Contacting an auction house to correct a listing

[Topnotchsy]

Has anyone had any experience contacting an auction house regarding a listing they have up?

A while back I noticed an item in a Lelands auction that I believe had a significant issue. I messaged them with the information and evidence and within 24 hours got a message back that the listing was pulled and thanking me for the information.

More recently I messaged another auction house about an issue. In this case the information was a bit less conclusive than in the previous instance, but I believe the information I provided lent substantial support to the idea that the item was being dated incorrectly, and should be adjusted.

It has been close to a week and I have not received any response and have not heard from the auction house.

Has anyone had experience contacting auction houses?

[Butch7999]

Contacted REA several years ago about an error in their then-current catalogue
(date attributed, in the auction description, to an antique tabletop baseball game
was off by about a decade).
Heard back next day personally from Rob Lifson, very politely thanking us for the info.
An errata sheet was included in subsequent mailings of that catalogue
(well, one was sent to us, anyway).

[drcy]

I've contacted auction houses sometimes with about 50/50 success. I know sometimes they've missed the messages, and some aren't terribly good at communicating.

Due to lack of communication and people who don't take kindly to corrections, my personal rule is I answer questions that are asked of me and leave it at that. I do have auction houses that sometimes ask me questions, but it's more often collectors who have questions about items in auctions.

The exception where I insert myself is when an auction house has something that is much more significant that they realize-- which happens sometimes.

[Bestdj777]

"Substantial support" probably isn't sufficient enough to warrant revising the description. We all have theories and some evidence about particular items but it's a fine line.

[bnorth]

I would guess most auction/consignment houses/sellers don't care as long as they get their cut.

Check out this thread. http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=240022 They changed the title but this is still the first line in the description. "Great piece, offered is a truly historic 1947 Brooklyn Dodger original World Series ring."

Yep that is a World Series ring.

EDIT: I did contact Heritage once because they had some old rack packs and in that listing they said to beware of the fake Christmas rack packs. Then a few lots later was a listing for Christmas Rack packs. When I pointed that out they pulled the Christmas rack packs from the auction.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Bestdj777

"Substantial support" probably isn't sufficient enough to warrant revising the description. We all have theories and some evidence about particular items but it's a fine line.

Wouldn't that be hard to say without knowing what the item or evidence was?

Substantial support = pretty strong evidence that the item signed did not exist until 5-10 years after the date indicated + pretty clear indication that the style autograph on the item is in a style that reflects a later time period a well.

In my mind there is no doubt the listing is inaccurate, but unlike the earlier case where I had photo evidence, in this case I do not, so I didn't use as strong a wording in my original post.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I have emailed a company I buy and sell with on occasion, They have made appropriate changes every time.

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

Wouldn't that be hard to say without knowing what the item or evidence was?

Substantial support = pretty strong evidence that the item signed did not exist until 5-10 years after the date indicated + pretty clear indication that the style autograph on the item is in a style that reflects a later time period a well.

In my mind there is no doubt the listing is inaccurate, but unlike the earlier case where I had photo evidence, in this case I do not, so I didn't use as strong a wording in my original post.

I think it's a fine line. Not doubting the veracity of what you say. I'm sure the listing is wrong. I just don't expect that an auction would modify a listing based on the opinion of someone.

[Leon]

Auction houses should answer questions quickly.
The ones with the best customer service do. I always ask our members to go to the auction house before going public, with most things, to get them corrected. It's not a rule but is a common courtesy.

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

Has anyone had any experience contacting an auction house regarding a listing they have up?

A while back I noticed an item in a Lelands auction that I believe had a significant issue. I messaged them with the information and evidence and within 24 hours got a message back that the listing was pulled and thanking me for the information.

More recently I messaged another auction house about an issue. In this case the information was a bit less conclusive than in the previous instance, but I believe the information I provided lent substantial support to the idea that the item was being dated incorrectly, and should be adjusted.

It has been close to a week and I have not received any response and have not heard from the auction house.

Has anyone had experience contacting auction houses?

[frankbmd]

I just call them up to tell them they screwed up again (Hi Lee).

It works. Correction ensues. Everyone is happy.

[Topnotchsy]

I didn't want to post until the auction ended, but now that it is over I'd love to get more thoughts.

This baseball was listed as: Lot # 402: 1940’S SATCHEL PAIGE SINGLE SIGNED “NEGRO AMERICAN LEAGUE” BASEBALL

The 2 basic problems are:
1) The signature "Satchel" only has 1 "L" indicating the ball was signed after 1948. (In at least some 1948 Indians team signed baseballs he still signed with 2 "L's")

2) The specific baseball to the best of my knowledge did not exist before the 1950's. According to Keyman it didn't exist until 1956:
http://keymancollectibles.com/balls/...uebaseball.htm

Based on these 2 I felt that the listing describing the ball as "1940's" was almost definitely inaccurate, and it was much more likely that the ball was signed in the 50's (possibly connected to a barnstorming tour.)

Anyone agree or disagree with the conclusion? Is it strong enough reason to have reasonably changed the listing or is it not enough?