Posted By:
barrysloateAM has an ethical responsibility to inform prospective bidders that at the very least there is a controversy regarding whether or not the proofs are period, and that bidders should take this into consideration before making their decisions. From my experience in this area, auctions houses can be told the same thing from any number of experts and will still do nothing. Several years ago Sotheby's photo department sold a full plate tintype purported to be Jim Creighton. It was categorically and undeniably not Jim Creighton, and as an early baseball expert I can say this with 100% certainty. I went down to Sotheby's along with several other experts to tell the head of the photo department that it was positively not Creighton and that if they did not want to pull the lot they should at least make an announcement before the lot went up. They of course wanted nothing to do with this, and refused several expert opinions even though at the time they had nobody on the staff who really even knew who Jim Creighton was. They identified him solely on the word of a less than scrupulous consignor. And as far as Bob Lemke's statement that anyone who spends $10,000 or $20,000 on an object should do their homework, I must tell you that in this overheated market buyers are quick to throw money around without doing much homework at all. If it looks impressive in the catalog, they will accept the opinion of the auction house. I have not personally viewed the Flynn proofs so I do not wish to render an opinion, but for AM not to disclose that there have been many experts who have doubted their authenticity is plainly fraudulent. There is no controversy there.