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

[SyrNy1960]

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

First let me say, a Letter of Authenticity from an Auction shouldn’t mean squat! Big conflict of interest.

Here is my situation:

Auction House A - I purchased an item, which came with Auction House A’s Letter of Authenticity (I didn’t purchase it directly from the auction house). Once I received the item, I did some research. Long story short, I was able to prove the item wasn’t used by the player (confirmed by the player himself through Steiner). In addition, someone’s handwritten name was found on the item (somewhat difficult to find and see, but is there). I contacted the auction house. After providing solid proof, they refused to deal with me because I didn’t purchase the item from them. So I then asked them if the winner of the auction contacted them, would they honor a refund. They said no, because the auction was from an old auction (can’t recall how many years) and they said they still stood by their LOA (even though I provided them solid proof from the player). After numerous and frustrating emails back and forth, they actually got someone nasty and then eventually ignored me.

Auction House B – Almost the same scenario, except I was able to provide proof to Auction House B that the player never wore the number on the uniform they sold. Auction house B wouldn’t work with me since I didn’t purchase the item through their auction. However, after contacting the winner of the auction (who sold the item to me), and conversations between them and Auction House B, Auction House B ended up refunding the $1,500 to the winner of the auction. The auction ended 10 years ago, and the refund happened last year.

If an auction house puts their LOA on an item and sells it, they should be held 100% responsible and accountable for it, no matter how many years have passed if proven fake or not authentic!

[ZachS]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

If an auction house puts their LOA on an item and sells it, they should be held 100% responsible and accountable for it, no matter how many years have passed if proven fake or not authentic!

I would agree.

[glynparson]

They should always be willing to refund purchase price if found fake. To either the buyer or his inheritor should that be the case. I do not feel that either should have had to refund you the purchase price you made. But they should always stand behind what they sold it for and to whom they sold it.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by glynparson

They should always be willing to refund purchase price if found fake. To either the buyer or his inheritor should that be the case. I do not feel that either should have had to refund you the purchase price you made. But they should always stand behind what they sold it for and to whom they sold it.

Agree! The second scenario, the seller received his $1,500 back and I returned the jersey and he refunded my money. At first, when I contacted the seller and told him what I found (and we know each other, as we collected the same player), even he felt it wasn't his problem since the jersey came with an Auction House LOA and that's how he bought and sold it. Wasn't until I got the Auction House to refund the money, he changed his tune a bit.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

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

First let me say, a Letter of Authenticity from an Auction shouldn’t mean squat! Big conflict of interest.

Here is my situation:

Auction House A - I purchased an item, which came with Auction House A’s Letter of Authenticity (I didn’t purchase it directly from the auction house). Once I received the item, I did some research. Long story short, I was able to prove the item wasn’t used by the player (confirmed by the player himself through Steiner). In addition, someone’s handwritten name was found on the item (somewhat difficult to find and see, but is there). I contacted the auction house. After providing solid proof, they refused to deal with me because I didn’t purchase the item from them. So I then asked them if the winner of the auction contacted them, would they honor a refund. They said no, because the auction was from an old auction (can’t recall how many years) and they said they still stood by their LOA (even though I provided them solid proof from the player). After numerous and frustrating emails back and forth, they actually got someone nasty and then eventually ignored me.

Auction House B – Almost the same scenario, except I was able to provide proof to Auction House B that the player never wore the number on the uniform they sold. Auction house B wouldn’t work with me since I didn’t purchase the item through their auction. However, after contacting the winner of the auction (who sold the item to me), and conversations between them and Auction House B, Auction House B ended up refunding the $1,500 to the winner of the auction. The auction ended 10 years ago, and the refund happened last year.

If an auction house puts their LOA on an item and sells it, they should be held 100% responsible and accountable for it, no matter how many years have passed if proven fake or not authentic!

I think theres probably a statute of limitations...murder i know there is no statute of limitations i dont think a fake Wade Boggs signature for example gets the same treatment but there should be a decent period of time..

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I think theres probably a statute of limitations...murder i know there is no statute of limitations i dont think a fake Wade Boggs signature for example gets the same treatment but there should be a decent period of time..

I think the time period should end is when the auction house is no longer in business. They put their stamp on the item (LOA), so if proven bad, they should honor it. Thanks!

[botn]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I think theres probably a statute of limitations...murder i know there is no statute of limitations i dont think a fake Wade Boggs signature for example gets the same treatment but there should be a decent period of time..

You are actually suggesting the LOA has an expiration date? Further how can a statute run on Tony, the newest owner, if upon receiving it he decided to research it's authenticity and found out it is not what the house purported it to be?

The house who issued the LOA should buy the item back from Tony at whatever price he paid for it unless he is able to prove the person who sold it to him knew the item was not legit

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by botn

You are actually suggesting the LOA has an expiration date? Further how can a statute run on Tony, the newest owner, if upon receiving it he decided to research it's authenticity and found out it is not what the house purported it to be?

Thanks! Frustrating that there are always so many shoulda, coulda, woulda's. For me, this is simple. Auction House puts their LOA on the item, they own it and they are held accountable for it!!!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

You are actually suggesting the LOA has an expiration date? Further how can a statute run on Tony, the newest owner, if upon receiving it he decided to research it's authenticity and found out it is not what the house purported it to be?

The house who issued the LOA should buy the item back from Tony at whatever price he paid for it unless he is able to prove the person who sold it to him knew the item was not legit

I understand the morality but I can assure you there is going to be a statute of limitations on it. It doesnt mean that the person cant refund the money back after the statue of limitations expires, its just they legally wont have too. (which wouldnt give the AH good reviews)

You can also find out you sold 1000s of items that turned out to be fake and file Bankruptcy and not owe anything or as someone else alluded to, if the auction house closed for business they wont owe anything.

So in theory they can close a day after the auction. There are lots of ways sellers can get out of their responsibility. If you win an item you may want to have it independently verified so you have more than enough time to return it.

Of course if theres a criminal act going on, different time periods would apply etc...

[botn]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I understand the morality but I can assure you there is going to be a statute of limitations on it. It doesnt mean that the person cant refund the money back after the statue of limitations expires, its just they legally wont have too. (which wouldnt give the AH good reviews)

You can also find out you sold 1000s of items that turned out to be fake and file Bankruptcy and not owe anything or as someone else alluded to, if the auction house closed for business they wont owe anything.

So in theory they can close a day after the auction. There are lots of ways sellers can get out of their responsibility. If you win an item you may want to have it independently verified so you have more than enough time to return it.

Of course if theres a criminal act going on, different time periods would apply etc...

Oy...

The auction house in question is not out of business nor have they filed bankruptcy in this situation. My point assumes the company is a going concern.

[vintagetoppsguy]

As Greg said, an auction house LOA should not have an expiration date (assuming the auction house is still in business) and, unless otherwise stated, the claim of authenticity should be transferable to another owner.

[SyrNy1960]

The auction house that stepped up and took responsibility 10 years later, their auction house LOA read as follows: OUR OPINIONS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US FROM WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE RELIABLE SOURCES. HOWEVER, WE CAN NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE EQUIPMENT WAS USED BY A SPECIFIC PLAYER.

First, that is the dumbest thing ever! How can you provide an LOA and state that. Makes no sense.

Second, even with that said, they did step up and take responsibility. Kudos to them!

[ZachS]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

the auction house that stepped up and took responsibility 10 years later, their auction house loa read as follows: Our opinions are based on information available to us from what we believe are reliable sources. However, we can not guarantee that the equipment was used by a specific player.

Our letter of authenticity in no way guarantees authenticity.

[drcy]

Not commenting on this specific case, but I think in general the refund comes from the person you bought it from. Especially after ten years, the seller has to be doing his own research on the items he sells. He is the seller.

I can also see how a person would be troubled about ten years later giving a refund to a person who was the person who bought it from them. In these days of theft et al, the person with the item at least has to prove he is the rightful/legal owner. If I sold something at a garage sale and a week a stranger else came to my door for a refund, my first response would be "Who are you? I've never seen you before in my life."

Lastly, look to the refund terms of the auction house. If at the original sale, the auction house said we will give full refund if an item turns out to be fake if it is returned within a year, those were the terms. Someone ten years later who didn't participate in the auction retroactively rewriting the sales terms (in their favor) sound pretty dubious.

Though I understand that you're not just talking about an auction, but a LOA. If there had been no LOA by the auction house, you may agree with everything I wrote above.

Though I will say one thing: you can't rhetorically rerwrite an LOA. If, for example, an LOA says "We believe this bat may have been used by Peter Rose" you can't ask for a refund under the guise that it says "We are 100% certain the bat was used by Pete Rose." A LOA is a document and you go by what it says. Though I have read many LOAs that, for example, say "We guarantee this item is 100% authentic and was hand signed by Joe DiMaggio."

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

Oy...

The auction house in question is not out of business nor have they filed bankruptcy in this situation. My point assumes the company is a going concern.

Oy, and I answered you, as long as the statute of limitations have not expired than the AH would owe the money. Of course like i said they could avoid bad publicity that would hurt their wallet if they refused to pay even if they legally didnt have to as well...

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by drcy

Not commenting on this specific case, but I think in general the refund comes from the person you bought it from. Especially after ten years, the seller has to be doing his own research on the items he sells.

I can also see how a person would be troubled about ten years later giving a refund to a person who was the person who bought it from them. In these days of theft et al, the person with the item at least has to prove he is the rightful/legal owner. If I sold something at a garage sale and a week a stranger else came to my door for a refund, my first response would be "Who are you? I've never seen you before in my life."

It always will come back to the original owner eventually. If AH sells a card for 100k to person A, then Person A sells the card to Person B for 100k. You think that the AH is in the clear? Person B would end up suing person A and person A would end up suing the AH....it will always trace back to the original buyer if they can find him

[drcy]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

It always will come back to the original owner eventually. If AH sells a card for 100k to person A, then Person A sells the card to Person B for 100k. You think that the AH is in the clear? Person B would end up suing person A and person A would end up suing the AH....it will always trace back to the original buyer if they can find him

There is a chain of command (sales).

In cases of stolen items, the buyer gets the refund from the seller, that seller gets a refund from the person who he bought it from, etc. That's the legal chain of command and is also one reason why people should keep their receipts.

I was just saying, and in fact said, that my opinion is in general the refund should from the person you bought it from. If you buy a counterfeit T206, you expect the refund to come from the person you bought it from (and eBay, paypal and your credit card company will agree). The seller may honestly say he too was duped, but he still has to give the refund. The seller of course has the right to turn and get his purchase money back from the person he bought it from, but he doesn't have the right to say "I was duped so I don't have to give a refund." . . . As I acknowledged, this thread's scenario is a bit different than the home computer reprint T206 in that the issue is about a LOA that accompanied and not just the sale itself-- though I definitely still look to the terms of the original auction. Should the return/refund terms have been included in the LOA? Sure . . . If a LOA states "This LOA will expire on June 1 1992. If this letter is in error you must get your refund before then." will someone down the road on a chat board say that it should still be a lifetime guarantee? Probably.

I will add that if sellers and buyers took more responsibility for the the items they bought/sold, the hobby would be better. When a seller says "Is the card I'm selling altered or correctly graded? It doesn't matter to me and I don't even care, because it's in a holder with a PSA label at top. Not my responsibility" and when a buyer doesn't even look at the signature in the eBay picture because it comes with a LOA and the LOA is "all that matters", there are problems. And the problem is that, even with people who acknowledge the fallibility and margin of errors and "it's just someone's opinion" of LOAs and grading, this has on a become institutionalized into the hobby. The original poster both said to the effect "I know LOAs aren't worth the paper they're written on" and considered it as an ironclad lifetime guarantee of authenticity. Those two statements are a mismatch and demonstrate an elemental problem in today's hobby. If he instead said "I know LOAs aren't worth the paper they're written on" and "I know the LOAs aren't worth the paper they're written on, then his statements would have been in alignment. . . . Duly note that I'm not casting aspersions on the original poster in that I know he is a seasoned and knowledgeable collector and was in fact the one to do the research and uncover the misidentification of the item. I'm not suggesting that he's one who doesn't do his homework and blindly takes LOAs at face value. I realize his post is about how and from whom to get a refund on a misidentified item he bought-- and that (following my line of thinking) he first inquired about getting the refund from the seller.

A fundamental problem in today's high grade graded card hobby is that the grading has a margin of error (that is acknowledged by most everyone on any baseball card chat boad and as demonstrated by all the resubmissions do to get different grades), yet the PSA registry and auction house prices are often based on 100% accuracy of the grade. Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians would mock this, and there's no other way to put it than to say its foolishness. And that's not even touching on the subject of altered cards which makes a '10' in reality a '0.' The high grade card hobby and all those "record prices" involve a lot of smoke and mirrors and a line of thinking that would earn you an F in college 101 classes that require elemental logic . . . Though I'm not ignorant about economics and understand that many people are really collecting prices not cards. For the investor in high grade cards, it's the financial return that is the key, and successful investing and business regularity involves playing on the irrationality, psychology and margins of error in the market. Card resubmitters for profit are the first the be aware of the margins of error in professional grading.

[Rich Klein]

Please name the auction houses in question.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Please name the auction houses in question.

Auction House A: SGC Gaynor Auctions
Auction House B: Grey Flannel

[jfkheat]

Originally Posted by ZachS

Our letter of authenticity in no way guarantees authenticity.

What is the purpose of a letter of authenticity if it doesn't guarantee authenticity?
James

[packs]

In my humble opinion if an auction house doesn't want to stand behind their items and their POV is that what's bought is bought, then they shouldn't offer an LOA at all. They should fully disclose that they don't stand behind the authenticity of their items and all approximations made about the potential authenticity of their lots is assumed by the buyer.

That's more or less what they're saying with those BS disclosures. I have no idea what being a second or third purchaser has to do with authenticity. If it was fake the first time it sold, it was still fake the second and third time.

[botn]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

Auction House A: SGC Gaynor Auctions
Auction House B: Grey Flannel

I always thought Scott Gaynor was a good guy. Now it better explains why he was going after me on the Ken Goldin Intro thread a few years back. That is disappointing. Hopefully there is a good explanation.

[1952boyntoncollector]

A fundamental problem in today's high grade graded card hobby is that the grading has a margin of error (that is acknowledged by most everyone on any baseball card chat boad and as demonstrated by all the resubmissions do to get different grades), yet the PSA registry and auction house prices are often based on 100% accuracy of the grade. Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians would mock this, and there's no other way to put it than to say its foolishness. And that's not even touching on the subject of altered cards which makes a '10' in reality a '0.' The high grade card hobby and all those "record prices" involve a lot of smoke and mirrors and a line of thinking that would earn you an F in college 101 classes that require elemental logic . . . Though I'm not ignorant about economics and understand that many people are really collecting prices not cards. For the investor in high grade cards, it's the financial return that is the key, and successful investing and business regularity involves playing on the irrationality, psychology and margins of error in the market. Card resubmitters for profit are the first the be aware of the margins of error in professional grading.[/QUOTE]

Anything subjective has a margin of error but i would rather hear from PSA saying a card is a NM than a seller of a raw card...

people go to trial and the jury has a margin of error....innocent people have gotten the death penalty then are free on DNA evidence years later..

my point is everything has a margin of error that is subjective....thats why people rely on experts....doesnt mean the experts get it right and you want to know the background of the expert such as who is paying them and their business model etc..but again much better than an ebay seller like battlefield saying a card is near mint

[drcy]

I notice that my answers to your questions involve me repeating what I said in the first place.

The foolishness isn't that there's a margin of error, but when people treat, say, 95% accuracy as 100%.

[Stampsfan]

I have to tell you about my recent (and only) experience with Heritage, and their LOA's. In the early November 2015 auction, I consigned two pieces. One was a Jerry Rice 49er game worn jersey from the mid 90's, and the second was an Andres Galarraga Expos uniform (jersey and pants) from 1987. The Rice jersey came with an LOA from Carmen Policy, and the Galarraga jersey had his signature on the Expos logo on the front of the jersey. I'd had both pieces for years.

When the listings were done, there was an additional LOA from HA on the Rice gamer, and another LOA from HA on the signature of the Galarraga. At that time, I naively thought "Wow, what a nice touch to add an HA LOA to each piece."

When I finally got my check for the lots (at the end of December), there was a charge for each of the LOA's totaling (if I recall) $250. I was pretty pi$$ed. To me, the $100 for the Galarraga signature verification did nothing to add to the credibility or increasing the bid total. As for the Rice gamer, the LOA from Carmen Policy on 49er stationary provided credibility far outweighing any LOA Heritage could provide. That piece cost me $150.

I felt ripped off, as I was not asked if I wanted Heritage LOA's, nor was I informed there would be a charge when they produced them.

To me, it was an excuse to keep an additional $250 from the sale of the items, without running it my me prior.

[SyrNy1960]

First, let me start by saying that I have no desire to personally attack anyone. I just want to share my own personal positive and negative experiences with the collecting community, while also getting others opinions on it. And as we all can see by the responses in many posts, there are many differences of opinion, which is ok.

I do have to say that I have never personally been involved with any auction house, as I have read and heard just too many negative experiences for me to want to get involved (yes, I am aware that there are many positive and good experiences too). In addition, I just can’t get past having to pay the ridiculous “buyer’s fee” and other additional ridiculous charges. To be honest, for those having to pay the Auction Houses fees, the Auction Houses should go above and beyond to ensure the items they sell are legit, especially when they are putting their name on it (Auction House LOA)! Let’s be real. They know those letters help in the sale of their items and they know many collectors want those LOA’s for security reasons, as collectors believe it proves the item is authentic (well, maybe not for the seasoned collector).

With that being said, I’m not someone known in the hobby. I don’t rub elbows with the big boys. Actually, I was a private collector of 30 years, before finding GAMEUSEDUNIVERSE 10 years ago. My first experience with any online forum.

As stated above, there are many differences of opinions, which is ok. However, I believe that in the scenarios I provided in this post, both items were auctioned and sold by the Auction Houses with their own LOA (Again, major conflict of interest). They are, without question, 100% accountable and responsible for the sale of that item, if proven later to be fake or not authentic; no matter how many years have passed. However, I think when the item changes hands multiple times over the years, and say buyer #5 finds the item is fake or not legit; it then can become somewhat complicated, as prices for the sale of the item between previous buyers could vary. Maybe at that point, the Auction House should pay buyer #5 what he paid for the item (providing proof of purchased of course) and leave it at that.

My issue with Auction House A is that I provided them solid proof from the player himself via Steiner, that the item was not used by him (Sent the item to Steiner to be authenticated by the player). A hand written name was found on the item during the authentication process at Steiner, which was not the player. After providing the proof, and numerous telephone calls and emails with Auction House A, they stated that the item was received from someone overseas, who they still believe is a reliable source, so they auctioned it with their LOA, and they still stand behind their source, even after I provided them solid proof from the player himself.

So let's recap: Auction House A receives item from a reliable source (which was proven not so reliable) overseas; Auction House A puts their own LOA on it; Auction House A sells the item; Player said they didn't use the item; another persons name is found on the item; Auction House A is provided this information; Auction House A still stands behind their overseas source and the item.

The right thing to do is what Auction House B did. We throw around words like Honesty, Integrity, and Ethics. When it comes to the all mighty dollar, those words seem to get smaller and smaller. I get so annoyed watching bad people defend bad people. But even more, it makes me sick to watch good people defend bad people. I’m not naïve. I realize we don’t live in a perfect world.

I’m not looking for anything from Auction House A. Just sharing my experience. I don’t think myself or anyone else reading this needs to hear an explanation on why what occurred. The answer is a simple one - $$$$

[packs]

No AH has to issue an LOA. So to me if they choose to issue one with their company name on it, that should be honored.

[SyrNy1960]

I would like to close this out with my goal here wasn't to trash Auction House A or anyone specific within the organization. I'm sure they did a lot of good things. This was my one time experience with them, which I thought was important to share, as many discuss issues with Auction House LOA's. This was more about Auction Houses LOA's and where does the accountability fall if an item is proven fake or not legit. I really hoped some Auction House people would have chimed in to maybe give their thoughts about it. With that being said, I'm out! Happy Collecting! Thanks!

[dhernandez]

If a AH writes a LOA for a specific item I fully agree in the argument that the LOA is binding. Those AHs which hire in-house writers are generating rubber stamp pieces of toilet paper by the masses. They make Lou Lampson look like Hemingway. Dave M. has been rubber stamping for years. At this point that company can save on $$ by buying Charmin vs high quality print paper to print Dave's pro assessments.

[dhernandez]

In addition I highly doubt Dave M. actually physically inspects each and every item. Every LOA says the same BS. Baseball is actually Dave M's forte and I for one am skeptical of Dave's all around knowledge of other team sports jersey authentication. Dave M has sold out for the buck but the ironic thing is his name actually devalues an item vs adding value (ala Lampson letters). Does not take much to fill in the lines on the same repetitive gibberish over and over. Hell even a monkey could do it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by dhernandez

In addition I highly doubt Dave M. actually physically inspects each and every item. Every LOA says the same BS. Baseball is actually Dave M's forte and I for one am skeptical of Dave's all around knowledge of other team sports jersey authentication. Dave M has sold out for the buck but the ironic thing is his name actually devalues an item vs adding value (ala Lampson letters). Does not take much to fill in the lines on the same repetitive gibberish over and over. Hell even a monkey could do it.

who is Dave M?

[Abeabe]

LOAs don't hold the weight that COAs do. I do think the auction house should stand by their LOA, but I totally understand why they wouldn't. I would never trust an LOA solely if I was skeptical about item. There definitely shouldn't be an expiration date on any item found to be something other then what was advertised, with LOA or not.

[dhernandez]

Originally Posted by Leon

who is Dave M?

Dave Mustaine

[Exhibitman]

We seem to go through this issue every so often. I have a bunch of random ideas on it:

I want to be sure we aren't discussing the so-called auction LOAs that have been such a scourge on the hobby. An "auction LOA" is a popcorn fart. Totally worthless, literally a promise to look at the item if you pay for them to do so.

Assuming we mean full LOA, a "full" LOA is an expression of opinion. Nothing more. You either accept that opinion or you don't. David is spot-on w/r/t people who confuse these opinions with guarantees. They aren't. If the opinion is given in good faith, that's about all you can ask for; unless the seller offers a specific guaranty of authenticity and refund, you either accept the view or you don't. Separate from that is the issue of good faith. An anachronism such as a COA for a signature of a player on a card made after he died isn't offered in good faith; by definition it is reckless at best, intentionally fraudulent at worst. It doesn't sound like the item in question is impossible.

I am always dubious of people definitively saying an autograph isn't theirs, especially if they've signed thousands and thousands of them, or saying an item wasn't theirs. Not saying Steiner is misleading the OP or wrong in this case, just that my experience is that eyewitnesses are often badly mistaken even about their own possessions and past activities. I had to testify once in an insurance bad faith case and the subject matter of one line of questioning was a letter I'd written several years before on behalf of my client, the insured. I had no recollection whatsoever of writing it. The signature looked like mine, the letterhead looked like mine, I could opine that it was most likely mine, but sitting there that moment I had no way of saying that it definitively was my letter or my signature unless I went back to my file and reviewed it for a file copy to confirm it.

I don't blame a seller for not giving a refund to a third party many years later. Any AH is going to limit the time a buyer has to inspect and verify the items he wins regardless of a COA; the rules of the sale typically state so. A month or two, sure, but ten years later? Come on. Is it really reasonable to expect an AH or any other seller to refund a ten year old purchase? If they do so then they deserve kudos, but if they refuse I think that is not an entirely unreasonable position to take absent a specific guaranty and promise to do so.

All this is completely aside from the issue of legal obligation. That is a different story and most likely would be decided on the basis of the contract [rules] between the AH and the original purchaser, or the express terms of the LOA as between the AH and the third party who now has the item.

[Exhibitman]

This does raise an interesting question that I wanted to address separately: what do you feel is the acceptable limit on authentication? I like this from LOTG:

"We occasionally sell autographed items that have not been authenticated by third-party entities. In general, these are lower-value items. We will not sell a high-dollar autographed item that has not been authenticated. In the event that we sell an unauthenticated item, we guarantee the authenticity of said item for 90 days from the date of purchase. Should either JSA, PSA/DNA, or SGC, the only entities we currently recognize as authorities in autograph authentication, reject an unauthenticated item purchased from our auction within 90 days of purchase, we will refund your money. Please note that this does NOT include large lots of autographed items where a few do not pass. Also please note that we reserve the right to obtain a second opinion prior to providing a refund. Should our chosen authenticators render a favorable opinion on authenticity (at our expense), we will return the item to the initial winner."

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Assuming we mean full LOA, a "full" LOA is an expression of opinion. Nothing more. You either accept that opinion or you don't. David is spot-on w/r/t people who confuse these opinions with guarantees. They aren't. If the opinion is given in good faith, that's about all you can ask for; unless the seller offers a specific guaranty of authenticity and refund, you either accept the view or you don't. Separate from that is the issue of good faith. An anachronism such as a COA for a signature of a player on a card made after he died isn't offered in good faith; by definition it is reckless at best, intentionally fraudulent at worst. It doesn't sound like the item in question is impossible.

Adam,

If this is the case, and I am in agreement here with you, then isn't an LOA for said AH actually meaningless? The assumption being that the AH would not be acting on good faith by putting up something for auction that it did not believe to be authentic. So if I win something from the AH, shouldn't my receipt itself from that AH for the purchase of that item be just as good as one of their LOAs? (theoretically speaking)

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by dhernandez

In addition I highly doubt Dave M. actually physically inspects each and every item. Every LOA says the same BS. Baseball is actually Dave M's forte and I for one am skeptical of Dave's all around knowledge of other team sports jersey authentication. Dave M has sold out for the buck but the ironic thing is his name actually devalues an item vs adding value (ala Lampson letters). Does not take much to fill in the lines on the same repetitive gibberish over and over. Hell even a monkey could do it.

Lampson letters don't add value to any item. If you see a item with his letter, then that item is probably 90% fake. He's a horrible authenticator and theres many threads on GUU about him and the junk he has given letters.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by tschock

Adam,

If this is the case, and I am in agreement here with you, then isn't an LOA for said AH actually meaningless? The assumption being that the AH would not be acting on good faith by putting up something for auction that it did not believe to be authentic. So if I win something from the AH, shouldn't my receipt itself from that AH for the purchase of that item be just as good as one of their LOAs? (theoretically speaking)

Yes. A receipt and copy of the auction catalog description is both provenance and documentation of the auction house's description/opinion of the item. Obviously, people will judge the value of the provenance/identification judgment based on their opinion of the auction house. An auction house's LOA repeating what they said in the auction catalog is just an extra piece of paper . . . An exception is some auction houses hire outside people to give opinions on certain items, which is why in those cases they include that extra JSA/Heritage or Sotheby's/PSA DNA LOA.

I regularly recommend collectors keep the receipt and copy of the catalog description for various reasons, including that, when the auction house is well known and respected, the documentation will aid you at resale time. As you correctly say, it's serves as the practical equivalent of an LOA.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

We seem to go through this issue every so often. I have a bunch of random ideas on it:

I want to be sure we aren't discussing the so-called auction LOAs that have been such a scourge on the hobby. An "auction LOA" is a popcorn fart. Totally worthless, literally a promise to look at the item if you pay for them to do so.

Assuming we mean full LOA, a "full" LOA is an expression of opinion. Nothing more. You either accept that opinion or you don't. David is spot-on w/r/t people who confuse these opinions with guarantees. They aren't. If the opinion is given in good faith, that's about all you can ask for; unless the seller offers a specific guaranty of authenticity and refund, you either accept the view or you don't. Separate from that is the issue of good faith. An anachronism such as a COA for a signature of a player on a card made after he died isn't offered in good faith; by definition it is reckless at best, intentionally fraudulent at worst. It doesn't sound like the item in question is impossible.

I am always dubious of people definitively saying an autograph isn't theirs, especially if they've signed thousands and thousands of them, or saying an item wasn't theirs. Not saying Steiner is misleading the OP or wrong in this case, just that my experience is that eyewitnesses are often badly mistaken even about their own possessions and past activities. I had to testify once in an insurance bad faith case and the subject matter of one line of questioning was a letter I'd written several years before on behalf of my client, the insured. I had no recollection whatsoever of writing it. The signature looked like mine, the letterhead looked like mine, I could opine that it was most likely mine, but sitting there that moment I had no way of saying that it definitively was my letter or my signature unless I went back to my file and reviewed it for a file copy to confirm it.

I don't blame a seller for not giving a refund to a third party many years later. Any AH is going to limit the time a buyer has to inspect and verify the items he wins regardless of a COA; the rules of the sale typically state so. A month or two, sure, but ten years later? Come on. Is it really reasonable to expect an AH or any other seller to refund a ten year old purchase? If they do so then they deserve kudos, but if they refuse I think that is not an entirely unreasonable position to take absent a specific guaranty and promise to do so.

All this is completely aside from the issue of legal obligation. That is a different story and most likely would be decided on the basis of the contract [rules] between the AH and the original purchaser, or the express terms of the LOA as between the AH and the third party who now has the item.

+1. Absent contract language negating same, there will in fact be a statute of limitations period within which any such claim can be brought. Such limitations periods exist to preclude litigation of stale claims, in which significant evidence/testimony may be lost or no longer available. Coming at the problem from the perspective of a lawyer, as is Adam, I do not believe it is reasonable to expect to hold an auction house liable in perpetuity (or more likely, until the auction house ceases to exist). This may seem unfair from the perspective of a collector, but the auction house has an interest too to protect. I highly doubt that many of them would be interested in taking on possible liability pursuant to a LOA several decades later, and I don't believe it is reasonable for them to have to do so.

What it often comes down to with all but self-authenticating items is the old adage: NEVER BUY A STORY! An LOA may well be (at least in some instances an educated story in the form of an opinion, but it remains a "story" nonetheless as compared to those collectibles which are in fact self-authenticating.

Just my 25 cents worth,

Larry

[dhernandez]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Lampson letters don't add value to any item. If you see a item with his letter, then that item is probably 90% fake. He's a horrible authenticator and theres many threads on GUU about him and the junk he has given letters.

Your missing the point. I totally agree with Lou letters not adding value. Thus, the comparison.

[drcy]

An auction house issuing an LOA for something they sold is one thing, because they have a financial/authenticity responsibility whether or not the issued an LOA. However, beyond that, I firmly believe letter writers shouldn't also act as insurance agencies. You should want expert opinions from people who feel free to offer their judgments and opinions, not people who hedge their bets for financial reasons. That PSA is so financially intertwined with their opinions is why they suppress information, delete threats and HAVE NEVER ADMITTED that the PSA 9 Wagner is trimmed. This is the complete opposite of what you want from people who are supposed to be giving you expert opinions.

Though not something I do or would do anymore, I have been asked to inspect and write letters about items in the past and, as an art historian, that's what I've done. That's all I've done. They aren't labeled as "Letters of Authenticity," and in fact don't have any title, but are descriptions of my observations and opinions. If you've ever read one of my letters, it resembles an academic essay. And in fact I calculated I was earning less than McDonald's wages because I took so much time and detail in composing them. I've never intended to, nor aspired to act as an insurance agency and if people expect me to every time they ask for my opinion, including via email or Net 54, I would never give my opinion on anything.

So I firmly believe it's a mistake to make experts insurance agents, because it will greatly effect and corrupt what they do and say-- just as it has corrupted PSA. PSA is supposed to be about expertise and information, but it often seems that they spend much of their information suppressing and spinning facts like politicians. Why? Because they have essentially set themselves up as a quasi insurance company. Because their accountants have said that being honest and forthcoming would hurt their bottom line. And when you're talking about historical artifacts, you want professors not insurance company lawyers giving the opinions.

* * * *

The below quoted passage illustrates how finances and such ruined free discussion about artworks in past years:

"Due to the real or perceived litigious nature of some art owners, many scholars, professors and experts have become reluctant to give their opinions about the authenticity of works of art. In years before, open authenticity discussions about art was normal and encouraged as scholarly activity, but scholars have been sued over their opinions. Even when the scholar is correct and the court agrees, the court costs can be prohibitive. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts and the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, each set up by the artist's estate, discontinued their authentication boards due the potential of lawsuits and liability insurance. Though the Warhol Foundation won a lawsuit brought by a collector, the legal costs were $7 million."

Expecting honest and competence is one thing, but if you really and honestly want honest expert opinions, you don't tie the opinion to some financial pendulum. Because if you do, you'll get something like PSA pr/politics or experts who simply won't give opinions.

* * * *

As Adam said "LOAs" are letters of opinion. The value is what you think of the letter writer and the value of his knowledge. Just as the value of a receipt from an auction house is based on what people think of the auction house.

* * * *

To sum up my personal sentiments on the subject, my old authentication joke is:

Someone asks me how much is my fee to write an LOA for his item and I say "$5." He says "Okay, but if you're opinion is wrong I'm holding you entirely financially responsible for what I paid." I say "How much did you pay for the item?" He says "$5,000." I say "Then the fee is $5,000."

[yanks12025]

Can we know what the item is?

Any chance the player was wrong about not using it(I once had Chris chambliss tell me he didn't bring any bats from Cleveland with his number 14 on them to the Yankees, but there's photos of him using them after the trade.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Can we know what the item is?

Any chance the player was wrong about not using it(I once had Chris chambliss tell me he didn't bring any bats from Cleveland with his number 14 on them to the Yankees, but there's photos of him using them after the trade.

It was a Robinson Cano Glove. No question Cano didn't use it. The glove was obtained from someone overseas. Someone else's name is written on the straps. Cano and his agent, without question, said the glove wasn't used by Cano.

Many foreign players buy extra gloves and bats and give them to family members and friends overseas, which is common. The glove is an Official Robinson Cano glove, but it wasn't used by him.

You know me from GAMEUSEDUNIVERSE, and you know how anal I am in doing research (Hence, the 1996 Arod HR #15 bat). I dig and dig until all efforts are exhausted (which is what Auction Houses should also be doing before putting their name on the item). Many like to justify in their minds that something could still possibly be good. I go off solid facts. Do you honestly think if the glove was legit, someone would be stupid enough to write their name on the glove and use it?. As you can clearly see, the name was written on the straps and the glove was used a lot thereafter. For Auction House A to tell me they still stand behind their "so called" reliable source, after all the proof I provided, proves that it's all about the $$$ for them! Not much to debate!

[WindyCityGameUsed]

Originally Posted by dhernandez

If a AH writes a LOA for a specific item I fully agree in the argument that the LOA is binding. Those AHs which hire in-house writers are generating rubber stamp pieces of toilet paper by the masses. They make Lou Lampson look like Hemingway. Dave M. has been rubber stamping for years. At this point that company can save on $$ by buying Charmin vs high quality print paper to print Dave's pro assessments.

Another spot on post David!!

I think this picture sums things up rather nicely

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by dhernandez

If a AH writes a LOA for a specific item I fully agree in the argument that the LOA is binding. Those AHs which hire in-house writers are generating rubber stamp pieces of toilet paper by the masses. They make Lou Lampson look like Hemingway. Dave M. has been rubber stamping for years. At this point that company can save on $$ by buying Charmin vs high quality print paper to print Dave's pro assessments.

One has to wonder just how much stuff in collections are truly legit. Truly sad!

[drcy]

An important question concerning the gloves is what was the description at the sale. Apparently the sale doesn't guarantee they belonged to the player and say they are going on heresay. If the original auction said pretty much the same ("These are player model gloves, but we don't have proof they were used by the player.), then then that's that. I've read big auction house auction descriptions where they say the believe the bat may have been used by the player or speculate that the memento belonged to the famous person, but they have no definitive proof.

As I said, a collector can't rerwrite what the LOA (or auction description) says.

Years back, I actually consigned to SCGaynor on eBay a football player's shoes that come with letter of provenance from a reputable source (a longtime coach) and were supposedly game used. I'm no game used collector or expert, but a collector specialist of that team said on the GUU board the coach was reputable and honest, though the coach collected the game used shoes (meaning he had a bunch or even mass of them) and it's always possible he could accidentally mix up the player name versus number on the shoes. The coach's letter detailed how he got the shoes from the team and guaranteed they were authentic. I'd seen MEARS give LOAs for shoes with the coach's provenance/loa, so I figured they too thought the provenance good. However, I searched NLF game images to find a match, but couldn't. The problem was I could only find images from some a fraction of the games (I'm no Getty or Corbis search master), the player wore the same brand but changed the style about every other game and he always heavily taped up his shoes so it was sometimes hard to tell for sure even if he wore the same exact shoes. But, as I said, I could find neither a photo match or even an exact style match.

In Gaynor eBay auction description, it said the shoes were the correct size and brand, had the correct number handwritten on them, had obvious wear, detailed the LOA from the coach and also included the clipped out auction catalog page where I got them (a reputable enough autograph auction house). But it also specifically gave the strong caveat that, despite searching, no photo matches were found. I thought it gave all the relevant information to bidders, warts and all, good and bad. In fact, i thought it was honest enough it might scare away some bidders.

The funny thing is the shoes sold for much more than I expected. Perhaps the winner was more of an expert and knew more than Gaynor or I, or perhaps the provided paperwork was enough for that collector. Perhaps the winner was able to find a photomatch. I don't know.

But you can bet what I would say in Gaynor's defense if 10 years later someone came back for a refund because "I can't find a photomatch." The shoes were specifically sold under the description that no photomatches were found and bidders should bid with that in consideration.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by glynparson

They should always be willing to refund purchase price if found fake. To either the buyer or his inheritor should that be the case. I do not feel that either should have had to refund you the purchase price you made. But they should always stand behind what they sold it for and to whom they sold it.

I agree

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

I think the time period should end is when the auction house is no longer in business. They put their stamp on the item (LOA), so if proven bad, they should honor it. Thanks!

I agree

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by dhernandez

Dave Mustaine

That's funny...

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by drcy

An important question concerning the gloves is what was the description at the sale. Apparently the sale doesn't guarantee they belonged to the player and say they are going on heresay. If the original auction said pretty much the same ("These are player model gloves, but we don't have proof they were used by the player.), then then that's that. I've read big auction house auction descriptions where they say the believe the bat may have been used by the player or speculate that the memento belonged to the famous person, but they have no definitive proof.

As I said, a collector can't rerwrite what the LOA (or auction description) says.

Years back, I actually consigned to SCGaynor on eBay a football player's shoes that come with letter of provenance from a reputable source (a coach) and were supposedly game used. I'm no game used collector or expert, but a collector specialist of that team said on the GUU board the coach was reputable and honest, though the coach collected the game used shoes (meaning he had a bunch or even mass of them) and it's always possible he could accidentally mix up the player name versus number on the shoes. The coach's letter detailed how he got the shoes from the team and guaranteed they were authentic. I'd seen MEARS give LOAs for shoes with the same provenance/loa, so I figured they too at least thought the provenance credible. However, I searched and searched NLF images to find a match, but couldn't. The problem was I could only find images from some a fraction of the games (I'm not Getty or Corbis search master), the player wore the same brand but changed the style about every other game and he he always heavily taped up his shoes so it was sometimes hard to tell for sure even if he worse the same exact shoes. But I could find neither a photo match or even an exact style match.

In Gaynor eBay auction description, it said the shoes were the correct size and brand, had the correct number handwritten on them, had obvious wear, detailed the LOA from the coach and also included the clipped out auction catalog page where I got them (a reputable enough autograph auction house). But it also specifically gave the strong caveat that, despite searching, no photo matches were found. I thought it gave all the relevant information to bidders, warts and all, good and bad. In fact, i thought it was honest enough it might scare away some bidders.

The funny thing is the shoes sold for much more than I expected. Perhaps the winner was more of an expert and knew more than Gaynor or I, or perhaps the provided paperwork was enough for that collector. Perhaps the winner was able to find a photomatch. I don't know.

But you can bet what I would say in Gaynor's defense if 10 years later someone came back for a refund because "I can't find a photomatch." The shoes were specifically sold under the description that no photomatches were found and bidders should bid with that in consideration.

.