Does SGC know how to authenticate photo content? [Archive]

View Full Version : Does SGC know how to authenticate photo content?

Archive

04-20-2009, 05:24 PM

Posted By: Mark FimoffThis is related to an earlier thread: <a href="http://tiny.cc/Z6uhD" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://tiny.cc/Z6uhD</a> <img src="http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/4acf5435.png" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

04-20-2009, 05:30 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaNice detective work Mark. Now we need to know exactly what happened here. Why did SGC put Wilkinson's name on that holder? What evidence was presented to them that compelled them to authenticate it as such?

Archive

04-20-2009, 06:20 PM

Posted By: BrianAs is mentioned in the article, I have been in communication with Rob Lifson to correct this label. I was able to e-mail a little back and forth with Mark last week as well. While I won't get into specifics so as to protect the privacy of the issue, I will say that both Rob and I are confident that this will be resolved easily in the coming days. The authentication of these obscure pieces can be difficult, and when such items are submitted, we always request documentation to support the submitter's claims. The information, coupled with our independent research, is presented to the graders who evaluate everything they have and make the determination on how an item is labeled. There will be many customers, including a few on this board, who can attest to our desire to be as accurate as possible when it comes to pieces like this. We routinely decline to label pieces as requested based on the graders' comfort level with the information which has been presented to them. I can't comment on the specific documentation used to support this piece because I don't have any knowledge of it. What I can say, though, is that the graders undoubtedly considered everything they were presented and made a good faith decision based on what they saw from the submitter and the supporting information to proceed with the Wilkinson identification. We strive for the utmost accuracy and never intentionally make mistakes. This does not appear to have been an egregious misidentification--if that was the case, I do believe that REA would have opted not to run the piece as identified in their 2008 auction. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to call or email me. Thank you, Brian Dwyer SGC 1-800-742-9212 x114

Archive

04-20-2009, 06:25 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaI for one would be interested in knowing what evidence was submitted to SGC. This card was sold on ebay without any provenance at all prior to its appearance in the REA auction.

Archive

04-20-2009, 07:05 PM

Posted By: Mark FimoffI appreciate Brian responding on the forum - not an easy thing to do. I usually like to stick to fact based analysis but from observation let me speculate and make a couple of very generalized points with respect to auctions of some of these early baseball photos 1) Auctioneers (and apparently authenticators) lack the in depth historical knowledge and basic facial ID skills that would aid in many of these identifications 2) Since there are relatively few photos like this auctioned compared to the volume of, say, cards, the cost of having such expertise on staff does not make sense 3) As a result, auction houses and authenticators are highly dependent on the claims of the consignor or some prior seller in the chain, some of whom are taking advantage of the situation Keep in mind that I have very few Negro league related resources in my collection, but it took me about a minute to find a photo of Wilkerson that showed the ear mismatch 100% determinative - case closed. The height issue took about an hour to check out. Of course contacting the family took several days - but still it was not difficult.

Archive

04-21-2009, 06:20 AM

Posted By: Phil GarryYou make a lot of good points, Mark. As we all know, mistakes do happen and Brian and SGC should be commended for their willingness to review the evidence and make a public statement as soon as it was prudent and based on Brian's statement, SGC is clearly working towards making the matter right. Rob Lifson should also me recognized for his efforts to rectify things as well. As Brian mentioned, I am one of the Net 54 members that has had a number of "unique" real photo postcards, team issues, cabinet cards, etc. that have been graded/authenticated by SGC as 1/1's in their population report at the time. I can speak to the fact that SGC always has required "indisputable" documentation from me in each and every case. This documentation has included player photos from similar time period for comparison, stats from baseball-reference.com or similar websites, biographical information from websites such as wikipedia and other such resources that would help identify and date the piece. One thing that is a little bit different with many of my items submitted is that they are often team photos and as long as all of the information presents a conclusive decision, SGC will identify the year of issue and team on their label but will almost never include any individual players that are pictured on the team piece. I believe this is done to protect them from any chance of misidentification and subsequent liability. In spite of the J.L. Wilkinson mix-up, SGC is probably 99% on the money with these types of items and I would much rather see them continue to handle them in the same manner as I have described in detail above rather than adopting PSA's informal policy "If it's not catalogued, we don't grade it".

Archive

04-21-2009, 08:12 AM

Posted By: Dan BrettaThat's good to hear Phil, but they should NOT be relying on Wikipedia for anything. Anyone can edit that site. I have seen errors on the baseball pages.

Archive

04-21-2009, 08:48 AM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffSeems like whoever it was that presented the incorrect information (presumably the consignor) should bear some responsibility here as well. Who presented the identification "evidence" and did they present it to SGC via REA, or directly to SGC themselves? My experience with both REA and SGC is that both have been very good about making it right when there's been a mistake. That's been my personal experience. Not sure if that's how it is for everyone else, but from what I've seen, I think it is. Is the consignor as good at making it right when there's been a mistake? I guess that's between the auction house and the consignor. Everyone makes mistakes and sometimes people legitimately misidentify a player they believe to be someone else. Still, in an ideal world we'd be able to know who is responsible for ID errors like this. One mistake is just a mistake. Everybody gets a mulligan. But if it's a pattern where the same person repeatedly misidentifies players, especially in photos they are trying to profit from, it would be nice to know that. It would also be nice to have the power of flight (that's levitation, holmes) or invisibility, but all of those things are merely fantasies. Also, are we sure it isn't Josh Gibson? I think it might be. I also think there's a strong resemblance to Joe Jackson. Perhaps it is Ty Cobb dressing up like Joe Jackson pretending to be Josh Gibson pitching. Man, think of all the money the consignor left on the table by only identifying it as Wilkinson! -Ryan

Archive

04-21-2009, 10:22 AM

Posted By: Mark FimoffIts good to have the consignor provide evidence to support his claim, but the authenticator has to know how independently find his own evidence. This is includes at least a good library of selected books, as well as knowing what is available on the internet and there is quite a lot but of course some of these have errors, including a small percentage of the Library of Congress photos. Good knowledge of the baseball history of the relevent time period is required. Also, having a personal network of baseball historians that you can access is a big plus. For 2 dollars plus postage on amazon.com I quickly found Janet Bruces book on the KC Monarchs which was very helpful in researching this photo. For a high dollar photo knowing how to access online genealogical services to try to find family members can be useful. HoF can also be helpful but they dont work for free. Of course for a $300 - $500 photo it may not be worth the effort, but for a potential $3000-$5000 photo, I would think that it is.

Archive

04-21-2009, 10:35 AM

Posted By: Dan BrettaSomeone at SGC needs to step forward here and tell us what happened. From what I have now heard both Rob and the consignor are making this right, but SGC is taking ZERO responsibility for authenticating the photo. The postcard was encapsulated only a little over a year ago..surely someone at SGC remembers this?

Archive

04-21-2009, 12:02 PM

Posted By: BrianDan, I think it's pretty far fetched to say that "SGC is taking ZERO responsibility for authenticating the photo". In my first response here, I acknowledged that I've been communicating with Rob Lifson and Mark on this issue. Rob has been gracious enough to take the lead on this particular issue because he has access to the consignor and the buyer of the card. We have to rely on him to help us with these steps of the transaction so that we can get the card back. I spoke to him this morning, and this is already in motion. We see a tremendous amount of items in the course of a year. I can only say that the documentation provided at the time of the submission satisfied the graders' burden of proof to label the item as Wilkinson. We now know that this identification was in error, so we've responded appropriately by refunding the purchase price and awaiting the return of the card to correct the label. Brian Dwyer SGC 1-800-742-9212 x114

Archive

04-21-2009, 12:24 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaSo SGC is refunding the purchase price in the REA auction?

Archive

04-21-2009, 01:00 PM

Posted By: JasonWhy don't you let the parties involved figure this out before you bust out the torches and pitchforks.

Archive

04-21-2009, 01:06 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaThanks Jason. Without this board it would have never gotten sorted out to begin with. Sometimes public pressure can help to get things done quicker. Especially when you're getting two different stories. Almost every change for the better in the Sports auction industry is a result of public pressure from this board.

Archive

04-21-2009, 01:13 PM

Posted By: Mark FimoffJason - this is absolutely not just a matter for the parties. And, this is not the only expensive wrongly identified auction photo that has come up recently. I do understand that Brian just may not be able to reveal details - there may be even some serious legal issues involved with respect to whoever made the claims about this photo. And, I think my second post likely gives a good picture of what happened. But going forward, some combination of auctioneer/authenticator that knows how to evaluate photo content independently of the consignor is needed.

Archive

04-21-2009, 01:38 PM

Posted By: Matt"Almost every change for the better in the Sports auction industry is a result of public pressure from this board." Dan - I agree with that and it's something we should all be proud off. <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/mwieder" rel="nofollow">My Trade/Sale Page</a>

Archive

04-21-2009, 01:46 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaThose guys work for us. The auction houses, SGC, PSA...we pay their salaries. I've got nothing against SGC as I think they're far and above a better outfit in EVERY respect than PSA, but it's very important to know what happened here and that it won't happen again. I didn't even know that SGC was in the business of identifying people in photos. Because people respect the opinion of SGC this postcard sold for $3,600 more than it did on ebay before it was slabbed.

Archive

04-21-2009, 01:59 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI agree with Dan that the business of photo identification is a tricky one. It's fine to offer opinions that one feels very strongly about, but when SGC slabs a photo, that is the same as a guarantee. I think it's a business they may want to rethink. I predict this will not be the last instance of this kind.

Archive

04-21-2009, 02:18 PM

Posted By: BrianShort of the consignor, I've spoken with all parties involved. I won't comment any more except to say that this issue has been resolved. Thank you, Brian Dwyer SGC 1-800-742-9212 x114

Archive

04-24-2009, 07:40 PM

Posted By: Mark FimoffA few days ago Barry said: "I predict this will not be the last instance of this kind." So, here's another instance from the current Goodwin auction-- <img src="http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/c2be75ae.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/3c91bdb0.png" alt="[linked image]"> HoF'er Harry Hooper is a very well known figure who played on series of excellent 1910's Red Sox teams that won 4 World Series. Anyone who has no idea what he looks like should not be authenticating photos. Edited to add: This information was given to SGC this morning and also to Goodwin early this afternoon. SGC said they would look into it and contact Goodwin.

Archive

04-24-2009, 08:40 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaThey got Ruth right!

Archive

04-24-2009, 09:32 PM

Posted By: Tim CatheyMark I admire your expertise and desire to have these items slabbed correctly. At the same time I admire Brians resolve in making SGC as reputable a name in authenticating as there is in the hobby by righting these wrongs. Given the chance I think SGC will make these things right and through your work will make them more dilagent in correctly identifying players.

Archive

04-24-2009, 09:53 PM

Posted By: Mark FimoffThanks for your comment Tim. What you describe is the goal, and I do presume SGC is quite good at other types of authentication. At this point in time, I don't think they and others have been carefully checking faces, etc. They are either putting too much faith in consignors, or, as in this case, going with what appears to be vintage identifications on the piece without confirmation. I would also say, that like grading and authenticating cards, it requires a particular type of knowledge and set of resources. I think Brian Dwyer appreciates the problem.

Archive

04-24-2009, 10:06 PM

Posted By: Tim CatheyI think that people like yourself bringing these things to light and showing that standards aren't what they should be are exactly what the hobby needs. With that being said, from all we've seen since Brian has come aboard at SGC, his attention to correcting wrongs has been well above the norm in the TPG industry. Maybe the Ruth card was authenticated before his watch. Never the less it is his company now and how he handles the situation is paramount. His track record leads me to believe it will be corrected to the satisfaction of all involved. I think given the input of people like yourself and the willingness of TPG's to listen, the hobby will benifit in the long run. Edited: Speeling

Archive

04-25-2009, 07:41 AM

Posted By: leonThanks for your expert and exhaustive work. It can only make the hobby better. Thanks to SGC too for doing the right thing when a mistake happens. No auction company or grading company is perfect. It's how these mistakes are handled that makes a good company, imho.

Archive

04-25-2009, 09:53 AM

Posted By: MarkHey Leon - nice picture in the latest Old Cardboard - but is that really you? (:

Archive

04-25-2009, 10:31 AM

Posted By: leonYes, it's me in OldCarboard. After about 5 yrs I finally made it to collector status. There's a monkey off of my back!!