POLL: Who is responsible to reimburse collectors for bad autographs

[travrosty]

Believe me, it kills me to shovel thousands of dollars to TPA's every year. Especially when I am 100% confident that every item I am giving to them is authentic or I would not have bought it to begin with. But on the other hand, I also want to maximize the potential value of each item. And in my experiences, I have been able to do so much easier when I use a TPA as well as give my own personal Guarantee and COA. And the investment into TPA does come back to the dealer when the item is sold. So I really just don't see why a dealer wouldn't use one, the buyer is paying for it anyways. It attracts more buyers than without. And dealers like buyers...The more the better.



This is the biggest fallacy out there, it is simply not true. If it kills you to shovel thousands to TPA's, then don't do it. I don't do it, I sell just fine. So do lots of my friends. You will just get more serious bidders who look for quality items and know what they want and know a good autograph when they see one, rather than some guys who just buy the cert. The autographs still sell and for basically the same amount of money.

I have sold autographs that normally go for 420 dollars with tpa cert, for 400 without one, and the cert would have cost 75 dollars, so if I would have got the cert, I lose 55 dollars, but I can make it up in volume I guess.

[Caseyatbat]

Jeff, To answer your question, I don't believe they charge more for the value of an autograph. It is a pretty flat rate. An example would be 150 dollars for any team signed baseball with 18 or more signatures. But if the ball has big names such as Ruth, Gehrig etc. I believe they charge 250 dollars for the team ball. So more in that aspect I guess.

One of the problems with the price is I think it is too much of a flat rate. For instance a Mantle autograph is 100 dollars with PSA. That may be acceptable because the ball is going to sell for 500 dollars. But they also charge 100 dollars for a Mantle signed 8x10 photo which is horrible, authentic ones are selling for only 150 dollars on ebay even with the TPA full letter. So how is it possible they can charge 100 dollars to authenticate an item that is only selling for 150 dollars? In that aspect I wish it did actually fluctuate with the value of the item because maybe in this case to authenticate a Mantle 8x10 would only be about 25 dollars.

[thenavarro]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

it kills me to shovel thousands of dollars to TPA's every year.

Casey,

I'm sure you probably already know this with the volume that you indicate that you do, but if you are giving PSA/DNA that much business, you shouldn't be paying full price. You might be getting discounts already, I have no way of knowing, but if not, just ask for them and it will save you some coin.

JSA will discount as well (not as aggressive as PSA/DNA though from my experience)

Take care,

Mike

[drc]

Okay. I stopped by my parents and my 76 year old dad was doing a jigsaw puzzle. He's never collected or sold. I asked him the big question of if a dealer sold an autograph that was given an LOA from some 'big authentication company,' and the autograph turned out to be a a forgery, who pays the refund? He said the dealer should pay, but he should in turn get some money from the authentication company.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

It is the same story in the Diamond business. When you buy a diamond from a dealer, it always comes with professional third party authentication from reputable companies. You don't just take the dealers word for it no matter how reputable he is. You want authentication from a gemologist, not a diamond dealer. Why would it be any different for this business? Buyers want authentication from an actual authenticator, not the dealer selling it.

While this analogy seems sound on first glance, there is one sight difference between diamonds and autographs (I think) :

With a diamond, (I assume) there is a scientific way to determine if it is real, or fake. If my assumption is correct, the authenticator is dealing in facts.

With an autograph, we are dealing with opinions of authenticity, not facts. We can determine if the items involved in the autograph (paper, ink, pen style, angle of writing, pressures, etc) fit the usual known attributes, but we can not determine with absolute certainty whether (as an example) Walter Johnson signed his name to an item, and that he didn't have Joe Jackson sign for him.

Or am I missing something?
Doug

[drc]

A problem with this theory is the best dealers are sometimes more knowledgeable than the best authenticators. In a perhaps extreme example, the learned collector would value the seller Richard Simon's opinion over GAI's.

[Caseyatbat]

Hello Mike, Thank You very much for the advice. I do have the discount already. Although I wish it was more. But your right, PSA is a little more aggressive in this sense. I was surprised to see it wasn't the other way around! Thanks Mike.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by drc

A problem with this theory is the best dealers are sometimes more knowledgeable than the best authenticators. In a perhaps extreme example, the learned collector would value the seller Richard Simon's opinion over GAI's.

I would certainly hope they would .

[Caseyatbat]

Richard, your argument I only agree with when "buying" an item. Of course you don't need TPA's to buy an item if you know what you are doing. 99% of the items I buy are without TPA's or any type of certification whatsoever. I typically buy them with no guarantee, no COA, and also no clue who I am dealing with. I buy the autograph sole on the autograph itself. I usually don't even both listening to their provenance unless it sounds like an interesting story.

My argument is from a dealers point of view. When dealing with items that are worth over 1,000 dollars, I believe it is in the dealers best interest to use a major TPA. I want to prove to my buyers that there is nothing to hide. Not to mention that every major auction house (outside a few like lelands) makes it mandatory to have it. And to sell them on ebay it is highly recommended as well. If you take selling vintage autographs serious on ebay, you should use a top TPA. It is not mandatory like the major auction houses, but if one of your items is questioned, they flag your account if you don't have TPA. And if you get flagged 3 times, they suspend or cancel your account. Why would a dealer want to deal with that and take that risk? When they can just use the proper TPA and everybody is happy. Ebay is happy, the buyers are happy, and the dealer is happy that everybody is satisfied with their product.

And lastly, Most of these transactions are done through paypal. If people buy autographed items "without" TPA, many times they send them away to be authenticated after buying. If they come back as "no good" from the TPA, paypal allows them to return the item anyways within 45 days. So if the dealer has the proper TPA already, that is one less thing to worry about.

None of this is the fault of the TPA's. Rather, the auction houses, ebay & paypal have decided to use them as their leading authority. If people don't like that, they should really take it up with the auction houses, ebay & paypal.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

Richard, your argument I only agree with when "buying" an item. Of course you don't need TPA's to buy an item if you know what you are doing. 99% of the items I buy are without TPA's or any type of certification whatsoever. I typically buy them with no guarantee, no COA, and also no clue who I am dealing with. I buy the autograph sole on the autograph itself. I usually don't even both listening to their provenance unless it sounds like an interesting story.

My argument is from a dealers point of view. When dealing with items that are worth over 1,000 dollars, I believe it is in the dealers best interest to use a major TPA. I want to prove to my buyers that there is nothing to hide. Not to mention that every major auction house (outside a few like lelands) makes it mandatory to have it. And to sell them on ebay it is highly recommended as well. If you take selling vintage autographs serious on ebay, you should use a top TPA. It is not mandatory like the major auction houses, but if one of your items is questioned, they flag your account if you don't have TPA. And if you get flagged 3 times, they suspend or cancel your account. Why would a dealer want to deal with that and take that risk? When they can just use the proper TPA and everybody is happy. Ebay is happy, the buyers are happy, and the dealer is happy that everybody is satisfied with their product.

And lastly, Most of these transactions are done through paypal. If people buy autographed items "without" TPA, many times they send them away to be authenticated after buying. If they come back as "no good" from the TPA, paypal allows them to return the item anyways within 45 days. So if the dealer has the proper TPA already, that is one less thing to worry about.

None of this is the fault of the TPA's. Rather, the auction houses, ebay & paypal have decided to use them as their leading authority. If people don't like that, they should really take it up with the auction houses, ebay & paypal.

Casey - points well taken but also some disagreed with and a couple of TPA stories.
It is not mandatory for the consignor to consign an item with a TPA cert,the auction house is responsible for the TPA auction cert (don't get me started on auction certs and that scam).
I have many customers who have been buying from me for many, many years.
They don't bother spending the money, even on high ticket items, on TPA.
I had a $15 Burgess Meredith (the actor) autograph returned once that I sold on ebay. It came from one of the best in person collections I ever bought. The buyer admitted to me he knew it was good but he was a dealer and he could not resell it without TPA.
I had two rejections of Babe Ruth in person autographs from PSA. One was then sent by my customer, to Lelands, (I would take their authentication over any TPA) who immediately thanked him for the consignment, and sold it. The other one came from the same collection and the dealer I sold it to would not return it to me because he too knew it was good despite having it rejected by PSA. He sent it to them for the reasons you bring out in your post (marketing) but knew it was good and kept it, despite their rejection.
The next few stories to come out from Halls of Shame are going to be eye popping and will dissuade many who are on the fence about TPA's.

[drc]

How about this working theory. PSA and JSA are 85 percent correct (example percentage, don't take the number too seriously), which means a PSA letter says there's a 85% chance the item is authentic. If potential buyers say a LOA on eBay as saying there was an 85% chance, and not 100% guarantee, the autograph is authentic, they'd say "That LOA gives good odds, but I should look into thing further to bridge the gap." Looking into it further may include getting other opinions, educating themselves, looking at who is the seller and perhaps even spend accordingly less money. They will also realize that if they go strictly by LOAs, they will be buying fakes from time to time, because 85% isn't 100%. The significance will sink in further when they realize the TPA's aren't 100% accurate and don't give refunds for the autographs.

[Caseyatbat]

I think what you are looking for is dealer that guarantees his items 100%. Which is what I mentioned somewhere previously in this thread. That is exactly how I offer my items for sale. First I issue my own COA which guarantees the autograph authentic for life or your money back. And then I also provide a major TPA full letter of authenticity with it as well. So the buyers can have the best of both worlds. A buyer can't really ask for more than that. There isn't anymore to give.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by drc

How about this working theory. PSA and JSA are 85 percent correct (example percentage, don't take the number too seriously), which means a PSA letter says there's a 85% chance the item is authentic. If potential buyers say a LOA on eBay as saying there was an 85% chance, and not 100% guarantee, the autograph is authentic, they'd say "That LOA gives good odds, but I should look into thing further to bridge the gap." Looking into it further may include getting other opinions, educating themselves, looking at who is the seller and perhaps even spend accordingly less money. They will also realize that if they go strictly by LOAs, they will be buying fakes from time to time, because 85% isn't 100%. The significance will sink in further when they realize the TPA's aren't 100% accurate and don't give refunds for the autographs.

+1

[GrayGhost]

David, good thought, but people just want the hundred pct certainty overall, even if it is nearly/is impossible.

Again, the OPINIONS are always listed by the authenticators. NOTHING is certain at all. This area of the hobby, tho fascinating, is fraught w risk and fraud, and great stuff too. Tread lightly, and watch out for exploding landmines.

[tinkereversandme]

I would like to the authenticator be held responsible because if this happen, about ten of them would close up shop.

Larry

[RichardSimon]

Larry -you are tempting me to switch my vote when you put it that way.

[drc]

Irrelevant to TPAs, I think it's good for the hobby for sellers to feel they are financially responsible for the authenticity of the things they sale. We're in trouble when dealers feel authenticity is someone else's concern.

Duly note that in this thread I haven't considered graded cards, and all those tagged plastic entombments. I know many sellers from here don't allow returns on graded cards and say 'take your grade dispute up with the grader.' One can of worms at a time.

[travrosty]

That's the conundrum. The biggest third party companies give the sense of invinciblity to an autograph, so sellers dont have to be knowledgable dealers or collectors. they can pawn off authenticity on the fact that it has been certed by abc, xyz. thus relegating themselves to little more than distributors of product, middlemen.

The biggest companies need to give guarantees to their authentications, that will hold their feet to the fire to not authenticate too fast, using people who are trying to authenticate out of their specialty.

A guarantee is the only way to use feedback and statistics as to how much they are refunding every quarter as a motivator to change their policies and procedures on how they authenticate to improve their bottom line.

Captialism is about the bottom line, and even though you would think they would want to get better at authenticating due to altruistic reasons, it is the almight dollar that motives.

The absence of a dollar motivator has brought about the anemic performances we are used to seeing. They authenticate that way because they can, they do and they get away with it without any monetary loss.

They have no incentive to offer a guarantee unless someone else introduces it first as a wedge issue to separate their company from the companies who do it now without a guarantee.

If it ever happens, the others will have to follow or suffer customer migration to those that do offer a guarantee.

You would think if they were truly as great at authenticating as they claim, a guarantee would bring in an increase in business over their competitors to more than pay for any refunds they would have to give out every quarter.

But they don't see it that way because if the other companies offer a guarantee too, then they are back to no competitive advantage to offering a guarantee, and are only on the hook for the guarantee and no one wants to start that arms race.

[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.

[mschwade]

Here's, I think, a legitimate question... How many times do you think a TPA wavers on whether an autograph is real or not and gives an authentic opinion based on the reputation of the submitter or the dealer that the submitter purchased from?

I would like to see a TPA held somewhat responsible for giving an authentic opinion so they're less likely to deem something that they are up in the air on authentic based on anything other than the autograph itself.

If they're held somewhat responsible, they'll be forced to be even more thorough in their process, as well. That should make for a more comfortable market for buyers.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by mschwade

Here's, I think, a legitimate question... How many times do you think a TPA wavers on whether an autograph is real or not and gives an authentic opinion based on the reputation of the submitter or the dealer that the submitter purchased from?

I would like to see a TPA held somewhat responsible for giving an authentic opinion so they're less likely to deem something that they are up in the air on authentic based on anything other than the autograph itself.

If they're held somewhat responsible, they'll be forced to be even more thorough in their process, as well. That should make for a more comfortable market for buyers.

Do the TPA's actually know where an autograph came from when it is submitted?
My authentication business is small and I never want to know where an autograph came from when it is submitted to me for authentication. My main business is still buying and selling.
Though I want to repeat a statement from another post I made. I was asked, in another thread, if pressure was ever applied to me by an auction house. Yes pressure was put on myself and the crew I worked with by American Memorabilia.
That was one of the reasons we stopped working for them.
Is pressure applied by other auction houses, or dealers, to authenticators? I don't know the answer to that question except for my own experience. I did work for other smaller auction houses and pressure was never applied.
In light of recent stories on the net, I could start another poll and ask "do you think auction houses put pressure on authenticators to ok high ticket items?"

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

That's the conundrum. The biggest third party companies give the sense of invinciblity to an autograph, so sellers dont have to be knowledgable dealers or collectors. they can pawn off authenticity on the fact that it has been certed by abc, xyz. thus relegating themselves to little more than distributors of product, middlemen.

The biggest companies need to give guarantees to their authentications, that will hold their feet to the fire to not authenticate too fast, using people who are trying to authenticate out of their specialty.

A guarantee is the only way to use feedback and statistics as to how much they are refunding every quarter as a motivator to change their policies and procedures on how they authenticate to improve their bottom line.

Captialism is about the bottom line, and even though you would think they would want to get better at authenticating due to altruistic reasons, it is the almight dollar that motives.

The absence of a dollar motivator has brought about the anemic performances we are used to seeing. They authenticate that way because they can, they do and they get away with it without any monetary loss.

They have no incentive to offer a guarantee unless someone else introduces it first as a wedge issue to separate their company from the companies who do it now without a guarantee.

If it ever happens, the others will have to follow or suffer customer migration to those that do offer a guarantee.

You would think if they were truly as great at authenticating as they claim, a guarantee would bring in an increase in business over their competitors to more than pay for any refunds they would have to give out every quarter.

But they don't see it that way because if the other companies offer a guarantee too, then they are back to no competitive advantage to offering a guarantee, and are only on the hook for the guarantee and no one wants to start that arms race.

Travis, thank you for a well-reasoned post and suggestion on a way to mend the current system. I've grown accustomed to your tear-it-all-down-and-start-over type rants, and was expecting as much here, but was pleasantly surprised. I don't mean that to say that your other posts were wrong, but rather that I personally enjoy constructive suggestions more. Thanks!

[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.