Wow - Genuine Action in Cleaning Up the Hobby

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I'm really shocked by this and wanted to give it more prominence. Jeff D had posted it in the Mastro/FBI thread and I think it may be overlooked there b/c that thread is so long.

Am I being naive or missing something here? Because MEARS is saying they will not do business in 2008 with ANY auction house that does not agree to the terms in the first link - including full disclosure of ownership of auction items, published policies against owner bidding, full disclosure of any alterations to items including cards, and disclosure of MEARS opinions even if negative or problematic - and all of these disclosures in their auction catalogs and online descriptions. And agreement to short-notice audits by MEARS to assure they are complying.

Wow. This is everything this board has been talking about. MEARS is telling the auction houses how they (meaning the houses) have to operate in order to do business with MEARS. From what I can tell it looks like they intend the policy to apply to all items in an auction, not just those advertised as MEARS authenticated? Not sure on that one.

And I guess I'll start the discussion by saying that now I wish I knew more about the memorabilia side of things. I hate to sound so dumb, but is MEARS the 800-lb gorilla in the mem auth industry that can make this work? Has the process of clean-up started from (at least in my opinion) an unlikely source? Who would think anyone would have the ability to sway the practices of the major houses? Has this been out forever and you all knew about it already?

All I know is that I will check anxiously on November 11 to see which auction houses have agreed to it. It's now a red-circle date on my calendar.

And thanks Jeff D for originally posting these links in the other thread. I'm not trying to steal it, just trying to call it to the attention to those that might miss it in the other thread.

http://www.mearsonline.com/news/newsDetail.asp?id=302

http://www.mearsonline.com/news/newsDetail.asp?id=303

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

No auction house should have any sway whatsoever in determining what grade a card should get or whether an autograph or piece of memorabilia should be deemed authentic. Once they exert even an ounce of pressure on the services the whole system becomes corrupt.

Hopefully we will one day reach the point where once an item is submitted it is completely in the jurisdiction of the examiner. Until we reach it the whole process is a big farce.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

But Barry - the links aren't about an auction house having sway over a grader. They are about MEARS having sway over the auction houses to require them to operate in certain ways in order to be able to send anything to MEARS.

I don't know anything about MEARS or the memorabilia side, but I was really stunned to see the MEARS policy for 08. It boggles my mind to imagine it could work.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

But the auction houses do pressure graders and they do pressure authenticators. What Mears appears to be saying is we have the final say, not you.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I guess I read it more broadly. I didn't think they were limiting action to debates over their opinion on memorabilia. They are saying that auction houses have to fully disclose, *in the auction description*, any and all changes they have made to an item, including specficially:

"With respect to cards and similar items, trimming, pressing, or the removal of stains, glue, gum, etc… or writing that are designed to improve the appeal of an item or return it an improved state."

To me that is a really big deal, isn't it? I'm thinking I gotta be missing something, because I think it's huge. So if Mastro or REA or lelands or anyone else refuses to disclose anything they have done to a card to improve its appearance, they can't use MEARS to authenticate memorabilia in 2008 at all.

Also the auction houses have to agree to disclose ownership of items auctioned, as well as track bidding to assure that there isn't any self-interested bidding going on.

Conflict of interest, shill bidding and card alteration to improve grade. Isn't that the Big 3 of the discussion on this board regarding auction houses for the past year? Here is a company saying that they will not allow an auction house to submit for authentication unless the house agrees to clean up these issues, and even has to agree to audits to confirm compliance.

I must really be out in left field on this one. I thought this would be right up Main Street as far as this board goes.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

MEARS is the best at what they do...they are the REA of authenticating services and Bushing and Kinnunen have been responsive to the collecting communities concerns. What I know of Dave Grob is only from reading his posts on the game used forum, but he seems like the kind of guy who can get it done. I still find the whole Jordan jersey incident to be beyond belief...I just don't believe that they didn't know. The threads about that jersey over at GU are shorter than the one over here, but everyone should go read those threads to see how it's just not possible that someone at Mastro didn't know the jersey was bad.

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/forumdisplay.php?f=2

Dan

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

How does Mears have anything to say about cards since they do not slab them, maybe they should grade cards ?

Are they going to police auction houses that sell branded slabbed cards that are trimmed with no disclosure?

Will collectors have Mears examine his their collections to designate how many currently slabbed cards they possess are trimmed and what do they do with the cards that are found to be trimmed if they decide to sell them?

Mears cannot easily police consigned slabbed cards, and the collector should get two or three opinions from the major grading services(one opinion means very little anymore from any of the major ones)if they are concerned, .....I am curious about one thing, if a moral person like Jim Crandall finds out that a percentage of his PSA cards were slabbed trimmed, would he have to disclose that if he wants to sell them and eat the expense? Since odds are that some of his 28,000 cards are older branded labels and could be more prone to this problem, pre war or post war included, how can this be really be rectified as it is just an opinion...?

Hypothetically, If REA gets part of Jim's collection lets say to auction, is it up to REA, Jim Crandall or Mears to decide that these cards are NOT able to be sold in the current holder?.... seems like very big shoes to wear.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

If what you're saying is true, I think that's a great first step. As to whether MEARS is the 800 lb. gorilla in the memorabilia marketplace, on that one I can't say. Memorabilia is significantly different than cards. While certain aspects of it depend more heavily than others on third party authentication, in my view sophisticated buyers of high-priced items will do their own due diligence to determine the authenticity of an item, using the MEARS of the world as ancilliary corroboration at best. So how much sway MEARS has depends on what percentage of buyers can be categorized as sophisticated. On this one your opinion is as good as mine.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Dan, doesn't Bushing authenticate and sell his items through Mastro? And hasn't he been doing this for a long while?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I don't deal in game worn jerseys or game used equipment at all, so I am far from an expert. But what I like is Mears is taking control and saying we will tell you how the game is played, and you will not tell us. If they are able to exert that much pressure on the auction houses that is terrific news.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jeff- he has, but I think even he has come to the realization that he has to clean up his act, too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Here is an excerpt of the pertinent parts of the new policy. The full text is in the first link in the initial post of this thread. The second link describes the philosophical underpinnings of the policy, and is great reading. If they can pull it off ...

Excerpt below:

ANY auction house that fail to provide a signed agreement to the following conditions by 10 November 2007, will not be able to submit ANY items to MEARS for 2008. These conditions apply to ALL auction house work regardless of the volume or number of items an auction house wishes to submit. In years past their have been auction houses not under contract with MEARS that would submit select items at the retail rate. Once again, these provisions apply to any and all auction house work.

The concept is simple as far as MEARS is concerned…we only wish to do business with organizations who have like minded ideas with respect to what we consider acceptable business practices. These conditions are non-negotiable and serve as the basis for my agreement to work with MEARS in 2008.

The following will be listed in the MEARS contract for 2008 under the heading of Standards of Conduct and Ethical Business Practices:

1. All auction houses wishing to use MEARS will agree to disclosure ownership or financial interest in any lot that is consigned by any employee or family member as well as anyone offering an opinion on an item they or anyone they have a business relationship with consigns. This is not limited to game used items. This disclosure must be made in item description via a catalog or on-line description. This will require that bidder sheets/records for all auctions be maintained for the year. To ensure compliance, the auction house agrees to subject itself to an audit by the Policy Director of MEARS at least once a year. These will be short notice audits and the auction house will be required to provide a copy of the catalog and the consigner listings for the auction in question. Failure to comply with this provision will result in the inability to submit items to MEARS for a period of not less than 3 years.

2. All auction houses wishing to use MEARS will agree that no bids will be placed on lots owned by any employee or family member by any employee or family member. No consigner will be permitted to bid on their own items. This will require that bidder sheets/records for all auctions be maintained for the year. To ensure compliance, the auction house agrees to subject itself to an audit by the Policy Director of MEARS at least once a year. These will be short notice audits and the auction house will be required to provide a copy of the catalog and the consigner listings, and the bidding history for the auction in question. Failure to comply with this provision will result in the inability to submit items to MEARS for a period of not less than 3 years.

3. All auction houses wishing to use MEARS will agree that all our grades, which sometimes are low and not favorable, are printed in the lot description of their catalogs. Failure to comply with this provision will result in the inability to submit items to MEARS for a period of not less 3 years. The Policy Director has the final say in determining whether or not an omission of this information was an administrative oversight or an attempt to mask problematic information.

4. All auction houses wishing to use MEARS will agree to identify within the title of the offering the phrase “Team Index Bat or Index Bat” if this is how the bat has been referenced or evaluated. Failure to comply with this provision will result in the inability to submit items to MEARS for a period of not less than 3 years. The Policy Director has the final say in determining whether or not an omission of this information was an administrative oversight or an attempt to mask problematic information.

5. All auction houses wishing to use MEARS will agree to identify within the auction description any and all modifications or changes made to an item that they list in their auction. This is not limited to game used items. Examples of these issues include, but are not limited to:

-Removal of autographs or other writing of any kind.

-Repairs or modifications to an item that are designed to improve the appeal of an item or return it an improved state.

- With respect to cards and similar items, trimming, pressing, or the removal of stains, glue, gum, etc… or writing that are designed to improve the appeal of an item or return it an improved state.

Failure to comply with this provision will result in the inability to submit items to MEARS for a period of not less than 3 years.

6. All auction houses wishing to use MEARS will agree to provide an inventory of items to be evaluated NLT 14 days prior to any onsite work. They further agree that in the case of items that are to be mailed in, they will contact MEARS prior to sending items in and that all items will be accompanied with a submission form. Item not handled in this manner will either be returned or not subject to being evaluated. In no instance, will any item be evaluated at a show where MEARS does not have access to the proper research and reference information. Enforcement of these provisions will be at the discretion of the Operations Manager, but it is the expectation of the Policy Director that no exceptions will be made in these areas that directly impact the quality of the work that MEARS performs.

7. In all cases and with all provisions, the Policy Director for MEARS has the final say in determining whether or not he feels an omission of this information or violation of these provisions was an administrative oversight or an attempt to mask problematic information.

It must be understood and clear that MEARS expects that both the spirit and intent of these provisions be honored. If we come to suspect that auction houses are attempting to subvert these provisions by having potential consigners submit items to us directly in order to mask their involvement, MEARS is also prepared to severely curtail portions of our retail operations as well.

One of the things we will not be in a position to control is what happens with items that MEARS has previously evaluated that then come to auction. This is were we hope collectors will continue to use the information found within the archive of Letters of Opinion as well as the jersey/bat census.

I am sure there will be some who might say that this is a bit heavy handed or even Draconian. I am a realist and I don’t doubt that this will not be embraced by many auction houses. If for nothing else, there is likely to be resentment because an outside force is dictating internal operating procedures. All I can offer is that right now I know for a fact there are other “outside forces” looking into this industry in a very serious manner. My only hope this that the industry/hobby can reform itself and on its own.

Please know this is not some sort of PR stunt on the part of MEARS. If there are no signed contacts acknowledging the acceptance of these Standards of Conduct and Ethical Business Practices on hand at MEARS in Milwaukee at the close of business on 10 November 2007, then MEARS will not do any auction house work in 2008. The 10th of November is not an approximate date. MEARS will publish the list of those auction houses we will do work for in 2008 on the 11th on November.

Dave Grob


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<End clip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think the tone is also important. Saying it is not negotiable and that November 10 is not an approximate date - it is a firm deadline. It sounds like they are serious.

J




© Copyright 2005-2007 MEARS. All Rights Reserved

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

I still fail to see how MEARS can hold an auction house accountable for GRADED cards when EVERY auction house could be guilty (conciously or not) of selling slabbed cards that may have been trimmed, that means no one will be on MEARS list for 2008, EVERY auction house has sold and will receive previously holdered cards that have some questionable history. How can a reliable auction house like REA know the provenence of a graded card that was slabbed in 2002?

This could include the great t206 Wagner PSA 8....if that card came up again, and a reliable auction house chose to sell it, and MEARS now knows the history of that card is questionable, does that mean NO ONE can now sell this card again?, If REA gets the Wagner reconsigned to them in the PSA 8 holder, could MEARS pull REA's ability to use MEARS' credentials now knowing the possibility of the taint, even with REA's top reputation? That means REA can NEVER accept this card for auction again or they will violate MEARS' statement.....I really cannot believe they can have that kind of leverage in graded cards nor should they dabble in that direction unless they are willing to set up a MEARS grading service.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

They are not holding the houses accountable for graded cards - it doesn't say that anywhere.

They are holding them accoutable to disclose anything that they themselves - JUST the auction house, NOT the consignor, NOT all previous owners - have done to the card to improve the appearance. That they can do. They aren't trying to put anyone on the hook for the entire history of a card's ownership.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

get the coffin nails out....sounds like their operation will be getting smaller very soon

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Jeff, I'm pretty sure that they have been disclosing that for a couple of years now. Jay, Lee and I discussed it with Bushing and Kinnunen a few years ago when they were running SCDA...I don't really follow that sector of the hobby closely, but as far as I know full disclosure has been the rule at MEARS. They are evolving with the needs (trust issues)of the hobby much the way that REA has done and they should be applauded. Mastro took a lot of heat for disclosing that they take out creases and they heard it from the collectors here that this is not acceptable and decided they would not do it anymore....hopefully for their sake they continue to evolve towards REA's standards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joseph

Bushing was the consignor AND suthenticator in the 2004 MastroNet sale of the DiMaggio 56
streak bat which sold for over 300 grand. I think (but I'm not sure) Bushing also had a relationship with Mastro at that time. He is now a MEARS guy...and according to this item (WARNING: written by O'Keeffe):

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/iteam/2006/05/memorabilia_market_needs_sprin.html

it was this very instance of conflict-of-interest which prompted MEARS to make this public attempt at the high road. (This, of course, was over a year ago.)

Hey, three or four years from now, Michael Vick may be a spokesperson for animal welfare. Ya never know.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff D.

MEARS gets the business of most respected auction houses. Whether these requirements will prove too stringent for them remains to be seen. But there is little question that MEARS is at the top of a short list of legitimate memorabilia authenticators. REA, Sotheby's, the Hunt All-Star Fan Fest auctions, etc... have all sold MEARS authenticated items.

They very well may lose business in the short-term. But it appears that their credibility is more important to them than their current bottom line. It's quite clear that they are more interested in cleaning up the auction houses and the memorabilia market, and are willing to make potential short-term monetary sacrifices to do so.

MEARS has in fact consigned their own items to auction houses. They list these auctions in their "Our Items At Auction" tab on their home page. I can't believe that their doing so is somehow akin to Vick being a spokesman for animal treatment.

This is a bold move and I don't see why anyone would criticize their initiative.
It's funny how people call for drastic change in areas of our hobby, and then when someone in a position of some power has the guts to demand it, people still find a way to criticize. If there was a conflict of interest (which there clearly was) at the very least they CHANGED. There's a difference between covering up and reform. I think this new policy wrt auction houses is clearly the latter.

All I see this doing is boosting their credibility and respect in the game-used memorabilia market.

And I've been to their office in Milwaukee, and can say that I seriously doubt that this will be a "nail in their coffin."


Also of note in these articles is the following ominous sentence:

"All I can offer is that right now I know for a fact there are other “outside forces” looking into this industry in a very serious manner."

When the dust settles, hopefully MEARS (and this way of doing business) will end up coming out on top. It will strengthen the g/u market, which is better for all of us in this niche of the hobby, including MEARS. If it proves too much for the auction houses, at least we as collectors will know where they stand and can bid accordingly.


EDITED out a "to"

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

This is old news, but that bat I believe is authentic and I was skeptical of it. Robert Plancich made some statements that were proven to be 100% false. All of the proof was available to anyone who wanted to see it at the 2005 National and I don't think a single naysayer took SCDA up on their offer to view the evidence.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

I do not collect memorabilia but, after reading the posts in this thread, my sense is that the tail is trying to wag the dog in this case. I agree with the poster who said that this will have a negative impact on MEARS business. If I were an auction house and, even if I was squeaky clean, there is no way that I would give this authentication service free reign to audit my books.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

If Mastro thinks they can rely on Lampson LOA's they will lose their game used consignment business. Even with the cozy relationship that MEARS and Mastro have I have a feeling that Mastro need MEARS more than MEARS needs Mastro.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark L

I'm sure that the people at MEARS have run this policy by the big auction houses and have found at least some of them open to the idea. It gives them all some more street cred.

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

Joann-

Thank You for clarifying that...

I just wonder if it also includes a AUCTION HOUSE knowingly accepting a consigned card that was possible tainted....not doing the altering to a card themselves but having someone else do it for them, knowingly, that was my point and this can be a problem if Joann is correct and MEARS is only covering in house activity.

I also want to add that I respect MEARS for doing something good for the hobby, I just feel that graded cards are NOT their domain and that it is up to the auction house and the end user to decide what should be allowed, not an agency force.

Still, I cannot see MEARS allowing any reputable auction house accepting a consigned graded card or graded collectible item that is clearly been tainted or "viewed" as a problematic item under the language they stated and still keep them in good standing. Whether or not they actually graded the card or someone else did if they are so set in their standards, it should make little matter. If that T206 Wagner comes again for auction, and MEARS now knows the item could possibly be altered, will they put their reputation and relationship on the line with ANY auction house before it is sold, even if that auction house did not actually do the altering?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Dave Grob, who wrote the policy, is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. Anyone who knows him will tell you he's as straight as an arrow ethics-wise. He also is well known as a baseball jersey expert. I've dealt with him several times (I used to write articles for MEARS' website) and testify that he's a top notch guy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Let me get this clear--MEARS sells game worn jerseys on their web site that are authenticated by... MEARS but they want to make sure that auction houses have no conflicts of interest in their offerings and they want to be the ones to go in and audit them. Does anyone else think this is crazy?

[Archive]

Posted By: David Davis

The last thing I wan't do to is jump into the fray on this thread without complete info.

However, can someone who is knowledgeble clear up the fact that MEARS is looking to institute a specific policy, while maintaining an association with someone who in the past had some legal difficulties regarding authentication.

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=1695>

Dave Miedema's is a writer/researcher with MEARS and his article(s) appear on their web site. I don't know him personally, only going based on what I read on the above link.

I also know that Shelley Jaffe took some serious flak about a similar issue where he in the past made mistakes (putting it lightly), and now is working to try and clean up the hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I agree, there are some aspects of this which appear crazy, but there are aspects here with significant potential as well. For example, if PSA and SGC would go in with MEARS on this one, and refuse the business of every auction house who does not sign the MEARS agreement; what would then happen?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I have to confess that I am a little mystified by the somewhat tepid response to this thread. It seemed to me that MEARS's action would resonate perfectly with the numerous discussions on this board as to these exact issues, and the debate and fervor in trying to identify a way to clean them up.

FYI, REA has already indicated that they intend to sign on to the policy and hope others do the same. They have stated that they are fully in support of this effort and agree with its principles.

REA made some suggestions for some of the provisions. Some seemed to ask for more latitude, but most of REA's comments were to suggest even stricter requirements than MEARS had published.

Link to a MEARS discussion board in which the policy is discussed is below. REA's response from Rob Lifson, including his committment for REA to participate and suggestions for revisions, are included in one of the threads. It is easily identifiable. The threads are getting toward the bottom of the first page, so look for them on the second if you don't see them.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Joann, I think there is just general disbelief at the claim by anyone that they will make an attempt to clean up the hobby -- especially when a principal of said company has long been vilified for authenticating the very items he sells at auction without disclosure being given (unless it is asked for, of course - har har!). Just because someone says that they will be honest does not necessarily make it so, sad to say. I have long said that in the unregulated industries of sports auction houses and third party grading the opportunity to make money easily by defrauding customers is just too easy and too lucrative and is impossible to imagine it does not exist on a regular basis. Shill bidding, I believe, is rampant and difficult to detect - especially when auction houses do not maintain bidding records from past auctions (gee, why?). MEARS makes clear that it believes the industry is being investigated by law enforcement and this is their attempt to reform the industry from within. Good luck. In many industries where fraud is rampant for a long time, the fraudsters become so used to making a percentage of their money in such a fashion that getting them to stop it voluntarily - even at the threat of possible law enforcement intervention - is nearly impossible. My belief is that a major scandal will rock our little hobby at some point soon and shake out some of the problems. I applaud the ideas set forth by MEARS but I'm hardly convinced that they will have any true impact.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Jeff,

I agree that it will take some time to see if it works. I guess that's why I posted the follow up a few minutes ago linking to REA's committment to sign on. I think REA participation is key - it sets the stage, has one of the major players staking out a clear and early position, and prevents a "let's see if anyone else will be first" stance among the players. Good for Rob, and good for MEARS.

I also think that any efforts to clear up some of the issues internally is far preferable to waiting for a government agency to step in. No particular reason, but I'd rather see the problems internally managed.

Finally, I think in many ways I'm an idealist. I love the idea of this. I am impressed that a well-known company has publicly put its self interest (getting any and all business) on the line for the sake of pursuing a principle. I take most of what I read at face value unless I have reason to distrust it, and reading the two MEARS links (the policy and then the reasons behind it) at face value was a refreshing experience.

Joann

Yes yes - I'm going right now to look up the spelling of publicly, and will correct it shortly if it's wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron M.

This is a long-overdue, but welcome step by MEARS.

I know when it was first publicly revealed (and discussed here on the N54 Forum) that the authenticators who would go on to create MEARS owned some of the same material they authenticated and sold in Mastro auctions it was very upsetting.

After several heated discussions with MEARS representatives, I think it became clear to them why this blatant undisclosed conflict of interest was damaging to their reputation and collector confidence (both in them and in the auction house), and they seemed more than willing to consent to having their conflict of interest disclosed in the item's description (although they were not willing to stop authenticating and selling their own items).

The problem was that Doug Allen (as he explained to me) was adamantly against the disclosure of the identity of ANY consigners (whether they be the authenticators or otherwise), so he refused to allow MEARS to do so, and so the practice continued.

Flash-forward a couple years later and it seems that MEARS is finally taking a stand at the risk of alienating their bread and butter (Mastro), and is instead signing on with REA's above-reproach ethical stand on how auctions should be run:

1. No bidding by the auction house's employees and executives on their own auctions. (Mastro allows this, REA does not.)

2. No undisclosed alterations of cards prior to grading. (Mastro does this, REA does not.)

3. No undisclosed conflict of interests in terms of authenticators authenticating items they are also consigning. (Mastro does this, REA does not.)

I also feel inclined to add a fourth items from REA's "missions statement" that Mastro practices to further illustrate the point:

4. No selling of items the auction house itself owns. (Mastro does this, REA does not.)

In any case, perhaps the Jordan shirt mis-hap brought these issues to a head, but it's good to see MEARS siding with REA in terms of trying to reach a higher level of honesty and integrity than Mastro is. If MEARS does it, perhaps other auction houses will follow suit and Mastro will have no choice but to update its ethical standards to reflect collector demands.

Well, one can hope...

[Archive]

Posted By: David Davis

It will be interesting to see if Heritage signs up. Not sure if they currently use them or not. I did see they recently sold a 1922 Bert Cole Game Worn Detroit Tigers Uniform for $47,800 that came with a Lou Lampson LOA.

One thing to remember about Heritage is they are the largest collectibles and artwork auction house. Their gross sales (public and private) exceeded $600,000,000.00 in the last 12 months. What a boon for the hobby if they signed up.

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace

How is Heritage the largest collectibles and artwork auctioneer. Sotheby's and Christies certainly have much more revenue.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think MEARS has taken a step in the right direction. Might be a little too heavy handed with respect to cards. If I read their terms and conditions correctly, if a piece of gunk is on a card, and gets fingernailed off then they will come down on whomever does it and axe them for 3 years. IMHO they need to modify the parts they are not experts in. As for memorabilia and game used stuff I think it can only help. I wonder if this means also, that if a major auction house knows a 6 figure bat is not what they say it is in a description, and sells it anyway, will they get in trouble?....However, I am sure no one would do that, especially a saint?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Whew!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Hey, hey...comeon now, Leon..Doug Allen is a nice guy and as honest as the day is long, but a saint? Not after the Griffith jersey and the Jordan shirt and the game used helmet and the numerous altered cards and the .....

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

That's it...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Okay Leon, if you're going to make controversial statements like that you're going to have to put your full name next to your posts.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Davis

I read with interest the interview with Rob Lifson, and his mentioning of not using Lou Lampson to authenticate game used items.I have also seen numerous posts regarding Lou's reputation.

In the current Mastro Auction, there are over 100 game used items. All except two have MEARS authentication. The two that do not are a Michael Vick college jersey, and a Mark Messier Stanley Cup game used jersey. These two have Lou Lampson LOA's. 53 of the lots have LOA's from both MEARS and Lou Lampson.

I would like to know if the two lots with Lamspon only LOA's were rejected by MEARS, or if for some reason were just not sent to them to authenticate.

The likely scenario is that the items with Lampson's LOA were consigned with it, and then sent to MEARS. It does not seem likely that you would need LOA's from two different companies for the same item, unless it was signed. That is also shown quite often with a Spence or PSA accompanying cert.

Anyone with real facts regarding this, or other speculations?

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron

That's an interesting point David. I know that if the question were posed directly to MEARS they would probably answer. I would be very curious to hear what they had to say.

Re: Lou Lampson, for any knowledgeable collector of game-used material, his opinion is a joke. Getting something authenticated by him is akin to getting a card graded by one of the hack grading services like PRO that grades and encapsulates trimmed cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Aaron--Do you know Lew Lampson or have you dealt with him in the past? I collected game used football jerseys a long time ago and dealt with Lew. That's when he was a collector and had not yet started an authentication service. I found him to be probably the most knowledgeable guy in the hobby concerning game used jerseys. If you have some facts to back up your statements I would love to see them. Otherwise, I would suggest that you publically apologize to him.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Davis

I think it speaks volumes when heavyweights such as Rob Lifson and Dave Grob are not interested in Lou's opinion (Lou and Dave both left SCDA at the same time, and it does not appear that Lou was asked to join MEARS).

Having knowledge is one thing. I don't think anyone would claim Lou is not knowledgeable. 53 of the 55 jerseys in the current Mastro auction have certs from MEARS and Lou. It's what you do with the knowledge that separates you from the best. What happened in the other 2 cases?

I don't think that anyone would argue that Ted Taylor isn't knowledgeable when it comes to sportscards and memorabilia. But I don't think his opinion carries weight anymore since he is aligned with Coach's Corner. Not the best analogy, but you can see how someone's reputation can easily end up in the crapper.

I would still also like to know from MEARS about Dave Miedema (read my above post).

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Jay, spend some time reading over on the Game Used Forum and you will see that Lou Lampson has lost all credibility with collectors over there. He has "authenticated" so many blatantly bad items in the last couple of years that I don't know how anyone could call him an authority. Add to the fact that he has become completely unresponsive to the collecting community and you're left with what he has today - a very bad reputation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Dan--Like I said, I don't collect jerseys any more so I had no reason to look at that forum. However, you don't lose knowledge that you had over night. If you are saying that there are some other things going on--a guess anything is possible. My sense is that there is a lot of politics going on about which auction houses use which authenticators.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

It's not politics when he's authenticating items that simply were never worn. I believe he authenticated a St Patty's day jersey as worn by Cal Ripken that was never even used by the Orioles. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Dan--If that's the case I stand corrected.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Just as I finished writing a long piece my computer crashed. Let me try again in abbreviated form.

Thanks Joann for your e-mail--I have been on vacation so that accounts for my lack of response. Thanks also for highlighting this issue.

I have never heard of MEARS as I don't collect memorabilia but I have to agree with those that this is encouraging and potentially important.

At this point, I wonder if there is enough support among collectors to set up a set of guidelines(or rules) that auction houses first and ultimately dealers agree to adhere to. This is not meant to be definitive but such guidelines could include the following:

1)No bidding by auction houses employees on their own auctions.
2)No altering of cards of any kind of cards consigned to them.
3)Disclosure of any conflicts of interest in selling the card.
4)The grading history of the card(the auction house would be expected to exercize reasonable due diligence to disclose this).
5)Disclosure if item is owned by auction house.
6)No shill bidding--perhaps confirmed by outside source.

My idea is that list is refined after some debate on this board and presented to all auction houses. All collectors agreeing to the guidelines or rules would put their name on the list. Auction houses could either agree with the terms, not agree with the terms or simply not respond. Whatever each decided to do it would be broadly publicized. If we could get a majority of the auction houses to agree to a set of rules or guidelines I think it would increase the pressure on the others to do so.

Who knows--some good might come out of it. If an auction house agrees and flagrantly violates the rules, it would come off the good list.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

"1)No bidding by auction houses employees on their own auctions."

I respectfully disagree with this one Rule. Most of the major auction houses have ardent collectors in their employ. Just look at Pete C. at Mastro. I think it would be unfair to limit his participation just because of his employment status.

The right to bid should be disclosed with a "Chinese Wall" built between those employees who want to bid and those with access to the ongoing bidding process.

In all other respects I like your list and would be more inclined to bid with auction houses that sign-on to them.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- those rules are tough but fair, but how do you enforce them? What stops a dealer from agreeing not to bid in his own auction, then placing a hundred bids? How do you audit it?