[Archive]

Posted By: Joseph

Great post! Rational, well-thought-out arguments, but, in the end, very sad.

This third party grading situation is getting more and more like Alice in Wonderland
every day. Like, read THIS disclaimer from a Ruth ball (Lot 1509) from the Mastro auction:

(The relic's legitimacy is so certain, in our view, that Mastro Auctions is presenting the Mint-condition gem without a PSA letter, as that company declined to provide one.) LOA from James Spence Authentication.

The lot was withdrawn despite the "so certain" legitimacy because, according to an e-mail from Allen, James Spence "was not comfortable with the autograph." Maybe it's more like Spy vs. Spy.

I don't read this board as often as I once did, so forgive me if there already was a discussion about Robert Lifson's excellent blog post (on REA's site) about authentication. While I might not agree with his arguments from a legal perspective, I SO love his notion that IF YOU DON'T BUY THE PREMISE of third party authentication, then DON"T BUY AUTOGRAPHS (or baseball cards). Amen.