Should auction houses honor all items that accompany their own LOA?

SyrNy1960 · #1 03-02-2016, 05:32 AM

First, let me start by saying that I have no desire to personally attack anyone. I just want to share my own personal positive and negative experiences with the collecting community, while also getting others opinions on it. And as we all can see by the responses in many posts, there are many differences of opinion, which is ok.

I do have to say that I have never personally been involved with any auction house, as I have read and heard just too many negative experiences for me to want to get involved (yes, I am aware that there are many positive and good experiences too). In addition, I just can’t get past having to pay the ridiculous “buyer’s fee” and other additional ridiculous charges. To be honest, for those having to pay the Auction Houses fees, the Auction Houses should go above and beyond to ensure the items they sell are legit, especially when they are putting their name on it (Auction House LOA)! Let’s be real. They know those letters help in the sale of their items and they know many collectors want those LOA’s for security reasons, as collectors believe it proves the item is authentic (well, maybe not for the seasoned collector).

With that being said, I’m not someone known in the hobby. I don’t rub elbows with the big boys. Actually, I was a private collector of 30 years, before finding GAMEUSEDUNIVERSE 10 years ago. My first experience with any online forum.

As stated above, there are many differences of opinions, which is ok. However, I believe that in the scenarios I provided in this post, both items were auctioned and sold by the Auction Houses with their own LOA (Again, major conflict of interest). They are, without question, 100% accountable and responsible for the sale of that item, if proven later to be fake or not authentic; no matter how many years have passed. However, I think when the item changes hands multiple times over the years, and say buyer #5 finds the item is fake or not legit; it then can become somewhat complicated, as prices for the sale of the item between previous buyers could vary. Maybe at that point, the Auction House should pay buyer #5 what he paid for the item (providing proof of purchased of course) and leave it at that.

My issue with Auction House A is that I provided them solid proof from the player himself via Steiner, that the item was not used by him (Sent the item to Steiner to be authenticated by the player). A hand written name was found on the item during the authentication process at Steiner, which was not the player. After providing the proof, and numerous telephone calls and emails with Auction House A, they stated that the item was received from someone overseas, who they still believe is a reliable source, so they auctioned it with their LOA, and they still stand behind their source, even after I provided them solid proof from the player himself.

So let's recap: Auction House A receives item from a reliable source (which was proven not so reliable) overseas; Auction House A puts their own LOA on it; Auction House A sells the item; Player said they didn't use the item; another persons name is found on the item; Auction House A is provided this information; Auction House A still stands behind their overseas source and the item.

The right thing to do is what Auction House B did. We throw around words like Honesty, Integrity, and Ethics. When it comes to the all mighty dollar, those words seem to get smaller and smaller. I get so annoyed watching bad people defend bad people. But even more, it makes me sick to watch good people defend bad people. I’m not na�ve. I realize we don’t live in a perfect world.

I’m not looking for anything from Auction House A. Just sharing my experience. I don’t think myself or anyone else reading this needs to hear an explanation on why what occurred. The answer is a simple one - $$$$

packs · #2 03-02-2016, 08:07 AM

No AH has to issue an LOA. So to me if they choose to issue one with their company name on it, that should be honored.

SyrNy1960 · #3 03-02-2016, 10:03 AM

I would like to close this out with my goal here wasn't to trash Auction House A or anyone specific within the organization. I'm sure they did a lot of good things. This was my one time experience with them, which I thought was important to share, as many discuss issues with Auction House LOA's. This was more about Auction Houses LOA's and where does the accountability fall if an item is proven fake or not legit. I really hoped some Auction House people would have chimed in to maybe give their thoughts about it. With that being said, I'm out! Happy Collecting! Thanks!

dhernandez · #4 03-02-2016, 10:34 AM

If a AH writes a LOA for a specific item I fully agree in the argument that the LOA is binding. Those AHs which hire in-house writers are generating rubber stamp pieces of toilet paper by the masses. They make Lou Lampson look like Hemingway. Dave M. has been rubber stamping for years. At this point that company can save on $$ by buying Charmin vs high quality print paper to print Dave's pro assessments.

dhernandez · #5 03-02-2016, 10:47 AM

In addition I highly doubt Dave M. actually physically inspects each and every item. Every LOA says the same BS. Baseball is actually Dave M's forte and I for one am skeptical of Dave's all around knowledge of other team sports jersey authentication. Dave M has sold out for the buck but the ironic thing is his name actually devalues an item vs adding value (ala Lampson letters). Does not take much to fill in the lines on the same repetitive gibberish over and over. Hell even a monkey could do it.

Leon · #6 03-02-2016, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhernandez

In addition I highly doubt Dave M. actually physically inspects each and every item. Every LOA says the same BS. Baseball is actually Dave M's forte and I for one am skeptical of Dave's all around knowledge of other team sports jersey authentication. Dave M has sold out for the buck but the ironic thing is his name actually devalues an item vs adding value (ala Lampson letters). Does not take much to fill in the lines on the same repetitive gibberish over and over. Hell even a monkey could do it.

who is Dave M?

dhernandez · #7 03-02-2016, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

who is Dave M?

Dave Mustaine

Abeabe · #8 03-02-2016, 11:27 AM

LOAs don't hold the weight that COAs do. I do think the auction house should stand by their LOA, but I totally understand why they wouldn't. I would never trust an LOA solely if I was skeptical about item. There definitely shouldn't be an expiration date on any item found to be something other then what was advertised, with LOA or not.

yanks12025 · #9 03-02-2016, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhernandez

In addition I highly doubt Dave M. actually physically inspects each and every item. Every LOA says the same BS. Baseball is actually Dave M's forte and I for one am skeptical of Dave's all around knowledge of other team sports jersey authentication. Dave M has sold out for the buck but the ironic thing is his name actually devalues an item vs adding value (ala Lampson letters). Does not take much to fill in the lines on the same repetitive gibberish over and over. Hell even a monkey could do it.

Lampson letters don't add value to any item. If you see a item with his letter, then that item is probably 90% fake. He's a horrible authenticator and theres many threads on GUU about him and the junk he has given letters.

dhernandez · #10 03-02-2016, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Lampson letters don't add value to any item. If you see a item with his letter, then that item is probably 90% fake. He's a horrible authenticator and theres many threads on GUU about him and the junk he has given letters.

Your missing the point. I totally agree with Lou letters not adding value. Thus, the comparison.

WindyCityGameUsed · #11 03-03-2016, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhernandez

If a AH writes a LOA for a specific item I fully agree in the argument that the LOA is binding. Those AHs which hire in-house writers are generating rubber stamp pieces of toilet paper by the masses. They make Lou Lampson look like Hemingway. Dave M. has been rubber stamping for years. At this point that company can save on $$ by buying Charmin vs high quality print paper to print Dave's pro assessments.

Another spot on post David!!

I think this picture sums things up rather nicely

SyrNy1960 · #12 03-03-2016, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhernandez

If a AH writes a LOA for a specific item I fully agree in the argument that the LOA is binding. Those AHs which hire in-house writers are generating rubber stamp pieces of toilet paper by the masses. They make Lou Lampson look like Hemingway. Dave M. has been rubber stamping for years. At this point that company can save on $$ by buying Charmin vs high quality print paper to print Dave's pro assessments.

One has to wonder just how much stuff in collections are truly legit. Truly sad!

drcy · #13 03-03-2016, 01:04 PM

An important question concerning the gloves is what was the description at the sale. Apparently the sale doesn't guarantee they belonged to the player and say they are going on heresay. If the original auction said pretty much the same ("These are player model gloves, but we don't have proof they were used by the player.), then then that's that. I've read big auction house auction descriptions where they say the believe the bat may have been used by the player or speculate that the memento belonged to the famous person, but they have no definitive proof.

As I said, a collector can't rerwrite what the LOA (or auction description) says.

Years back, I actually consigned to SCGaynor on eBay a football player's shoes that come with letter of provenance from a reputable source (a longtime coach) and were supposedly game used. I'm no game used collector or expert, but a collector specialist of that team said on the GUU board the coach was reputable and honest, though the coach collected the game used shoes (meaning he had a bunch or even mass of them) and it's always possible he could accidentally mix up the player name versus number on the shoes. The coach's letter detailed how he got the shoes from the team and guaranteed they were authentic. I'd seen MEARS give LOAs for shoes with the coach's provenance/loa, so I figured they too thought the provenance good. However, I searched NLF game images to find a match, but couldn't. The problem was I could only find images from some a fraction of the games (I'm no Getty or Corbis search master), the player wore the same brand but changed the style about every other game and he always heavily taped up his shoes so it was sometimes hard to tell for sure even if he wore the same exact shoes. But, as I said, I could find neither a photo match or even an exact style match.

In Gaynor eBay auction description, it said the shoes were the correct size and brand, had the correct number handwritten on them, had obvious wear, detailed the LOA from the coach and also included the clipped out auction catalog page where I got them (a reputable enough autograph auction house). But it also specifically gave the strong caveat that, despite searching, no photo matches were found. I thought it gave all the relevant information to bidders, warts and all, good and bad. In fact, i thought it was honest enough it might scare away some bidders.

The funny thing is the shoes sold for much more than I expected. Perhaps the winner was more of an expert and knew more than Gaynor or I, or perhaps the provided paperwork was enough for that collector. Perhaps the winner was able to find a photomatch. I don't know.

But you can bet what I would say in Gaynor's defense if 10 years later someone came back for a refund because "I can't find a photomatch." The shoes were specifically sold under the description that no photomatches were found and bidders should bid with that in consideration.

SyrNy1960 · #14 03-03-2016, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drcy

An important question concerning the gloves is what was the description at the sale. Apparently the sale doesn't guarantee they belonged to the player and say they are going on heresay. If the original auction said pretty much the same ("These are player model gloves, but we don't have proof they were used by the player.), then then that's that. I've read big auction house auction descriptions where they say the believe the bat may have been used by the player or speculate that the memento belonged to the famous person, but they have no definitive proof.

As I said, a collector can't rerwrite what the LOA (or auction description) says.

Years back, I actually consigned to SCGaynor on eBay a football player's shoes that come with letter of provenance from a reputable source (a coach) and were supposedly game used. I'm no game used collector or expert, but a collector specialist of that team said on the GUU board the coach was reputable and honest, though the coach collected the game used shoes (meaning he had a bunch or even mass of them) and it's always possible he could accidentally mix up the player name versus number on the shoes. The coach's letter detailed how he got the shoes from the team and guaranteed they were authentic. I'd seen MEARS give LOAs for shoes with the same provenance/loa, so I figured they too at least thought the provenance credible. However, I searched and searched NLF images to find a match, but couldn't. The problem was I could only find images from some a fraction of the games (I'm not Getty or Corbis search master), the player wore the same brand but changed the style about every other game and he he always heavily taped up his shoes so it was sometimes hard to tell for sure even if he worse the same exact shoes. But I could find neither a photo match or even an exact style match.

In Gaynor eBay auction description, it said the shoes were the correct size and brand, had the correct number handwritten on them, had obvious wear, detailed the LOA from the coach and also included the clipped out auction catalog page where I got them (a reputable enough autograph auction house). But it also specifically gave the strong caveat that, despite searching, no photo matches were found. I thought it gave all the relevant information to bidders, warts and all, good and bad. In fact, i thought it was honest enough it might scare away some bidders.

The funny thing is the shoes sold for much more than I expected. Perhaps the winner was more of an expert and knew more than Gaynor or I, or perhaps the provided paperwork was enough for that collector. Perhaps the winner was able to find a photomatch. I don't know.

But you can bet what I would say in Gaynor's defense if 10 years later someone came back for a refund because "I can't find a photomatch." The shoes were specifically sold under the description that no photomatches were found and bidders should bid with that in consideration.

.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Auction Houses that sell retail items	brooklynbaseball	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	10-13-2010 05:02 PM
VCP and auction houses	smtjoy	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	30	04-09-2010 06:49 PM
Auction Houses-Going, Going..Gone?	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	121	02-13-2009 12:05 PM
WOW, who needs auction houses!?!	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	23	07-30-2007 04:10 AM
Auction houses.....	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	13	05-12-2005 01:26 PM