Posted By:
Richard SimonIt appears that there is some lack of clarity about what I said in my earlier posts.
I was one (of two people) hired by Bill Daniels to examine the lot.
I was asked to render an opinion on the condition of the lot and the accuracy of the description in the Mastro catalog. I did NOT, nor was I asked to, render any opinions regarding authenticity of any autographs in the lot.
I have been in this business for 22 years, I have worked for several auction houses and I have cataloged my own material for 22 years.
DJ - This is why Mr. Daniels decided to retain me. Authenticating autographs had nothing to do with my testimony in this case. I have testified, as a prosecution witness, in a NY State case against a forger of sports autographs, in the case of Daniel Dubcek.
Mr. Daniels and his attorney were quite pleased with my testimony, but obviously the judge was not. He felt that since I had made two different statements about industry standards for grading photographs, I had not worked for a grading service, and had not taken any educational courses about grading (has anyone ever heard of one?), and had not previously testified in court about grading, that I was not qualified to testify in this matter. These statements are from the judge in his ruling.
--
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss