Quote:
Originally Posted by sox83cubs84
It has been brought to my attention that I have been disparaged on this board and I have joined to respond to that. I do not know who David Hernandez is (but will confirm with the forum operator or whatever means needed to do so). He made several negative comments about me and my work which I am here to refute. The most egregious comment was one stating he believe I do not even review every jersey. This is completely false
I have been in the game used business since 1978. I have written for Sports Collectors Digest on game used jerseys from 1982-99. I currently perform authentication services for multiple auction companies and individuals, including Goldin Auctions and Huggins and Scott. If my name is on a LOA and my signature is on an LOA, I inspected the jersey personally. By way of example, with respect to Goldin Auctions, I perform the work in their office. They have on hand for my use both a light table and a black light, as well as computer with internet access so I can search for photo matches and style matches. In addition, I fill out and sign a worksheet for each item I inspect. Any item that I fail does not run in their auction. In addition, Goldin Auctions offers a guarantee on anything that I authenticate that it will pass a MEARS certification or it can be returned for a refund.
If anyone including Mr. Hernandez makes further statements that I rubber stamp an LOA and do not actually inspect items I issue an LOA for, they will be hearing from my attorney. I also see that in post 33 where my name was originally posted by Mr. Hernandez and a link to a thread about me was posted, the name ‘Dave Mustaine’ is now listed with no link, which I assume
he did to cover his tracks.
Dave Miedema
|
Dave
How about telling us what your job title was when you were employed by Mears and what your criteria is for issuing a COA calling a jersey game used?
Can you explain how sports jerseys (especially star players) that show little to no use but display characteristics of being spec correct can and are being given IMO the determination of game used time and again thru COA's by industry authenticators such as yourself? With the prevalent misrepresentation and fraud that has been proven to exist industry wide don’t you think the burden of proof should be much more than the appearance of spec correct especially with jerseys that show little to no use?
IMO the task of certifying all aspects of the thousands of different style jerseys in existence as being spec correct is at times impossible without known exemplifiers on hand that are beyond reproach in their own authenticity. If the main reliance of proof is based on images of other examples which are also not in hand and may or may not be authentic is in and of itself problematic in my eyes.
IMO the huge money that is also being made through misrepresentation and forgeries at the collectors expense by some individuals over the years has gotten so good to the untrained eye (its like playing “Where’s Waldo”) that without actually handling both the item being certified and the exemplifier beyond reproach side by side will lend itself to countless mistakes.
Even if a jersey you are certifying as game used is beyond reproach spec correct but still shows next to or no use shouldn’t the burden of proof then be based on some other tangle evidence (especially star type players) such as a photo match prior to a jersey being called anything more than say pro cut or best case possibly team issued?
With the thousands of different combinations of sports teams jersey’s in existence how is it possible for anyone to keep track of all this information outside of over reliance upon pictures of other items that appear to be similar in nature when common sense would dictate that an inventory of thousands of jerseys that are beyond reproach in authenticity would need to be on hand in some cases to make the proper/correct determination?
I’m also not sure why your chapped at Dave H. when IMO the reality is that EVERY BUYER in order to not get ripped off on some transactions has to be their own expert/authenticator while following their own burden of proof checklist. Its also my opinion Dave that almost all COA’s/LOA’s carry next to no value to an experienced collector and only hold perceived value in the eyes of the untrained and under informed buyer purchasing things that they don’t know enough about to make an intelligent decision on.
It would also be interesting to hear you explain how any COA is supposed to be taken seriously when they are being drafted by authenticators being paid by the same auction house that will be selling the item being authenticated along with the fact that the COA’s are being written in such a manner that the authenticator assumes no responsibility for an opinion that collectors are being told they can rely upon?
In closing Dave with your 40+ years in this industry it would also be interesting and vastly informative of your character what your opinion is of the apparent behavior of the individuals whose names appear on the Doug Allen FBI court documents concerning Mastro consignors/shill bidders especially with all of the well known names that appear and your current employers disturbing self imposed on the record silence along with the apparent associated information suppression thats occurred on your employers website GUU to which you happen to remain a major contributor.