IMO, This situation is not about whether the TPAs did a good/bad job with the auto. I agree wholeheartedly with Steve, that TPAs should be learning and not cert styles they know are bad, even if they did so before.
It ultimately comes down to the question of who is financially responsible in a situation where paid expert advice is used to make a decision and it winds up costing the person who paid for the advice something of value(money, time, reputation, etc)?
1)The buyer - If someone buys something relying on someone else's paid opinion and it turns out to be wrong, should the buyer be still held to the "You only paid for their opinion? You still need to be responsible enough to known what you're buying?" Sure, we live in a buyer beware world, but isn't that what the TPAs are supposed to help fix? The TPAs main target should be the person who doesn't know what they are doing, so should we then still hold the buyer at fault for relying on the TPA? Seems to me there have been plenty of doctors who have been held accountable for injuries acquired by their patients based on faulty advice, even if done in good faith. So how much risk is their responsibility?
2)The seller - If a seller sells something without a TPA cert, they usually are willing to take things back if it turns to later to be not authentic, but many sellers seem to have this "Once it certed there are no refunds because if the experts say it's real then you can't give it back based upon authenticity" Ok. So what happens if the authenticator changes their mind? Sure the seller ultimately sold the item, but they also relied on the opinion of the TPA. So how much risk is their responsibility?
3) The TPA - So, if you get paid a lot of money to give an opinion, how much and what type of responsibility do you have for that opinion? In many other fields if your opinion is faulty, even though given in good faith, you are held accountable for that opinion. I think that the minimum is their fee should be refunded, but this situation is trickier. The buyer didn't actually pay the fee. The auction house did. Does that mean he shouldn't get money back because he didn't pay? So how much risk is their responsibility?
Each has some risk and each should take some responsibility. No?
From a financial standpoint, my personal opinion is that the person most liable in this situation is the seller(assuming that the buyer can prove that the item in question is the one that was originally matched with the cert). The AH ultimately sold something that an expert that they use and approve of states the item is bad. To me it doesn't matter if they changed their mind. You live and die by same sword. It's then up to the auction house to seek remedy from the TPA if they see fit and/or stop using their services if they feel they are not providing a valuable service.
From a philosophical standpoint, a big part of why I think the TPA has a large chunk of the responsibility is with the idea that their word is absolute. The TPAs market themselves as the most expert people in the field and charge a big premium for their services. When you do this, it hard to hide behind the it's only an opinion defense. If the TPAs aren't trying to convince people their opinion is a definitive statement of truth, then why do they use wording on their site like this...
From PSA:
http://www.psacard.com/Services/AutographAuthentication
The world's leading autograph authentication experts have been pooled together by PSA/DNA to examine and certify your previously signed autographs. That's not all. PSA/DNA uses state-of-the-art technology to protect your genuine valuable collectible from any foul play. Once an item is deemed genuine, the item is marked with invisible DNA laced ink: naked to the eye but verifiable through a specially calibrated infrared laser. In addition, a Certificate or Letter of Authenticity (LOA) that ties our service with your genuine autograph will accompany your item. With our unique alphanumeric number, any interested party can verify authenticity online even as items change hands time after time.
I am no lawyer, and I know this is marketing verbiage, but this seems to say to me that once they authenticate something,
it is genuine. It is stating an absolute which kind of implies a guarantee. Plus, PSA has already set a precedent for taking responsibility for incorrect evaluation with their card grading here...
http://www.psacard.com/About/FinancialGuarantee/
So why should auto be different?
From JSA:
http://www.spenceloa.com/WhyChooseJSA
Peace of mind that your memorabilia is deemed authentic and ready to be sold, passed along to a family member, or cherished forever.
They aren't quite as demonstrative as PSA in their wording regarding the absolute certainty of their opinions, but it's curious that JSA issues a "Letter of Opinion" for rejections, but "Letter of Authenticity" for items deemed to be good. Aren't both opinions? Doesn't issuing a "Letter of Authenticity" imply an absolute rather than opinion?
Now I don't think most of the people on this board think their opinions are absolute, but many of the less educated collectors out there do. Now, I know a lot of the above are marketing tactics, but if any company presents itself and their opinions as the absolute final word, how can they not be held accountable for their mistakes? The question that follows is what I asked above, how and how much do you hold them responsible?
Wayne,
I think the reason no one focused on that question is that the op didn't ask for opinions on the auto. He asked for what his recourse was and what JSA's policy was.
Best,
Mark