Posted By:
AaronTroy: Thanks for posting Fogel's e-mail. Of course nowhere in it does Fogel retract his statement that H&B did not know beforehand that Bushing owned the bat, so you've essentially confirmed the following:
1. H&B did not know the bat was owned by Bushing prior to purchasing the bat.
2. Marshall Fogel believes that H&B did not know the bat was owned by Bushing prior to purchasing it.
When you are able to offer proof that H&B knew beforehand that Bushing owned the bat, I'm sure the entire collecting community would be eager to see it.
You also ignored my second question: If auction houses refuse to include information in an item description that the authenticator and owner of an item are the same person, that SCDA will no longer provide authentication services to such auction house.
You want to get your credibility back?
That's the way to do it.
You want to keep getting money from auction houses without rocking the boat?
Then keep on your present course and accept that the credibility of SCDA is forever tarnished and will continue to be the object of suspicion and derision for what most consider to be unethical practices.
On the same note, you seem to be purposefully missing a couple points here: The major complaint (and source of suspicion of Bushing and SCDA's authentication methods) stems from your failure to disclose to potential bidders that Bushing owned the bat he himself had authenticated (and confirmation that thse types of consignments are commonplace and have been for years).
And before you offer the "this information was available to anyone who asked answer," I would like to say that I, as a potential bidder, did not know Bushing owned the bat, and did not know that Bushing and/or SCDA owned any lot in any auction for the past four years that it provided authentication services for.
I would imagine 99% of the posters on this site would share this position.
Unfortunately, I'm not a "top collector" who was apparently aware that this practice was going on. I didn't even suspect that SCDA would tolerate such an obvious and blatant conflict of interest and breach of ethical standards and conceal vital information from its customers.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, SCDA and Dave Bushing are guilty of deception by omission, by failing to make public an obvious conflict of interest that could severely question the validity of the authentication of the bat (and the motivation for such validity) and change a potentials bidders mind about bidding on an item he might otherwise have no reason to be suspicious of.
I've purchased several items in major sports auctions over the past few years that were authenticated by Dave Bushing and/or SCDA. I am now suspicious about all of them (one jersey in particular).
I would like to know that if I provide you with the auction and lot number, would you reveal if Bushing, SCDA or any of its authenticators was, in fact, the consignor as well?