Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
Personally, I would rather get a conclusive "not our responsibility" statement like REA makes, because at least it leaves no illusions:
"Robert Edward Auctions, LLC utilizes a third-party authentication process for bats, jerseys, gloves, many cards, and all autographed items. In placing a bid on such items, the encapsulation, documentation and/or letters supporting the opinion of authenticity that are noted in the description are explicitly deemed acceptable to the bidder. There will always be experts that will have differing opinions. In many cases more than one authentication service has reviewed a given item. As has always been the case at REA, in all cases where the retained authenticators were not in unanimous agreement regarding authenticity, those items were not accepted for auction. This is a strict policy which REA pioneered in 1996. If the opinion of the expert(s), or the documentation supporting the authenticity of a given item, is not accepted as sufficient for a bidder, it is the bidder’s responsibility to have an expert of his or her choice examine the given item for authenticity before bidding. Robert Edward Auctions will cooperate in any reasonable manner to have any lot examined by any qualified bidder’s expert(s) of choice. Auctioneer does not warrant authenticity of any material that is accompanied by a Certificate of Authenticity, or its equivalent, from an independent third-party authentication provider. The bidder shall solely rely upon the warranties of the authentication provider issuing the Certificate or opinion, or on the warranties of the authentication provider of the bidder’s choice."
|
That's certainly true, Adam. It leaves absolutely no illusions.
"We're happy to sell it to ya, but we make no warranties at all. You have to rely on the third-party's warranty. What? The third party doesn't make any warranty? Well, how about that! I guess you're f*cked, then."