Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty
If they wanted to strive to the highest standard in the industry, they would take steps to prevent the glaring mistakes. they don't do that, which tells me they aren't serious in getting it right.
heritage insisted on tagging auction items that were up for live internet bidding with a jsa auction loa when jsa hadnt seen the items yet. that is not striving for anything. they only changed their minds when people complained and got banned from heritage. heritage's excuse at the time is that it would cost too much money to fix and that is how big auction houses do business and that the little guy wouldn't understand that. It cost too much to fix?? This is Heritage with hundreds of millions in sales.
jsa and psa still don't fix their mistakes, they don't hire enough authenticators, they don't spend enough time on autographs, they don't tell you who looks at the autograph. they don't show exemplars, they don't tell you exactly why the autograph failed. how is any of this striving for the highest standard? and where is my glass house?
autograph authentication can be done in a positive way with reforms and accountability, but I haven't seen it yet. I am not against autograph authentication, just the way it is being done now.
|
People don't generally get banned for questioning a Heritage policy or auction lot. They usually get banned for acting like idiots. I know Chris fairly well, and while he might be a bit stubborn (hi Chris), he is fair. If anyone gets banned it's not for politely calling their attention to something. And I am not going to debate it. I know Chris well enough to know.....