What happens when JSA changes their mind???

[Mr. Zipper]

Like all humans, all authenticators make mistakes. No one has a 1000% batting average, including the outspoken members in this thread.

And, if an authenticator is good, he or she should always be learning. Yep... sometimes you learn to identify a deceptive fake style that may have slipped by in the past. Ideally, this is a very small percentage for credible authenticators, but only a fool or liar claims to be perfect.

I have no opinion if this Robinson is good or bad. But assuming it is suspect and JSA made a mistake the first time, should they continue to approve a style they now know is suspect?

How many of you think every professional judgement you ever made was 100% correct and given the opportunity would never change anything? Let's see a show of hands.

In full disclosure, I am a professional authenticator who gets paid to provide opinions <GASP>. JSA is one of my clients.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Like all humans, all authenticators make mistakes. No one has a 1000% batting average, including the outspoken members in this thread.

And, if an authenticator is good, he or she should always be learning. Yep... sometimes you learn to identify a deceptive fake style that may have slipped by in the past. Ideally, this is a very small percentage for credible authenticators, but only a fool or liar claims to be perfect.

I have no opinion if this Robinson is good or bad. But assuming it is suspect and JSA made a mistake the first time, should they continue to approve a style they now know is suspect?

How many of you think every professional judgement you ever made was 100% correct and given the opportunity would never change anything? Let's see a show of hands.

In full disclosure, I am a professional authenticator who gets paid to provide opinions <GASP>. JSA is one of my clients.

Steve, you took the words right out of my mouth.

How many of those who sell autographs or who give opinions today, would deem those same autographs forgeries that they passed 5, 10 or 15 years ago?

Whether it's Jeter, Mantle, DiMaggio, etc., there are some-variation of autographs that I might have had trouble with five years ago that today I would dismiss in a millisecond and I continue to improve my eye.

That's the key; continuing the knowledge that we have and improving on it.

Great write-up, Steve.

[botn]

The buyer relied on the LOA by JSA that the sig was authentic when making the purchase. Seems either JSA or the house should refund the buyer. The item pictured in the first post is in fact the same item that was in the auction.

Two submissions to JSA and two opinions. If their recent assessment is the right one then yes it is reassuring to know they are willing to correct a previous error but the buyer is now out some money. Do we know if JSA knew they had previously authenticated it for the auction house? If not then that shows how little credibility should be placed in an opinion.

There is an interesting thread http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218934 on the main board about LOA's and their validity.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by botn

The buyer relied on the LOA by JSA that the sig was authentic when making the purchase. Seems either JSA or the house should refund the buyer. The item pictured in the first post is in fact the same item that was in the auction.

Two submissions to JSA and two opinions. If their recent assessment is the right one then yes it is reassuring to know they are willing to correct a previous error but the buyer is now out some money. Do we know if JSA knew they had previously authenticated it for the auction house? If not then that shows how little credibility should be placed in an opinion.

There is an interesting thread http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218934 on the main board about LOA's and their validity.

Thanks for that link, there is a lot of relevance there and a lot of good arguments.

I will echo here what drcy says so well in that thread: These are not really LOAs, they are LOOS, meaning that they communicate opinions only. Furthermore, it would be a mistake for any issuer of these opinions to become insurers of the item or any selling price. As such, JSA should never have to refund any purchase price for anything. There should be loss of credibility of their opinion (and there probably is, though around here it is negligible due to the low baseline opinion of those authenticators).

The auction house is another story. If I were your friend, I would consign the postcard to the original auction and see what transpires.

[David Atkatz]

That's all true, Steve. But what of the collector who purchased a piece based on an authenticator's opinion, who now is told--by that self-same authenticator--that he owns a forgery? The authenticator is not affected in the slightest. He made his money. But the collector is screwed.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's all true, Steve. But what of the collector who purchased a piece based on an authenticator's opinion, who now is told--by that self-same authenticator--that he owns a forgery? The authenticator is not affected in the slightest. He made his money. But the collector is screwed.

The authenticator made their money not once, but twice! Maybe send it to them a third time...


Of course that's a joke. The only issue I take with your post here is that he has not been told that he owns a forgery, he has been told that the authenticator has changed their opinion. Hopefully, the buyer has changed their own opinion of that authenticator.

And who knows, maybe they get that lesson AND an authentic autograph! Anyone want to give their own opinion of this example?

I will reiterate that I think this collector should consign the item to the original auction house.

[mighty bombjack]

I will also add that, while I'd like to hold it in hand, of course, I would inquire about the price if I were in the market for an authentic Robinson. Looks good to me from here.

[whiteymet]

Hi Guys:

Since I started this thread I wanted to comment on a few things said above by others.

Steve: I think you are correct that authenticators should increase their learning. It is best for the hobby and those that need/want authentication services. However, as Greg said, my friend bought this at auction based on JSA saying it was legit. Seems to me once a LOA is issued they should stand behind it in one form or another.

Greg: interesting question if JSA knew they authenticated it before. I have reached out to REA for an answer to that question. I know I left the original LOA with the Robinson PC with REA. I will be interested to find out the answer.

Wayne: I don't think it would be honest for my friend to consign it with the original auction house knowing that JSA now says it is not legit. Others should not have to go through what he is going through.

Curious if anyone has consigned an items with a LOA and also notes in the description that a later examination of the same item by the same authenticator now does not think it authentic. What would buyers think?

Would an auction house with ties to JSA even list an item this way where it sort of throws egg on the face of JSA? Just wondering.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Wayne: I don't think it would be honest for my friend to consign it with the original auction house knowing that JSA now says it is not legit. Others should not have to go through what he is going through.

Why would it be dishonest? He needn't lie to them. He should just explain the situation, adding that he bought the item through them and would now like to sell the item through them. Make them justify their unwillingness to sell the same thing they already sold once.

The item hasn't changed, after all.

Edited to add honest question: Does your friend think the autograph is authentic?

[Lordstan]

So, This type of stuff is certainly frustrating, but mistakes do happen. Now the real test for all involved is what happens next. Will the original AH take the item back now that it failed? If not, will JSA make him whole because he bought it based on their opinion?
I have no issue with someone giving an opinion. However, if you charge top dollar, or any amount for that matter, for your opinion because you promote yourself as an expert, you better be ready to stand behind mistakes you made, even the honest ones, that caused another person financial harm because of a decision that person made based on your opinion. After all, doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, and other have gotten sued and held accountable for problems people have had based on decisions made as a result of their opinions. So why not auction houses?

If either the original AH or JSA do stand up and make the buyer whole, then they deserve the credit for doing so. Let's see what happens.

This situation does bring up an interesting question. What would Sotheby's or Christie's do if they sold a Van Gogh or similar that was later proven to be fake? Would they refund the money or would they refer the person to the expert they used to authenticate the item for restitution? If the AH refunded the money, would they ask for a refund from the authenticator that was used? I wonder what is the standard?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's all true, Steve. But what of the collector who purchased a piece based on an authenticator's opinion, who now is told--by that self-same authenticator--that he owns a forgery? The authenticator is not affected in the slightest. He made his money. But the collector is screwed.

Good point, David, but that has been part of the evolution of both "autograph authentication" and our own improving-knowledge.

It's part of the arena that will deal in and enjoy.

[Mr. Zipper]

What's missing from this discussion is the concept of risk. Autograph collecting is a risky hobby. There is a tremendous amount of fraud and the barriers to entry are low. Minting a fake coin or printing a counterfeit baseball card is difficult and expensive. Not so with putting a pen to paper.

Every collector should understand that they are accepting some level of risk by participating in this hobby. If your stockbroker recommends an investment in good faith that doesn't do well, do you expect him or her to "make you whole?" If you lose a case in court, do you expect your lawyer to pay the tab?

You can build a solid collection and minimize risk by using all the tools at your disposal: buying from reputable sources, employing a credible authenticator, networking with other knowledgable collectors and using common sense. But there are no guarantees in life!

If anyone would be positioned to make you whole, that would be the seller subject to reasonable limits. They sold and profited from the item.

The authenticator is not a guarantor and does not indemnify. If they make too many mistakes, their reputation and business should suffer accordingly. If you expect TPAs to indemnify, prepare for massive price increases and even more reluctance to "correct past mistakes."

When I first entered this hobby over 20 years ago, a wise and experienced collector told me, "Everyone gets fooled once in a while. It's the price of admission to this hobby. What you want to do is take steps to make that price of admission as low as possible."

[Leon]

Here is a card guys view.

If I sell a card raw and I say it's good, and it turns out to be not good. I give a refund. I guess I don't understand why an autograph company would't refund the original money to authenticate the item when they have now admitted a mistake in their own authenticating. So basically, they make a mistake, admit it and keep your money? How does that make sense again?

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Leon

I guess I don't understand why an autograph company would't refund the original money to authenticate the item when they have now admitted a mistake in their own authenticating. So basically, they make a mistake, admit it and keep your money? How does that make sense again?

Leon - I think we were discussing the authenticator reimbursing the buyer for the item itself.

In my opinion, the authenticator refunding or waiving the authentication fee is reasonable.

[sbfinley]

I'm a supporter of the major TPA's, but that being said, if one is going to backtrack on a previous opinion they themselves rendered then they should make the owner whole for what he/she has into the item.

[Leon]

I think I was "skim reading" which isn't very good for debate. So if the seller can't be found, and someone is stuck with an autograph the TPG now says is bad, after they said it was good, why wouldn't they refund the current owner? They have still admitted a mistake. (if the item can be positively identified as the one with the LOA). But maybe this was discussed too.

I do agree with the risk assessment. Anyone into heavy collecting understands there is some risk (or they eventually will).

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Leon - I think we were discussing the authenticator reimbursing the buyer for the item itself.

In my opinion, the authenticator refunding or waiving the authentication fee is reasonable.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by Leon

Here is a card guys view.

If I sell a card raw and I say it's good, and it turns out to be not good. I give a refund. I guess I don't understand why an autograph company would't refund the original money to authenticate the item when they have now admitted a mistake in their own authenticating. So basically, they make a mistake, admit it and keep your money? How does that make sense again?

So one of my old friends used to be in the music industry and has pictures with all these celebrities. He used to work marketing. One of the people he worked with was Michael Jackson. He has photos with him and had tons of signatures. He never parted with ANY of these but I was able to pry one away that seems like it got stuck to the backing of the frame from heat and wouldn't come off. Still cost be 500 to get it from him. I knew without a shadow of a doubt this thing is real. I go to JSA and James says..."Unfortunately this is a bad forgery". I don't understand how they can say that to something that's real. I'm no expert at all with autographs (FARRRRRR from it) but stuff like this gets me so angry.

With the Jackie, they shoudl 100% refund it! no questions asked. and JSA should pay something too. just my 3 cents.

[RichardSimon]

Just a couple of points I want to make:
1 - In my opinion the seller of the item should always be responsible for a refund if the item comes into question. The seller has the money from the buyer. The seller hired the authenticator and should bear the ultimate responsibility.
2 - In my opinion this autograph is authentic.
3 - Just to post a second opinion about this autograph, I showed the scan to the best person on the planet on Jackie autographs (in my opinion), he is a private collector with a huge collection of Jackie autographs and his opinion is that he believes the autograph is authentic.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

So one of my old friends used to be in the music industry and has pictures with all these celebrities. He used to work marketing. One of the people he worked with was Michael Jackson. He has photos with him and had tons of signatures. He never parted with ANY of these but I was able to pry one away that seems like it got stuck to the backing of the frame from heat and wouldn't come off. Still cost be 500 to get it from him. I knew without a shadow of a doubt this thing is real. I go to JSA and James says..."Unfortunately this is a bad forgery". I don't understand how they can say that to something that's real. I'm no expert at all with autographs (FARRRRRR from it) but stuff like this gets me so angry.

With the Jackie, they shoudl 100% refund it! no questions asked. and JSA should pay something too. just my 3 cents.

If he indeed called it a forgery, than he was overstepping, but these companies are good at saying "likely not genuine" and then giving a laundry list of generic reasons why they may or may not have deemed it such. It is maddening, clearly so when this message is sent to someone who (even stronger than n the case you give) actually got the item IP. However, we have gone through this on these boards before; we all acknowledge that no authenticator is perfect, and that false negatives are desirable to false positives.

Enjoy your MJ autograph in your knowledge that it is real. It is just going to be difficult to sell for a good price if the "experts" don't like it, unfortunately.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

What's missing from this discussion is the concept of risk...

This is spot on and why I asked this question above: What is the purchaser's opinion of the item itself?

If we are not interested in that question, then we are abdicating the judgement of an item's authenticity wholly to the alphabets, something most people on these boards are loathe to do. If the buyer thinks this is legit, he should go back to the original auction house and say so, telling them to resell it regardless of who has changed their minds (he will probably be unsuccessful, but at least he will be able to stand on principle and have an argument that the auction house, if unable to resell, should refund the original purchase price due to the fact that they profited from what THEY THEMSELVES think is an inauthentic item). If he now thinks the item is bogus, he should admit his acceptance of risk and then look in the mirror and slap himself for abdicating to the alphabets in the first place.

Just my opinion

[mighty bombjack]

I still think the autograph is good, but no one seems to care about that question here, which has become the most fascinating aspect (amongst many) in this for me.