Quote:
Originally Posted by Vintagedegu
http://www.colossalauctions.net/Certification.html
This makes no sense whatsoever. The whole thing is goofy, but here's a sample-
"These authenticators may certify only 5% to 10% of all high end items that are submitted to them by customers. That means that on the other hand, between 90 to 95% of all high end items that are submitted to them are forgeries. Even if the odds were substancially lower, it would be highly unlikely that the large volume of items that pass through these authenticator's hands are forgeries. Surely these so called forgeries would have to be done on an assembly line by experts. There are not that many expert forgers around that could produce such a high volume of individual and unique forgeries anyway. It can't be that lucrative of a business nowadays, to forge items that wouldn't pass close examination, it just doesn't make sense. Maybe at one time in the past it was lucrative, but now there is a much better quality of reputable authentication services that can detect these forgeries."
I don't like the good-ol-boy autograph network with the big auction houses and alphabet soup companies, but pointing out the other guys' faults doesn't say anything about your own position.
|
Out of curiosity I clicked through to their "Certification and Authenticity" page, and aside from the many grammatical errors and laughable statements like "it can't be that lucrative of a business nowadays," I find it odd that in the 4 hours or so since the quote above was made, as of 5:28 PM CST, the percentages were changed in that paragraph to:
"These authenticators may only certify up to 20% of all high end items that are submitted to them by individuals. So in their mind, the other 80% are forgeries."
Are they re-writing their in-house CoA rant in response to postings on this board? Or is the timing of that re-write merely a coincidence? Makes me wonder what else changed in the meantime, but since that was the only paragraph quoted, I'll never know.