Warning: Disturbing Autograph "Authentication" Material!

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

This story is incomplete and also may be misleading. This item was sold at auction, so I am assuming it most likely had an "auction letter of authenticity", rather than a full letter. It is pretty common knowledge that their "auction letters" are pretty much quick opinions. And are far from the same thing as fully authenticating the item. They do not give detailed results everytime on auction letters. Since they are just looking at the items briefly and moving on to the next, I am sure they are not getting caught up on things like: removals, enhancements, etc. Those are things that the buyer may not find out until later when they are sent in to be fully authenticated. Some people say, "why should I send it in to be fully authenticated when it already has an auction LOA? Well that is why, your "auction letter" is really just a quick opinion (which is better than nothing, but far from fully certified). Also you may be saying, "well they why would I buy an expensive item that has only an auction letter?" The answer is, it is risky. The item usually does not sell for as much because of the reasons stated above. Or if you do buy it, make sure to get it upgraded to a Full LOA immediately, just like it says to on the auction letter. So you still have the option to return it.

In the article, my assumption is further backed up when Nash mentions that Spence noted in the so called "LOA" the autographs were all 9's and 10's. This is the tall tail sign that this item carried an "auction" letter of authenticity rather than a full letter. Because Spence does not grade autographs. This most likely happened because in an auction letter, the actual "lot description" from the auction house is entered into the auction LOA as the description. So when Nash says, "Spence noted they were 9's and 10's". That was most likely the auction house noting in that in their own description and used in the auction LOA which is still common practice to this day.

Also, this "incident" occurred 11 and 13 years ago. That was literally the first few years this type of authentication was introduced. I am sure they have learned a lot since and moved on. Good Luck trying to get something like that by them now, especially if it was being fully authenticated. I am sorry, if this is the best the criticizers have, this is not good enough. In my opinion, the good they do far outweighs the few instances such as these.

Pathetic attempt at an excuse and to say they don't make mistakes like that today is not paying attention. If an auction LOA isn't worth a darn, then they bamboozled collectors for years. If a 1939 induction hof signed piece by all living members of the inaugural class only warrants a quick glance, then that incompetence is just as bad as if they took a hard look at it and passed it.

If anything is worth a good inspection, it is something like that. there is no such thing as quick opinions for such important pieces like this.

This piece getting by them is one thing, but you seem to miss the crux of the story, that it got by them twice, with the wagner signature darkened the second time. quick opinion auction loa or not, they would remember such an important piece as only 2 years went by. for them not to remember it, especially with a cool ty cobb provenance letter that would stick out in your mind, is too hard for me to swallow. i would remember it easily.

They wouldn't do anything like that today? Did you see them recently cert a Thomas Sayers 1860's boxing autograph and issue a FULL LOA, only for both psa and jsa to take the letters back because they admitted there are no exemplars for Sayers autograph? If they are guilty of that craziness, there is nothing, and I mean nothing I am surprised about these days. And they only retracted the Sayers certs because collectors pointed it out and embarrassed the auction house and the authenticators, prompting them to turn tail and bail on the piece.

To foist the auction LOA excuse is pretty weak. They put their name on it. spence/guttierez, they need to be held accountable. Otherwise anyone can claim "auction loa" amnesia and get away scott free? You put your name to something, you take ownership of it. Otherwise it is the best gig in the world. cert something without any responsibility for your cert? We certed it, just kidding. try again, another cert, aw, just kidding. Don't hold it against us!!!! Some of these piece are 20k, 50k, 90k. C'mon. A quick little mistake we should sweep under the rug? I think not.

I have at least 50 instances of them being DEAD WRONG, just on boxing, not just on something that could go either way, but obvious, obvious mistakes that only incompetance or not paying attention, or authenticating too fast, with people authenticating out of their expertise could bring. Not just on small names, but Sullivan, Jack Johnson, fitzsimmons, Jeffries, Dempsey, Louis, Schmeling, Ali, Liston. Were these all "quick opinion auction loa's? No! Does it matter if it is a quick opinion or not. No, not in my book. They want to opine, whether auction loa, ebay quick opinion, or full loa, they better get it right, they are affecting other peoples time and money.

Defending the indefensible like this just really winds me up. Like I said, is THIS enough now? Evidently not for some, well there's more, a lot more, just wait.