Leland's LOA Credibility?

[Exhibitman]

The chef thing is amusing but not a good analogy for Lelands position relative to the TPAs. Unlike authenticating a signature, the customer doesn't have to worry about disclaimers limiting the chef's responsibility for his food. Much as I appreciate that Lelands has expertise and is willing to do more than obtain the execrable PSA/DNA or JSA "auction" LOAs that other companies use, I don't get the warm fuzzies that I would hope for from Leland's authenticity policy:

"Lelands stands by the authenticity of everything it sells for a period of three years from the date of the auction. It is up to the client to verify authenticity within that period of time. However, Lelands and its agents will be the final determinant of the authenticity of each and every piece it sells. We are not bound by the opinion of grading services, outside authenticators, or so-called experts. Letters of authenticity are only available for those pieces where " LOA " is listed in the catalogue copy. Otherwise, your invoice and that alone will serve as your letter of authenticity."

As I lawyer I appreciate the weasel wording in it. Basically, it gives me three years to find out if the item is good, but Lelands flatly states that it has to sole right to decide if its original opinion is correct. Mr. Fox, here's the henhouse to guard. I could in theory buy an item that I later find out had to have been forged after the signer died--like a Ty Cobb signed program from Ty Cobb's funeral, to use an absurd example--and Lelands would be within its rights under this policy to tell me to pound sand when I ask for a refund [of course, I could prosecute a case for actual fraud if I could prove that Lelands had knowledge or made a misrepresentation of fact because in general one cannot exculpate oneself from the consequences of one's own fraud, but that is a technical issue for lawyers that isn't really germane to my point]. I appreciate that Lelands has to limit its downside risks on the stuff it sells but those limits do suggest a place for TPAs in the overall scheme of things.

One question I'd pose for the Board is what exactly is an average collector to do if the AH's don't offer unequivocal guarantees and the TPAs are all crappy? Because from where I sit, the only alternative then becomes not to collect at all except for the relatively narrow band of legal documents and modern signed in the presence collectibles that have external indicators of authenticity.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

The chef thing is amusing but not a good analogy for Lelands position relative to the TPAs. Unlike authenticating a signature, the customer doesn't have to worry about disclaimers limiting the chef's responsibility for his food. Much as I appreciate that Lelands has expertise and is willing to do more than obtain the execrable PSA/DNA or JSA "auction" LOAs that other companies use, I don't get the warm fuzzies that I would hope for from Leland's authenticity policy:

"Lelands stands by the authenticity of everything it sells for a period of three years from the date of the auction. It is up to the client to verify authenticity within that period of time. However, Lelands and its agents will be the final determinant of the authenticity of each and every piece it sells. We are not bound by the opinion of grading services, outside authenticators, or so-called experts. Letters of authenticity are only available for those pieces where " LOA " is listed in the catalogue copy. Otherwise, your invoice and that alone will serve as your letter of authenticity."

As I lawyer I appreciate the weasel wording in it. Basically, it gives me three years to find out if the item is good, but Lelands flatly states that it has to sole right to decide if its original opinion is correct. Mr. Fox, here's the henhouse to guard. I could in theory buy an item that I later find out had to have been forged after the signer died--like a Ty Cobb signed program from Ty Cobb's funeral, to use an absurd example--and Lelands would be within its rights under this policy to tell me to pound sand when I ask for a refund [of course, I could prosecute a case for actual fraud if I could prove that Lelands had knowledge or made a misrepresentation of fact because in general one cannot exculpate oneself from the consequences of one's own fraud, but that is a technical issue for lawyers that isn't really germane to my point]. I appreciate that Lelands has to limit its downside risks on the stuff it sells but those limits do suggest a place for TPAs in the overall scheme of things.

One question I'd pose for the Board is what exactly is an average collector to do if the AH's don't offer unequivocal guarantees and the TPAs are all crappy? Because from where I sit, the only alternative then becomes not to collect at all except for the relatively narrow band of legal documents and modern signed in the presence collectibles that have external indicators of authenticity.

I think the Leland's wording that Adam talks about would make me worry if it was one of many other AH's using that wording. But it all depends on trust and I do trust them. There are many AH's that we talk about and that post here that I would not trust at all, even if they pulled out the King James Bible and took an oath while clinging to it.

[travrosty]

You fail to realize that lelands could make good on the item after 3 years if it wants to, the wording does not prohibit them from doing so. What it does is allow Leland's to take on each item after 3 years on a case by case basis because all items are different. They are trying to avoid a rigid policy that is the same for all items when all items aren't the same and they want some flexibility in dealing with a return depending on the item, who is claiming in-authenticity and what proof they might have.

But it's their policy and people can bid or not bid based on that.

Even if they didn't have the 3 year limitation, they don't spell out what would constitute 'proof' of a refund anyway, so just like anyone else, they reserve the right to determine authenticity by their own standards during ANY time period after the item is sold, just as they state.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by travrosty

You fail to realize that lelands could make good on the item after 3 years if it wants to, the wording does not prohibit them from doing so. What it does is allow Leland's to take on each item after 3 years on a case by case basis because all items are different. They are trying to avoid a rigid policy that is the same for all items when all items aren't the same and they want some flexibility in dealing with a return depending on the item, who is claiming in-authenticity and what proof they might have.

But it's their policy and people can bid or not bid based on that.

Even if they didn't have the 3 year limitation, they don't spell out what would constitute 'proof' of a refund anyway, so just like anyone else, they reserve the right to determine authenticity by their own standards during ANY time period after the item is sold, just as they state.

No, I fully realize that, but I am not interested in what someone might do voluntarily if the spirit moves them, I am interested in what they promise to do as part of their contract of sale. If the promise can be enforced for three years then it is a three year promise, not a lifetime guarantee, but if the party warranting the quality of the item is entitled to decide in its absolute discretion whether to accept a timely claim then the warranty is what we lawyers call an illusory promise; sounds good but in reality is: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." 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."

[travrosty]

unless ANY auction house spells out who is the final arbiter should there be a dispute about authenticity, then it doesnt matter if it is a 3 year warranty period, 30 year, or 3 day.

that's the bottom line.

[David Atkatz]

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."

[drcy]

An auction house is like an individual dealer. You look at their reputation, honorableness, and how they deal with things in the past. That will help tell you how the deal with things in the future.

A lot of eBay sellers write down things they know are false or won't follow, so I would go just by a printed set of rules.

[shelly]

Adam, REA and the rest of the auction houses charge 20 percent to have the privilege to buy from them. That twenty percent should guarantee that you can return an item at anytime if you find it not to be what you purchased. That is if the auction house is still around.
Just my thought.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

One question I'd pose for the Board is what exactly is an average collector to do if the AH's don't offer unequivocal guarantees and the TPAs are all crappy? Because from where I sit, the only alternative then becomes not to collect at all except for the relatively narrow band of legal documents and modern signed in the presence collectibles that have external indicators of authenticity.

That's nearly what my collection is. Very small, many obtained in person by myself or in the case of a few SI hospitality suite cards by my father.

The rest aren't expensive, and nearly all came to me in ways that made me feel very comfortable about their being genuine, or are on items that wouldn't be likely to be faked like a RedSox uniform sign out sheet. I have a few that I could have doubts about, but they weren't worth a forgers time when I bought them. - Why forge something that makes a $5 ball into a $7 ball when there were so many more lucrative names to choose from?

Originally Posted by travrosty

You fail to realize that lelands could make good on the item after 3 years if it wants to, the wording does not prohibit them from doing so. What it does is allow Leland's to take on each item after 3 years on a case by case basis because all items are different. They are trying to avoid a rigid policy that is the same for all items when all items aren't the same and they want some flexibility in dealing with a return depending on the item, who is claiming in-authenticity and what proof they might have.

But it's their policy and people can bid or not bid based on that.

Even if they didn't have the 3 year limitation, they don't spell out what would constitute 'proof' of a refund anyway, so just like anyone else, they reserve the right to determine authenticity by their own standards during ANY time period after the item is sold, just as they state.

That's a good point.

And how well that works depends on the people involved, usually both customer and dealer.

The bike shop I work for for a while backed up their work for a full year. (When I was basically managing it.) Sure, that meant doing a few minor repairs for people who messed with stuff and got it wrong, then brought it back for a warranty. But most people were good about admitting that, and the honest ones got it covered anyway. One or two who abused it got a tamper evident treatment after 3-4 times. The told to pay up or go somewhere else when caught.

I did however warranty a job I did after about 4 years. The original work had included new tires, and I could tell right away the bike hadn't been ridden more than a couple miles. And I also looked at the problem and my immediate reaction was "What the ____ was I thinking when I did that?" I hate messing up, but the happy reaction when I told them the repair was free even after 4 years made it a bit easier.

Steve B