POST YOUR AUTHENTICATOR SCREW UPS

[Archive]

Posted By: E.

A great idea was posted. Let's get a group of the biggest authenticator screw ups. I'll start. All of mine happen to be with Lampson and American Memorabilia.

American Memorabila auctioned a Flutie New Jersey Generals USFL jersey authenticated by Lampson. I tried to find photos of this jersey in a game situation. I noticed that it had no numbers on the sleeves. It was hard to find Generals photos. Maybe I wasn't looking in the right place. I made the mistake of taking a leap of faith because it also came with an ASI certificate. When I got it, something just didn't seem right. I dug and dug and dug and only found photos of jersey with no numerals form practice photos.
I then talked to a usfl expert. he told me i had a practice jersey and they always wore uniforms with numbers on the sleeves. american memorabilia kept saying they would fix the problem. they talked to lampson- and said he'd talk to me about it, but there are photos of the generals wearing uniforms with no numbers on the sleeves. he never produced the photos and he never returned my calls or emails. eventually victor moreno said "you're a good customer, i can't explain why lou won't produce the photos or talk to you, just send it back and we'll refund your money." American Memorabilia did refund my money, but what worries me is I have since seen this item sold at vintage authentics with the exact same game worn description.

I have since had other problems with american memorabilia. i consigned a dave stewart coaches jersey certified by the toronto blue jays from 2000. It was certified by lampson as "one of the finest examples of a rookie shannon stewart jersey you can find" i wrote them immediately and told them it wasn't shannon stewart, shannon stewart never more #45 and it was a coaches jersey of Dave Stewart. I told them about the problem maybe 5 times. The problem wasn't fixed until 1 night before the auction ended. i kept telling them they should be worried about someone bidding on something that they're not exactly getting. No response. in the description of the item I consigned I wrote it was Dave Stewart, and it came with a letter from the Blue Jays saying it's a geniune Dave Stewart- for some odd reason that was ignored.

In other lampson/american memorabilia problems- they had a chargers anthony miller game worn helmet which had a linemen's facemask- clearly not his. When i asked about this, they told me the same thing- there are photos that show him wearing a linemen's facemask, don't worry. but they wouldn't show it to me. Lampson again hid from his mistake.

Finally, and here's one I'm dealing with now- I won a ladainian tomlinson game worn jersey with lampson coa. when it arrived, the COA was for a painting. I can't get anyone to help me fix it. Here's what the COA says

2003 LaDainian Tomlinson Game Used Chargers Jersey
Original watercolor 7 3/4" X 5 1/2" painting by Graziano, which has been mounted on heavy-weight art board. The talented artist's humorous illustration of two scientists in time machine and apes outside reads "STILL THINK TIME TRAVEL IS POPPYCOCK?" has been signed and dated by Graziano "92" and inscribed "FANGS FOR THE MEMORIES". Included is a trading card that depicts this same scene.

Can't track down lampson. He doesn't return emails from 100% authentics. american memorabilia has ignored my emails too.

Those are my stories. I have to say with most of these, the probles was my fault for trusting them, and then finding out later that the authenticator was wrong. I'm learning from my mistakes and I hope everyone else can learn from this too.

E.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

what I cant figure out is why you keep purchasing items from American that have been authenticated by Lampson.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I'm not toally positive, but do auction house say who provides the COA? All I can recall is descriptions saying item comes with COA.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

...in most cases? I realize that some are truly poor mistakes that result from auction houses attempting to authenticate items that they really don't have the proper expertise to be involved with, but most can never be proven one way or the other. As David has mentioned, most autograph LOA's usually have "...in our opinion..." somewhere in the letter.

The real concern is with bidders blindly trusting "experts" - this might give the experts the feeling that they can give their stamp of approval without necessarily doing their homework as thoroughly as they did when they were still earning their stripes.

[Archive]

Posted By: E

Someone asked why i keep buying items authenticated by Lampson- if one wants to avoid auctions with lampson certificates, you're basically stopping collecting. He's everywhere.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

I'd been buying great photos of modern players with so-called autographs on them from one dealer in SCD. His LOA's always said "to the best of our knowledge, this was autographed by..."Then I decided to get a Clemens, and paid about 4 times as much for it, from another dealer. My Clemens said it had been autographed in the authenticator's presence by Roger Clemens. It was a great big, long autograph. Just one problem: I couldn't recognize Roger. The photo was terrible!

I didn't throw it away, but--I wrote to dealer #1, and asked for a really nice Clemens picture (autographed), and got one.
I keep the "real" one behind the maybe phoney one...

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

That '.' really says it all.

David, I plan on using your quote at the end of my sentences from now on. <==

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

to completely erase a post (complete with your sign-in, etc) after you have once pressed "submit." You are left with the alternatives of erasing the content and leaving the sign=in-, writing something innocuous that you hope will offend nobody, or (as i did when I mistakenly responded to something in the new B/S/T/ column) write at every possible juncture: "mistake--please remove."

Of course, if you never make a mistake, you're a much better man than I am Gunga Din (whoever he was...)

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

...it was a joke

[Archive]

Posted By: E

Just wanted to follow this up with a comment about American Memorabilia. Whenever I have had a problem, they have done everything they can to help fix it. I still stand by them. They're really trying to give the collector quality products. They too are at the mercy of the authenticators like the bidders.
E

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Whoops..is John Wonkaticket anywhere around? JIGGERS!

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Julie's my body guard, so that I don't have to bother with the riff raff.

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert Plancich

I agree with the post by E but disagree with him with respect to his statement that it was his fault. While I agree that the collector should do as much research as possible, on the other hand, these individuals are holding themselves out to the public as "experts" and charging the auction house for a service. According to the U.S. Supreme court (I will find the exact case and ruling and post it later) an expert's opinion must be based in scientific fact. These so-called "experts" think that they can hide behind statements such as "In my opinion" or "To the best of my knowledge" and that they are free from the errors that they make, which is not the case, legal or otherwise.

Additionally, what really angers me is that they refuse to produce any any documentation whatsoever to substantiate their authenticity claim and/or refuse to answer emails about the item. Lampson had made numerous mistakes on Barry Bonds and Pittsburg Steeler items. He, just like Dave Bushing, Dan Knoll, Troy Kinunen, James Spence, Steve Grad, et al, are nothing but dealers who have been advertised as experts. The mistakes that they have made is mind boggling. In fact, when you look at the mistakes that they collectively have made brings me to two possible conclusions - one is that they don't know what they are doing at all, and two - that these errors are being made intentially, knowingly and maliciously for the sake of the almighty dollar - dead Presidents! Why else do they remain silent when questioned about a specific item. How do Dave Bushing and Dan Knoll miss the date of a DiMaggio glove by twenty-five years, a quarter of a century! There is no excuse for it. How do they incorrectly date a Tom Seaver glove to 1969 when it actually was made in 1978? How do they authenticate a Ty Cobb decal bat worth at most about $1,500 and sell it for over $40,000? Because if they say "it's real, it's real". I would like to see someone that has one of those decal bats of Cobb submit it to SCDA for authentication and see what it comes back as. Do you want to know why Dave Bushing & Troy Kinunen issued a LOA on that bat? It is my understanding that the person who consigned that bat in American Memorabilia's recent auction initially purchased that game-used gem from Dave Bushing and he had to cover his tracks on it.

I once got an email from Dave Bushing wherein he states that in all the years that he has been authenticating and for all the hundreds, if not thousands of items that he has authenticated, that he has made only one mistake. Well I can name four mistakes alone that he has made on one item - the Joe DiMaggio glove.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

David, with bodyguards like Jule - who needs assassins?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Grob

I think most would agree with this language as far as what might qualify a person to be an expert. A number of states seem to ground their standards on something at least simular to this:

(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;

(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and;

(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

As with most things, they need to be considered within the context of how they are offered and presented. The sports memoribilla field will never be "CSI Bats" or "CSI Jerseys." What I would offer for consideration are these standards of applicibility for this definition:

(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;

This could be addressed when the person states how the item compares specifically with other known examples. This is use of "data". The person making the claim should be expected to articulate the basis for or provide that data.

(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and;

I think all that collectors want to know is there was some process they can follow, understand, and verify for themselves. Nothing more than showing your work. Sort of like loosing points in a math class when you come up with the right answer, but don't show your work.

(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

This is nothing more than a than a codifiaction of the requirements of 1 and 2. Did you use the informtion and the process you should have.