Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty
Maybe they should be RESPONSIBLE for their authentications. Novel idea I know.
|
How would you suggest an authenticator take responsibility for this or any other mistake when it's discovered after-the-fact? I'm not meaning that to be an attack, but a genuine question. Of course, ideally the mistake would be caught in-house before the LOA was printed up in the first place. Failing that, if the person paying for the authentication discovered the mistake, I suppose they
could get their money back (though I'm sure most would just keep the LOA and pass it on down the line). But when a mistake is discovered two or three links down the chain of custody, what can an authenticator do at that point?
I'm thinking in particular of a situation Richard Simon posted about recently in which an item was brought to his attention that he had previously passed, but now revised his opinion on. Much to his credit, he contacted the current owner and encouraged them to go back up the chain and get his money back from whoever he bought it from, but the current owner declined to do so. In a situation like that, I'm not sure what else the authenticator could do to "be responsible." He can't break into the guy's house and destroy the fraudulent item, he can't force the guy to tear up the LOA, he can't even force the current owner to disclose the identity of the next buyer so that he can let them know the situation. It seems like once the LOA goes back with the item, the authenticator's hands are tied unless the owner notices the mistake (in which case, why is he having it authenticated in the first place).
Again, not an attack on anybody, authenticator or otherwise. Also, this question is presented with the understanding that
mistakes do happen, so answers like "they shouldn't ever make mistakes in the first place" aren't particularly helpful.