R E Question

[travrosty]

when jsa authenticated an old boxing signature from the late 19th century without any exemplars to go by, but still issued the cert stating that the signature compares to other exemplars they have seen, then is that being honest and legit? the item got pulled from auction when no exemplars could be found but psa and jsa had both issued certs!

when they authenticate a luis firpo boxing autograph that looks nothing like any the boxing hobby has ever seen in 50 years of cataloguing his signature, what is that? It was pulled from the auction in disgrace? Or how about the john l sullivan signed in fancy script when real john l sullivan handwriting is sloppy and almost illegible. he was asked about it and he said he had exemplars to match the fancy john l sullivan signature, but no he couldnt show them to anyone!!!

how did you vet spence other than a brother used him to authenticate? did you check into him at all. look at his skills and track record?

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by bufordraley

My opinion is that I have had dealings with REA and JSA in the past and they are as honest and legit as they come. If they say the autographs are real....then they are real! Take it from someone who has spent thousands of $$$ on memorabilia.

So you spent thousands of $$$ on a COA? Makes sense to me.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

So you spent thousands of $$$ on a COA? Makes sense to me.

+1

[bufordraley]

I am a collector of memorabilia and I have spent thousands of dollars on such items. Before I buy anything, I make sure it is authenticated.

[HRBAKER]

This is a perfect example of how the market place has evolved with TPG, what is really meant is if they say it's real - the marketplace accepts and treats it as real (making it liquid).

[Leon]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

This is a perfect example of how the market place has evolved with TPG, what is really meant is if they say it's real - the marketplace accepts and treats it as real (making it liquid).

Same thing on the card side, the TPG's basically print money by their actions.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

This is a perfect example of how the market place has evolved with TPG, what is really meant is if they say it's real - the marketplace accepts and treats it as real (making it liquid).

+1

[Paulanthony]

Originally Posted by bufordraley

I am a collector of memorabilia and I have spent thousands of dollars on such items. Before I buy anything, I make sure it is authenticated.

Yikes.

[jetsticks]

James Graham...I sent you an e-mail. Let me know if you get it.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by bufordraley

I am a collector of memorabilia and I have spent thousands of dollars on such items. Before I buy anything, I make sure it is authenticated.

by whom? just authenticated, by uncle frank or grandpa bob?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

This is a perfect example of how the market place has evolved with TPG, what is really meant is if they say it's real - the marketplace accepts and treats it as real (making it liquid).

but that doesnt make it right.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Paulanthony

Yikes.

This sort of comes to mind too.....(concerning LOA's in general, not this specific auction. I haven't even looked at it)

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

This is a perfect example of how the market place has evolved with TPG, what is really meant is if they say it's real - the marketplace accepts and treats it as real (making it liquid).

TPA authenticated autographs are no longer historical artifacts. They are commodities, and the only thing you need know about them is that they can be easily resold down the line.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

TPA authenticated autographs are no longer historical artifacts. They are commodities, and the only thing you need know about them is that they can be easily resold down the line.

Too true David. Reminds me of buying an old unopened bottle of wine for and investment. Might be vinegar and nobody's going to know for sure unless they open it...which probably isn't going to happen.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

TPA authenticated autographs are no longer historical artifacts. They are commodities, and the only thing you need know about them is that they can be easily resold down the line.

Well-stated.

It's easy to forget that 'collectors' are buying these things with no idea as to whether or not they are authentic - doubt many even care.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Well-stated.

It's easy to forget that 'collectors' are buying these things with no idea as to whether or not they are authentic - doubt many even care.

There not only buying the authenticator there buying the stories that go with it.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by travrosty

but that doesnt make it right.

...........or real

[shelly]

Originally Posted by shelly

There not only buying the authenticator there buying the stories that go with it.

LOT WITHDRAWN (along with lot #’s 857, 861, 881, 917, 929, 975, 977, 983, 984): This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor due to REA’s efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance being excessive (which they may have been). We are honoring the consignor’s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

Once you start asking the right questions things happen. I personally would like to see a few more removed but this was one great start.
I am happy to see that a least Rob had the guts to do what is right. Rob will tell you it only takes few question to change how you look at things.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by shelly

I am happy to see that a least Rob had the guts to do what is right.

Rob didn't pull 'em. The consignor did.

[jgmp123]

Exactly. Read the post Shelly. This had nothing to do with Rob having the guts to do what's right.

[JT]

I must say, this sight and the people involved here have done a lot to strip the power from these TPAs and auction houses. Knowledge is power and the more it is shared, the better for all.

[Runscott]

I don't know what Shelly edited out of his post, but it now reads accurately to me. The consignor pulled the lot due to "REA's efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance". Thus, "Rob had the guts to do what is right" (ask questions which led to the consignor pulling them). I know that this is what Shelly intended to convey with his post, and any feuds any of you have going with him isn't going to change his intent.

I don't know if the autographs are good or not, but the story behind them stinks, and the logic that some here used to defend them stinks as well.

edited to add: (ask questions.......) text

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I don't know what Shelly edited out of his post, but it now reads accurately to me. The consignor pulled the lot due to "REA's efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance". Thus, "Rob had the guts to do what is right" (ask questions which led to the consignor pulling them). I know that this is what Shelly intended to convey with his post, and any feuds any of you have going with him isn't going to change his intent.

I don't know if the autographs are good or not, but the story behind them stinks, and the logic that some here used to defend them stinks as well.

edited to add: (ask questions.......) text

Scott,

I tried to send you a PM, but your box is full....

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

Scott,

I tried to send you a PM, but your box is full....

Hi James, I'm really sorry about that - I had to do it because of some cards I'm selling in the BST area. People keep sending me PM's and I can't handle them, so I let my inbox fill up, to force them to send emails.

You can reach me using 'contact member', but you have to choose email.

[travrosty]

the only pressure for consignor to pull them in my theory is that rea would have pulled them and consignor thought better of it and pulled them first so they wouldnt have a history of being pulled by the auction house. now consignor can consign elsewhere with the jsa certs and no history of being rejected by an auction house, just voluntarily pulled.

but if that is the case then rea was ready to pull them if the consignor didnt do it themselves and if the consignor wasnt ready or able to answer additional questions on provenance, so i think that the deflecting answer of "consignor pulled items, not rea" is just semantics. what do others think on this theory.

rea? what say you?

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I don't know what Shelly edited out of his post, but it now reads accurately to me. The consignor pulled the lot due to "REA's efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance". Thus, "Rob had the guts to do what is right" (ask questions which led to the consignor pulling them). I know that this is what Shelly intended to convey with his post, and any feuds any of you have going with him isn't going to change his intent.

I don't know if the autographs are good or not, but the story behind them stinks, and the logic that some here used to defend them stinks as well.

edited to add: (ask questions.......) text

Scott, I edited my grammer and spelling like most of my post. You are correct it was the questions asked that caused these items to be pulled in everyone's best interest. No one has said they are not in fact authentic. That is up to you.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

Scott, I edited my grammer and spelling like most of my post. You are correct it was the questions asked that caused these items to be pulled in everyone's best interest. No one has said they are not in fact authentic. That is up to you.

I haven't even looked at them closely - I simply argued against the logic that one forum member used to defend them.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

the only pressure for consignor to pull them in my theory is that rea would have pulled them and consignor thought better of it and pulled them first so they wouldnt have a history of being pulled by the auction house. now consignor can consign elsewhere with the jsa certs and no history of being rejected by an auction house, just voluntarily pulled.

but if that is the case then rea was ready to pull them if the consignor didnt do it themselves and if the consignor wasnt ready or able to answer additional questions on provenance, so i think that the deflecting answer of "consignor pulled items, not rea" is just semantics. what do others think on this theory.

rea? what say you?

More likely to my mind is that when Rob further discussed the provenance with the consignor, the consignor got cold feet and opted to pull the items and sell them elsewhere rather than have the write-up amended to include the additional details. Presumably, this would only be the case if the consignor felt that the additional details would hurt the sale price of the items. This seems more likely to my mind than a "I'm going to break up with you before you have a chance to break up with me" scenario.

Both the consignor (and his buddy) and REA have posted here, so there is potential to hear both sides of the story.

[shelly]

It did not take the seller to make up his mind what he is going to do with the photo's.


I will attempt to either sell or auction them off again after I have them re-authenticated.


That was quick.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

More likely to my mind is that when Rob further discussed the provenance with the consignor, the consignor got cold feet and opted to pull the items and sell them elsewhere rather than have the write-up amended to include the additional details. Presumably, this would only be the case if the consignor felt that the additional details would hurt the sale price of the items. This seems more likely to my mind than a "I'm going to break up with you before you have a chance to break up with me" scenario.

Both the consignor (and his buddy) and REA have posted here, so there is potential to hear both sides of the story.

Plus one. It would be nice to hear why.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by shelly

It did not take the seller to make up his mind what he is going to do with the photo's.


I will attempt to either sell or auction them off again after I have them re-authenticated.


That was quick.

i dont know why having them reauthenticated would do anything for this consignor. they have jsa, people blindly accept jsa. i dont know why but they do. the only other option is to have psa cert them? we have seen others that have opted to destroy a piece rather than it remain intact (see ty cobb laser index card), where it has been surmised by some that maybe the reason the cobb guy wanted to do that is so there isnt anything to look at in the future should anyone in any capacity want to study it. (he said it was because he didnt want anyone else to own it thinking it's real) not saying this consignor is thinking about doing that because evidently this consignor still believes it to be good? but we will see if it pops up at auction again.

[jetsticks]

There was a disagreement between Rob Lifson and myself (Which I will not go into) and I felt it best if I had the 11 photo’s with autograph’s removed. He was very professional and apologetic for this misunderstanding. The photo’s with signatures are real as I can personally attest that they were in my family’s possession for over 30 years. I will attempt to either sell or auction them off again after I have them re-authenticated. If more than one authenticator deems them legit, then what will you skeptics say? How many people have to authenticate them before they are deemed 100% legit. I guess the answer is "infinite" as there will always be doubters out there. Evidently someone must think they are real as I have been contacted by others still wanting them. Is it so hard to believe that there may be legitimate autographs out there? Think about it.

[Runscott]

never mind - I went for the bait

[shelly]

Originally Posted by jetsticks

There was a disagreement between Rob Lifson and myself (Which I will not go into) and I felt it best if I had the 11 photo’s with autograph’s removed. He was very professional and apologetic for this misunderstanding. The photo’s with signatures are real as I can personally attest that they were in my family’s possession for over 30 years. I will attempt to either sell or auction them off again after I have them re-authenticated. If more than one authenticator deems them legit, then what will you skeptics say? How many people have to authenticate them before they are deemed 100% legit. I guess the answer is "infinite" as there will always be doubters out there. Evidently someone must think they are real as I have been contacted by others still wanting them. Is it so hard to believe that there may be legitimate autographs out there? Think about it.

If you had owned them for fifty years how would you know they are real. Your not in the business and some one gave them to your mom. I am not being mean I am only asking a simple question. I understand that spence said they are authentic. I am looking forward to anyone other than him to say the same thing.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by jetsticks

There was a disagreement between Rob Lifson and myself (Which I will not go into) and I felt it best if I had the 11 photo’s with autograph’s removed. He was very professional and apologetic for this misunderstanding. The photo’s with signatures are real as I can personally attest that they were in my family’s possession for over 30 years. I will attempt to either sell or auction them off again after I have them re-authenticated. If more than one authenticator deems them legit, then what will you skeptics say? How many people have to authenticate them before they are deemed 100% legit. I guess the answer is "infinite" as there will always be doubters out there. Evidently someone must think they are real as I have been contacted by others still wanting them. Is it so hard to believe that there may be legitimate autographs out there? Think about it.

But Lifson says he uses spence and trusts spence, and these have spence lola's, so what can the disagreement be? if you know they are real and they got certed by spence, whom lifson uses and trusts, why aren't they still up for auction at REA?

[collectbaseball]

Betcha they show up for sale again, but one at a time and without a story (and without 're-authentication' from any other third party that matters...i.e. PSA).

[BigJJ]

Rob did the right thing.

Whatever the additional information Rob asked for, and perhaps wanted to make public, was the correct way to go to resolve this firmly one way or the other.

If the autographs and backstory are real, why on earth would you not provide all the info in the world, to prevent the items from being withdrawn from a major auction?

Does the owner think everyone will forget? Or that each auction house has a totally different set of buyers? And that other houses will want to touch what was withdrawn from REA?

Even if someone is concerned about making provenance public because chain of title issues, deathbed gifts, etc., the only way to make certain you lose a good amount, or all, your value is to withdraw items from an auction.

To lose value (by withdrawing) because you are concerned that you may lose value (via legal claim) is really dumb.

The question is, is the owner's backstory true and he is foolish, or is the owner's backstory not true.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

Rob did the right thing.

Whatever the additional information Rob asked for, and perhaps wanted to make public, was the correct way to go to resolve this firmly one way or the other.

If the autographs and backstory are real, why on earth would you not provide all the info in the world, to prevent the items from being withdrawn from a major auction?

Does the owner think everyone will forget? Or that each auction house has a totally different set of buyers? And that other houses will want to touch what was withdrawn from REA?

Even if someone is concerned about chain of title issues, deathbed gifts, etc., the only way to make certain you lose a good amount, or all, your value is to withdraw items from an auction.

To lose value (by withdrawing) because you are concerned that you may lose value (via legal claim) is really dumb.

The question is, is the owner's backstory true and he is foolish, or is the owner's backstory not true.

JJ,
The photos were certified by JSA...it had the same clout that the Babe Ruth ticket did...The Consignor could have left the items in the auction and they would have sold for a pretty penny. REA would have left them in if the Consignor would not have requested to pull them.

The only thing that was a "good thing" that was done was that they contacted the Consignor for more provenance at the urge of someone here, but they didn't pull the items. Only After the Consignor told them to pull the items, did they pull them.

The Consignor of the Gary Cooper photo has not requested it be pulled, which is the only reason it's still up.

If they are doing the right thing, then why is that Cooper photo still up?

[BigJJ]

Jim,

Fair question. I do not know the particulars.

My Rabbi once gave a sermon, and I am not outwardly religious, I go to Temple about three times a year, but he gave a sermon that I always keep in mind. He said that humanity's difficult position stems from our outcast from the Garden of Eden. That as a result of our being placed in an imperfect world, that no matter how hard we try to make everything right and perfect, we cannot. Now obviously the existence of an actual Garden of Eden is up for debate. But the idea that it is impossible to act perfectly in an imperfect world is interesting. Man cannot create a Garden of Eden, cannot create a perfect result. And therefore, what distinguishes good from bad, is intent, as we only have full control over intent and not result.

[BigJJ]

J, I re-read the statement. Based on the statement, it appears that REA would not have left them in without the consignor agreeing to make available additional information. REA was not allowing these items to continue, without additional information provided, or made available to the public. As a result, the consignor withdrew them. That is my read of the statement.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

J, I re-read the statement. Based on the statement, it appears that REA would not have left them in without the consignor agreeing to make available additional information. REA was not allowing these items to continue, without additional information provided, or made available to the public. As a result, the consignor withdrew them. That is my read of the statement.

I understand that everyone will read things a little different I guess I don't get the same translation out of the statement:

This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor due to REA’s efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance being excessive (which they may have been). We are honoring the consignor’s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

The items are gone and until they appear again, it's a moot point. So until REA comes on, I guess we will never really know what happened.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

I understand that everyone will read things a little different I guess I don't get the same translation out of the statement:

This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor due to REA’s efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance being excessive (which they may have been). We are honoring the consignor’s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

The items are gone and until they appear again, it's a moot point. So until REA comes on, I guess we will never really know what happened.

It is worded unclearly, but I think the translation would be:
This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor because the consignor felt REA’s efforts to obtain additional information regarding provenance were excessive. We are honoring the consignor’s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

I'll stand corrected if my interpretation is inaccurate.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

It is worded unclearly, but I think the translation would be:
This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor because the consignor felt REA’s efforts to obtain additional information regarding provenance were excessive. We are honoring the consignor’s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

I'll stand corrected if my interpretation is inaccurate.

Steve,

I agree with that 100%. I just don't have the notion that others do that REA would have pulled the photo's if the Consignor had no issues with their "excessive" nature. I believe that if they would still be active if the consignor wouldn't have requested they be pulled.

[jetsticks]

Bigjj,

Not true at all. REA would have left my photos in the auction if I did not request them to be withdrawn. I did not have them withdrawn because of the authenticity issue but more of a personal issue that Rob and I had. That is all. I could have left them up there and they still would have sold for a fair amount but I did not like the way things transpired with Rob and had him pull them. Again, it has nothing to do with him trying to get more information, but rather the way he was trying to acquire it which I felt betrayed myself and my family.

[BigJJ]

J,

Understand other interpretations.

It may be worth noting, even if we disagree over the statement, that we can agree -

REA was continuing to conduct due diligence on the items - even after full JSA.

They were not just sitting on information provided to them. They could have. but they did not, even though the auction was already afoot.

They had full JSA. But apparently continued to comb the provenance to make certain what they were presenting was accurate.

[BigJJ]

Originally Posted by jetsticks

Bigjj,

Not true at all. REA would have left my photos in the auction if I did not request them to be withdrawn. I did not have them withdrawn because of the authenticity issue but more of a personal issue that Rob and I had. That is all. I could have left them up there and they still would have sold for a fair amount but I did not like the way things transpired with Rob and had him pull them. Again, it has nothing to do with him trying to get more information, but rather the way he was trying to acquire it which I felt betrayed myself and my family.

How were the items acquired? Were they a deathbed gift? Is there a concern about chain of title?

[BigJJ]

And by the way, I was trying to discern the meaning of REA's statement. along with many here.

Not stating what the facts on the ground were. I have no idea whether they would have been pulled or not.

You say they would not have been.

[shelly]

I do and I think the seller should tell the whole truth about what happened. By comeing on here you left your self open to comment.

[BigJJ]

And items may be pulled for many reasons. and I am not talking about these particular items per se which were not pulled. But items may be pulled for authenticity, but also pulled for questions of ownership. Even if you have a consignor signing that he has 100% ownership, if it comes to the auctioneer's attention that this may not be the case, depending on the circumstances, items may be pulled. I am not stating that this is a question here. but there are many reasons why due diligence might continue on an item after the beginning of an auction other than authenticity.

[jgmp123]

Hauls of Shame Update:

UPDATE (May 1): Experts Uncover More Ruth Fakes in Heritage and REA Auctions; Feds Building Cases Against PSA, Joe Orlando, Steve Grad, Jimmy Spence and Auctioneers

REA and Rob Lifson just withdrew ten autographed lots that Haulsofshame.com and other experts called out as fakes and the auctioneer’s disingenuous explanation that the withdrawal was at the request of its consignor is being widely ridiculed by collectors and dealers throughout the hobby. REA, however, has not removed the alleged photo signed by Babe Ruth to Gary Cooper despite expert Ron Keurajian calling it a fake and Gary Cooper’s own daughter confirming that the photo was never in the possession of her family or the “Cooper Collection” the family archive she curates. Sources indicate that Lifson does not believe that Cooper’s daughter Marie Cooper-Janis confirmed this information for Haulsofshame.com.

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19877#more-19877