Quote:
Originally Posted by botn
The buyer relied on the LOA by JSA that the sig was authentic when making the purchase. Seems either JSA or the house should refund the buyer. The item pictured in the first post is in fact the same item that was in the auction.
Two submissions to JSA and two opinions. If their recent assessment is the right one then yes it is reassuring to know they are willing to correct a previous error but the buyer is now out some money. Do we know if JSA knew they had previously authenticated it for the auction house? If not then that shows how little credibility should be placed in an opinion.
There is an interesting thread http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=218934 on the main board about LOA's and their validity. |
Thanks for that link, there is a lot of relevance there and a lot of good arguments.
I will echo here what drcy says so well in that thread: These are not really LOAs, they are LOOS, meaning that they communicate opinions only. Furthermore, it would be a mistake for any issuer of these opinions to become insurers of the item or any selling price. As such, JSA should never have to refund any purchase price for anything. There should be loss of credibility of their opinion (and there probably is, though around here it is negligible due to the low baseline opinion of those authenticators).
The auction house is another story. If I were your friend, I would consign the postcard to the original auction and see what transpires.