POLL: Who is responsible to reimburse collectors for bad autographs

[RichardSimon]

Some dealers do not use TPA's. The good ones will guarantee their autographs authenticity for life. If you present them with proper evidence they will give you a refund. Sometimes the evidence will consist of proof that the item could not have been signed during the lifetime of that player. Sometimes the evidence is a TPA rejection letter. Sometimes it is the opinion of a person or persons that the dealer respects.
As far as the dealers who use TPA. Who do you think is responsible for refunding the customer if an autograph is proven to be not authentic?
The dealer, who collected the money, or the authenticator?

[novakjr]

The only answer I can come up with is the Dealer. First, I believe the dealer is responsible for refunding to the buyer. Then, the TPA should be responsible for refunding to the dealer.. However, if the dealer will not refund to the buyer, then the TPA should refund the buyer. Basically, the TPA should be responsible for refunding whoever has the item in their possession, however, dealer should save the buyer the hassle of having to deal with the TPA.

[barrysloate]

I said the TPA because it's likely the dealer carried the autograph based on the TPA giving his seal of approval. But he does bear some responsibilty too.

[thecatspajamas]

Are we talking refund of the authentication fees, or the sale price of the item?

[drc]

The owner of the item is responsible for refund. If the owner wants to have an afterwords dispute with the TPA that's a second issue.

You are paying PSA to give opinion, not take over financial responsibilities for your sales, not as your insurance company. If people want PSA to start being 100% financially responsible for a $20,000 item, start assuming the authentication fee will be substantially higher. Perhaps $20,000.

This is not to suggest I believe PSA bears no financial responsibilities for shoddy, irresponsible work. A seller might indeed be able to after a refund take PSA to court and win some monies.

But, when in doubt, the legal owner of an item is responsible for the refund.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by drc

The owner of the item is responsible for refund. If the owner wants to have an afterwords dispute with the TPA that's a second issue.

You are paying PSA to give opinion, not take over financial responsibilities for your sales, not as your insurance company. If people want PSA to start being 100% financially responsible for a $20,000 item, start assuming the authentication fee will be substantially higher. Perhaps $20,000.

This is not to suggest I believe PSA bears no financial responsibilities for shoddy, irresponsible work. A seller might indeed be able to after a refund take PSA to court and win some monies.

But, when in doubt, the legal owner of an item is responsible for the refund.

My thoughts exactly, which is why I asked for clarification as to what the poll question was suggesting. I would be very surprised if any TPA leaves themselves open to any financial responsibility above and beyond the actual authentication fees.

As drc said, that gets more into "authentication insurance" territory, and I would definitely expect to not only pay much more for the authentication of a high-end auto, but also have to jump through a much more rigorous set of hoops to prove a "bad authentication" claim.

That kind of "limitation of liability" to the cost of the services provided is pretty common in the professional world unless the one providing the services is required to be insured/bonded, in which case you will pay more for their services. There just ain't no such thing as free insurance

Amended to add: While I wouldn't be surprised to see "authentication insurance" as a TPA offering someday, I don't think the rate would be 100% of the item's fair market value.

[Mr. Zipper]

The dealer actually sold and profited from the item. Why would the TPA issue the refund?

The notion that "the dealer sold it based upon the TPAs opinion " absolves the dealer from any responsibility.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

The dealer actually sold and profited from the item. Why would the TPA issue the refund?

The notion that "the dealer sold it based upon the TPAs opinion " absolves the dealer from any responsibility.

I do agree with you Steve, but it seemed based on other threads that others thought otherwise.
Thought it would be an interesting poll.

[steve B]

I voted for the dealer because that's the simplest answer in what could be a complex situation. If I sold something that wasn't right and I could be shown that it wasn't right I'd refund just to make things easy for the customer.

I think though that ultimate responsibility depends a lot on the item and the timeline. If I bought it with a good cert and it's later proven bad I'd want a refund from whoever I bought it from. I might discuss it with the TPA because I might not have bought it if not for their mistake. (Assuming of course that I'd done my own research to begin with and saw no obvious problems like an item made after the signers death )

But if I bought it without a cert and sent it in myself then I would be on the hook for the whole thing. I might tell the TPA about the item so they hopefully could use it as an opportunity for further training if it's employees or as a bit of extra knowledge for themselves.

But what about an item that's circulated in a hobby for years and passed through several dealers and collectors and may even have multiple certs issued years apart but new information has discredited it? It's happened in stamps, and I'd bet it's happened in every other hobby too.
I'm not sure what should happen then. Ultimately it should work it's way back along the line of people who have owned it. But that's not at all realistic.

Steve B

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Are we talking refund of the authentication fees, or the sale price of the item?

Talking about the sale price of the item.

[Caseyatbat]

The dealer has to take the responsibility. These are inherent risks that a dealer must assume when he sells an item on the open market. Especially when they guarantee the authenticity of an item. The TPA's do not even guarantee the item, it is only their opinion. So when a dealer actually gives his own guarantee, he is assuming the risk of possible return later. Even if the same TPA that has already authenticated the item, later decides to fail it.

Maybe if the dealer sold the item "as is" but still with proper TPA he would not have to worry about return. But on the other hand, obviously buyers do not feel as comfortable buying items "as is" and typically are not willing to pay as much.

[HRBAKER]

So the TPAs continue to get a pass here and continue to collect their fees.
Absent any responsibility for getting it right.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

So the TPAs continue to get a pass here and continue to collect their fees.
Absent any responsibility for getting it right.

my thoughts too .

[Caseyatbat]

I am a supporter of TPA's. I believe they are a very useful tool and asset in this industry. Lets face it, without them this hobby would be a complete disaster. The majority of autographs in today's market are forgeries. Major TPA's are desperately needed. Yes they make mistakes, but they are only human and in my experiences are right on the money 99% of the time. Just like we as dealers and collectors are always learning, so are they.

I think the problem here is consumers are not taking TPA for what it is, "an opinion". You should never buy an item in 100% confidence just because it has top tier TPA. Buyers always have the option to seek alternative opinions, or do your own research and determine for yourself.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

I am a supporter of TPA's. I believe they are a very useful tool and asset in this industry. Lets face it, without them this hobby would be a complete disaster. The majority of autographs in today's market are forgeries. Major TPA's are desperately needed. Yes they make mistakes, but they are only human and in my experiences are right on the money 99% of the time. Just like we as dealers and collectors are always learning, so are they.

I think the problem here is consumers are not taking TPA for what it is, "an opinion". You should never buy an item in 100% confidence just because it has top tier TPA. Buyers always have the option to seek alternative opinions, or do your own research and determine for yourself.

Casey do you think that is the way they market themselves?

[Caseyatbat]

I believe the problem is not how they actually market themselves, rather how consumers are perceiving their opinion. Most people just assume it is genuine because it is authenticated by top tier TPA. If people actually just take 30 seconds to read the letter of authenticity it states very clearly this is only their considered opinion, and it should be treated as such.

I don't actually see the TPA's guaranteeing the authenticity of any particular item. (Yes I know they originally did years ago, but not anymore) It is usually the auction house or dealer doing that in the same sentence. An example would be, "for iron clad assurance, this item has been authenticated by PSA"

In the end, dealers want their higher end items authenticated by nationally recognized, major third party authenticators for marketing purposes. For instance, if you were buying a Ty Cobb single singed ball for 20K, would you feel more comfortable buying with a PSA letter? Or more comfortable buying it authenticated from a guy who certified it in his basement? I would take the PSA everytime. But on the flipside, I may ask the guy is his basement for his opinion as well so I could have both opinions.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

I am a supporter of TPA's. I believe they are a very useful tool and asset in this industry. Lets face it, without them this hobby would be a complete disaster. The majority of autographs in today's market are forgeries. Major TPA's are desperately needed. Yes they make mistakes, but they are only human and in my experiences are right on the money 99% of the time. Just like we as dealers and collectors are always learning, so are they.

I think the problem here is consumers are not taking TPA for what it is, "an opinion". You should never buy an item in 100% confidence just because it has top tier TPA. Buyers always have the option to seek alternative opinions, or do your own research and determine for yourself.

Casey,
This hobby has been around for a long, long time and managed very well without TPA's. I gave my opinion gratis on probably hundreds if not thousands of autographs for many years before TPA became a big business.
The hobby has headed down the disastrous path due in large part to the internet. It is now the wild west. There is a need for something to assist people in their autograph pursuits. But the system as it now stands is busted.
The presence of the alphabet TPA's has lead to the presence of the other TPA's whose corruption we have discussed here many, many times.
The alphabet TPA's have done some good. However, they profess to be what they are not, the implication in their advertising is that they are foolproof, that a TPA cert. guarantees (even if they don't word it that way) authenticity. Many in the hobby have placed them on a pedastal (though many fewer than say a year ago) , a pedastal that they don't really deserve to be on.
Your final statement is right on the money. "Buyers always have the option to seek alternative opinions, or do your own research and determine for yourself."
Buy the autograph, not the cert.

[barrysloate]

If the dealer must incur full responsibility for selling a bad autograph, and not the TPA....given the current state of the hobby, I would never ever touch an autograph again. If I still ran auctions, I would reject them outright. The potential legal and financial exposure is not worth the possible commissions I might make. Period.

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

Yes they make mistakes, but they are only human and in my experiences are right on the money 99% of the time.

Casey, the quote above, i noticed you have mentioned it on 3 different occasions in this thread, so it must be something that you truly stand behind. So i was just curious, how you know "in your experiences" they are roght on the money 99% of the time? There is no way you can say this, unless of course everything you are submitting is all in-person, signed right in front of your very eyes.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

Casey, the quote above, i noticed you have mentioned it on 3 different occasions in this thread, so it must be something that you truly stand behind. So i was just curious, how you know "in your experiences" they are roght on the money 99% of the time? There is no way you can say this, unless of course everything you are submitting is all in-person, signed right in front of your very eyes.

Casey - this thread is turning into just what I hoped it would. A good healthy debate.
However, I have to agree with Bilko questioning the 99% number. If pressed I would think that even the alphabet soup guys would not condede that they are that good. Obviously, they have never come on 54 to explain what they have done, so we will probably never know what they would claim for themselves.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

Casey, the quote above, i noticed you have mentioned it on 3 different occasions in this thread, so it must be something that you truly stand behind. So i was just curious, how you know "in your experiences" they are roght on the money 99% of the time? There is no way you can say this, unless of course everything you are submitting is all in-person, signed right in front of your very eyes.

But this, in turn, brings up the question of how many authenticated autos have been proven, after the fact, to be inauthentic? I mean iron clad proof, not just another opinion? It happens, but is very rare. Much less than 99 percent of the top authenticators' examples.

Every company should invalidate it's authenticity marker and refund the price of authentication if something can be proven bunk. But if it sold for 20k, how can the company be on the line for that? As someone mentioned at the onset of this thread, these are not insurers we are discussing.

[Caseyatbat]

Bilko, Of course when I say that, it is my opinion. And I mentioned 99%, Which may not reflect the exact percentage, but I thought it would be good number to reflect my opinion that they are correct in their findings just about every time. Obviously there are always exceptions.

You asked "how did I come to this conclusion?" I have come to this conclusion after submitting many many items to them, and then also researching tens of thousands of previously authenticated and sold items over the past 10 years. And comparing my own conclusions to theirs. It is my job to do so.

I believe their is a common misconception about TPA's. I think the 2 major TPA's will fail any item they are not extremely confident in. I believe they would rather fail the item, than risk putting their name on it and have it draw negative attention later. So consequently, they are failing items that may very well be authentic. They just were not comfortable enough to put their name on it. And I believe they are correct in doing so when that happens, if they passed the questionable item it usually results in people going online and making a huge stink about it. So I think for the most part, people are upset about them not passing items, rather than actually passing items. This does not include "Auction letters", I agree with Richard and think are a huge gimmick. Many auction houses list their items with "Auction Letters" before they are even looked at and then later remove the item because it finally got looked at and was no good.