[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The question is one that Bushing was asked in SCD. Taking a page from certain politicians who are truth-challenged, the authentication industry has chosen to frame the issue as whether or not they should be dealers. That is not the issue and never has been, it is a straw man argument that they set up so they can self-righteously knock it down. The issue is whether an authenticator should be authenticating then selling the stuff he owns without disclosing that he owns it. The whole point of an auctioneer using and touting third party authentication is that the third party is supposedly impartial and will give the buyer an honest opinion as to the item free from financial self interest in touting the item for sale that both the auctioneer and the seller have. It should be obvious that if the third party authenticator has a financial interest in the item's sale, he as an incentive to promote it and make more money. Think of it this way: you are sued for breaching a business contract. Do you really want the judge who is assigned your case to have an undisclosed ownership stake in your opponent's business such that he makes more money if the plaintiff wins? Of course not; and even if the judge is impartial, it looks so bad that you'd want to know right up front so you could ask for someone else to handle the case. Same is true for the authenticators; I cannot trust the opinion of the guy who makes more money if the thing sells for more money, which is why these guys hide their ownership interests and refuse to answer a straight question without a lot of dissembling and foot dragging.

Personally, I thought the Hall collection sale (Hall owned PSA, had PSA slab his cards, then sold them at auction) was more honest than what the authenticators who have undisclosed interests in these auction lots are doing. At least with Hall you knew right up front that there was a conflict of interest.

Don't fall for the propagandists' efforts to frame the terms of the debate, a la the SCD article. Make them answer the actual questions, not the ones they would like to answer.

The more those guys dance around the obvious true issue, the worse they dig themselves into the hole. Those dopes would not last ten minutes with a competent cross-examiner instead of a powder puff friendly interviewer. Of course, neither would a politician, which is why political debates are so boring and meaningless.