[drcy]

An auction house issuing an LOA for something they sold is one thing, because they have a financial/authenticity responsibility whether or not the issued an LOA. However, beyond that, I firmly believe letter writers shouldn't also act as insurance agencies. You should want expert opinions from people who feel free to offer their judgments and opinions, not people who hedge their bets for financial reasons. That PSA is so financially intertwined with their opinions is why they suppress information, delete threats and HAVE NEVER ADMITTED that the PSA 9 Wagner is trimmed. This is the complete opposite of what you want from people who are supposed to be giving you expert opinions.

Though not something I do or would do anymore, I have been asked to inspect and write letters about items in the past and, as an art historian, that's what I've done. That's all I've done. They aren't labeled as "Letters of Authenticity," and in fact don't have any title, but are descriptions of my observations and opinions. If you've ever read one of my letters, it resembles an academic essay. And in fact I calculated I was earning less than McDonald's wages because I took so much time and detail in composing them. I've never intended to, nor aspired to act as an insurance agency and if people expect me to every time they ask for my opinion, including via email or Net 54, I would never give my opinion on anything.

So I firmly believe it's a mistake to make experts insurance agents, because it will greatly effect and corrupt what they do and say-- just as it has corrupted PSA. PSA is supposed to be about expertise and information, but it often seems that they spend much of their information suppressing and spinning facts like politicians. Why? Because they have essentially set themselves up as a quasi insurance company. Because their accountants have said that being honest and forthcoming would hurt their bottom line. And when you're talking about historical artifacts, you want professors not insurance company lawyers giving the opinions.

* * * *

The below quoted passage illustrates how finances and such ruined free discussion about artworks in past years:

"Due to the real or perceived litigious nature of some art owners, many scholars, professors and experts have become reluctant to give their opinions about the authenticity of works of art. In years before, open authenticity discussions about art was normal and encouraged as scholarly activity, but scholars have been sued over their opinions. Even when the scholar is correct and the court agrees, the court costs can be prohibitive. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts and the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, each set up by the artist's estate, discontinued their authentication boards due the potential of lawsuits and liability insurance. Though the Warhol Foundation won a lawsuit brought by a collector, the legal costs were $7 million."

Expecting honest and competence is one thing, but if you really and honestly want honest expert opinions, you don't tie the opinion to some financial pendulum. Because if you do, you'll get something like PSA pr/politics or experts who simply won't give opinions.

* * * *

As Adam said "LOAs" are letters of opinion. The value is what you think of the letter writer and the value of his knowledge. Just as the value of a receipt from an auction house is based on what people think of the auction house.

* * * *

To sum up my personal sentiments on the subject, my old authentication joke is:

Someone asks me how much is my fee to write an LOA for his item and I say "$5." He says "Okay, but if you're opinion is wrong I'm holding you entirely financially responsible for what I paid." I say "How much did you pay for the item?" He says "$5,000." I say "Then the fee is $5,000."