answering questions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So I have a question for Mike or Ron or whoever about something I have never really understood. How is it that all these supposed game used jerseys get into circulation? Do the players give them away? Are they being taken by locker room people? etc. etc.

[WindyCityGameUsed]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So I have a question for Mike or Ron or whoever about something I have never really understood. How is it that all these supposed game used jerseys get into circulation? Do the players give them away? Are they being taken by locker room people? etc. etc.

Peter IMO jerseys have entered the hobby I'm many ways over the years.

Nowadays the league and teams sell them thru MLB and at the park.

Players may enter into exclusive deals with promoters to sell items.

I'm sure items get stolen out of clubhouses to as I've read a few stories of clubhouse attendants/equipment managers getting caught and fired.

Players will give items to other players/family/friends/fans(on occasion) and down the road these sometimes popup for sale.

Back in the day most jerseys were recycled down to the minors since the jerseys didn't have a perceived value then after the season other than as a cost savings measure for the farm system.

Some FB teams like the Bears would use their jerseys for years on end with some eventually making their way into being practice jerseys. Ive also heard tale that the Bears donated jerseys to local High Schools though I don't know of any surviving.

Ive seen a 50's White Sox jersey that was actually passed down to an American Legion team for use in a Chicago suburb.

IMO over the past 30+ years the hobby has also been flooded with many, many created fake jerseys that have been passed off as being team issued and/or worn. This is particularly so with star type players Jordan, Marino, Elway, Payton, Bird, Magic Johnson, Frank Thomas, Ken Griffey, just to name a few.

IMO you are lucky if 1% of these jerseys can actually be proven to have been worn in a game and this has gotten so bad IMO that there is no way that I would ever even consider buying an expensive jersey without being able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is what its being claimed to be.

Photo matching is much harder with older jerseys and non high resolution pictures but can at times still be done. Photo matching isn't the only way of course but with hi end jerseys I wouldn't settle for anything less cause again IMO you will get taken more times than not on the star player jerseys.