Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardSimon
We had a poll here a while ago and the vote was overwhelming that in a question of who should issue a refund in the event an autograph is not authentic, and has been issued a COA. The group voted that the dealer is responsible for refunding the money.
Travis and I have pointed out many things that are wrong with TPA's. But even I don't think they should be held financially responsible for an error, except in the most egregious circumstances. To me a mistake like the Cobb cut and the Delehanty letter are egregious mistakes.
I know I keep pounding on that Delehanty letter, but geez did PSA and JSA actually think the guy misspelled his own name??
|
So would you call on them to insure the $30,000 selling price? If they both authenticated it, should they split the payment, or each pay that amount? And to whom, exactly? Or should they just refund the authentication price (which is like 200 bucks, plus shipping and all that)? But what, then, if the letter has changed hands a bunch of times since the original submission?
I think we'll agree that, in the end, the dealer/auction house is on the line. It is they who choose to use TPAs or not. The problem from their standpoint is, buyers want them, so they currently add to hammer prices. Hunt doesn't generally use them (from what I've seen), and I've passed on some items that I thought questionable there. Leland's doesn't either, and I've found them to be above reproach (never purchased from them, but have had wishlists in the past).