[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

As is mentioned in the article, I have been in communication with Rob Lifson to correct this label. I was able to e-mail a little back and forth with Mark last week as well. While I won't get into specifics so as to protect the privacy of the issue, I will say that both Rob and I are confident that this will be resolved easily in the coming days.

The authentication of these obscure pieces can be difficult, and when such items are submitted, we always request documentation to support the submitter's claims. The information, coupled with our independent research, is presented to the graders who evaluate everything they have and make the determination on how an item is labeled. There will be many customers, including a few on this board, who can attest to our desire to be as accurate as possible when it comes to pieces like this. We routinely decline to label pieces as requested based on the graders' comfort level with the information which has been presented to them.

I can't comment on the specific documentation used to support this piece because I don't have any knowledge of it. What I can say, though, is that the graders undoubtedly considered everything they were presented and made a good faith decision based on what they saw from the submitter and the supporting information to proceed with the Wilkinson identification.

We strive for the utmost accuracy and never intentionally make mistakes. This does not appear to have been an egregious misidentification--if that was the case, I do believe that REA would have opted not to run the piece as identified in their 2008 auction.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to call or email me.

Thank you,

Brian Dwyer
SGC
1-800-742-9212 x114