R E Question

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I don't know what Shelly edited out of his post, but it now reads accurately to me. The consignor pulled the lot due to "REA's efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance". Thus, "Rob had the guts to do what is right" (ask questions which led to the consignor pulling them). I know that this is what Shelly intended to convey with his post, and any feuds any of you have going with him isn't going to change his intent.

I don't know if the autographs are good or not, but the story behind them stinks, and the logic that some here used to defend them stinks as well.

edited to add: (ask questions.......) text

Scott,

I tried to send you a PM, but your box is full....

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

Scott,

I tried to send you a PM, but your box is full....

Hi James, I'm really sorry about that - I had to do it because of some cards I'm selling in the BST area. People keep sending me PM's and I can't handle them, so I let my inbox fill up, to force them to send emails.

You can reach me using 'contact member', but you have to choose email.

[travrosty]

the only pressure for consignor to pull them in my theory is that rea would have pulled them and consignor thought better of it and pulled them first so they wouldnt have a history of being pulled by the auction house. now consignor can consign elsewhere with the jsa certs and no history of being rejected by an auction house, just voluntarily pulled.

but if that is the case then rea was ready to pull them if the consignor didnt do it themselves and if the consignor wasnt ready or able to answer additional questions on provenance, so i think that the deflecting answer of "consignor pulled items, not rea" is just semantics. what do others think on this theory.

rea? what say you?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

the only pressure for consignor to pull them in my theory is that rea would have pulled them and consignor thought better of it and pulled them first so they wouldnt have a history of being pulled by the auction house. now consignor can consign elsewhere with the jsa certs and no history of being rejected by an auction house, just voluntarily pulled.

but if that is the case then rea was ready to pull them if the consignor didnt do it themselves and if the consignor wasnt ready or able to answer additional questions on provenance, so i think that the deflecting answer of "consignor pulled items, not rea" is just semantics. what do others think on this theory.

rea? what say you?

More likely to my mind is that when Rob further discussed the provenance with the consignor, the consignor got cold feet and opted to pull the items and sell them elsewhere rather than have the write-up amended to include the additional details. Presumably, this would only be the case if the consignor felt that the additional details would hurt the sale price of the items. This seems more likely to my mind than a "I'm going to break up with you before you have a chance to break up with me" scenario.

Both the consignor (and his buddy) and REA have posted here, so there is potential to hear both sides of the story.

[shelly]

It did not take the seller to make up his mind what he is going to do with the photo's.


I will attempt to either sell or auction them off again after I have them re-authenticated.


That was quick.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by shelly

It did not take the seller to make up his mind what he is going to do with the photo's.


I will attempt to either sell or auction them off again after I have them re-authenticated.


That was quick.

i dont know why having them reauthenticated would do anything for this consignor. they have jsa, people blindly accept jsa. i dont know why but they do. the only other option is to have psa cert them? we have seen others that have opted to destroy a piece rather than it remain intact (see ty cobb laser index card), where it has been surmised by some that maybe the reason the cobb guy wanted to do that is so there isnt anything to look at in the future should anyone in any capacity want to study it. (he said it was because he didnt want anyone else to own it thinking it's real) not saying this consignor is thinking about doing that because evidently this consignor still believes it to be good? but we will see if it pops up at auction again.

[jetsticks]

There was a disagreement between Rob Lifson and myself (Which I will not go into) and I felt it best if I had the 11 photo’s with autograph’s removed. He was very professional and apologetic for this misunderstanding. The photo’s with signatures are real as I can personally attest that they were in my family’s possession for over 30 years. I will attempt to either sell or auction them off again after I have them re-authenticated. If more than one authenticator deems them legit, then what will you skeptics say? How many people have to authenticate them before they are deemed 100% legit. I guess the answer is "infinite" as there will always be doubters out there. Evidently someone must think they are real as I have been contacted by others still wanting them. Is it so hard to believe that there may be legitimate autographs out there? Think about it.

[Runscott]

I feel like I'm right in the middle of something big.

Hopefully James has gotten bored with me and is back to shilling for Dean.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

More likely to my mind is that when Rob further discussed the provenance with the consignor, the consignor got cold feet and opted to pull the items and sell them elsewhere rather than have the write-up amended to include the additional details. Presumably, this would only be the case if the consignor felt that the additional details would hurt the sale price of the items. This seems more likely to my mind than a "I'm going to break up with you before you have a chance to break up with me" scenario.

Both the consignor (and his buddy) and REA have posted here, so there is potential to hear both sides of the story.

Plus one. It would be nice to hear why.