Posted By:
davidcyclebackSome of my thoughts on LOAs.
1) What matters by far the most is the accuracy of the letter. If the letter's description is accurate, all the other stuff is technicalities. If the letter is bad, then the other stuff may prove to be of more significance.
2) While it doesn't bother me that the owner is writing the LOA, it would be a reasonable practice for letter writer to note that he is the owner. If that's the accepted rule, I think that's good. If SCDA discloses ownership and makes their disclosure rules clear, there you go.
3) Ownership does not prevent an LOA from being good. I recently bought a photograph from a famous photographer that he literally printed for me, signed and dated upon my request (not because he thought I'm a swell guy, but because I paid him $$). If some person down the road wanted to buy it from me and asked me to write an LOA with said story, am I to say, "Sorry. It would be considered unethical if I wrote that down on paper"?
4) Some may consider it desirable if an auction lot was owned and consigned by a well known figure. I'm sure many bat collectors would find it desirable the a bat came from Dave Bushing's personal collection. The irony is that, in cases, an auction house's disclosure that a bat was being consigned by Bushing may raise interest.
5) I forgot what I was going to say here but, as I recall, it was brilliant yet quite mad.
6) My pet peave about the baseball memorabilia hobby is some institutions inability to communicate with the normal collectors about things the collectors should know about. If SCDA (I'm guessing at the acronym here) puts in new rules to disclose more to collectors, that's a good thing in my mind. It seems to me that Troy posting here is a good sign too, as far as communication goes.
7) I'm sick of baseball bats. Take this over to the bat forum.