Posted By:
Hankron I have noticed that, on average, the autographs I sell sell for more if I DO NOT provide a letter of authenticity.
Along with my usual photos and other wares, I regularly sell a wide variety of mostly obscure autographed items (No Ruths or Cobbs). With or without an LOA, I guarantee the authenticity (can be returned at any time if deemed fake), have a 10 day Review/return period, detail the autograph's provenance (Mike Gutierrez, PSA/DNA, Mastro, Sotheby's etc) and provide detailed images. I also recommend that the winner prints out the eBay page for their records.
In general, I have not found a benifit in providing and advertising that I will provide a paper LOA or letter provenance (i.e. "this picture auto came from a Gutierrez auction"), versus not provideing one. In fact, I auctioned three identical Koufax/Ryan/Feller balls, two without an LOA and one with. The two without sold for $125, the one with sold for $75. I should also point out that I have not found a financial benifit for providing a LOA from a prominant autograph expert, like PSA/DNA or Sotheby's (again, I mostly deal in esoteric autographs, and not selling Christy Mathewsons or James Dean).
Now, a few winners will specifically ask that I provide a LOA for their records, and I happily comply. But, for example, a potential bidder asked why I didn't provide an LOA for a particular under auction autograph, and I said, "Because my autographs generally sell better if I don't offer one."
I end by saying that I also have found this trend surprising (only applying it to my personal selling experience, and readers should not interpret it that I am extrapolating it beyond my personal sales), but, as I'm the one calculating the sales checks as the come in, I cannot despute the numbers.