Auction LOAs are a scourge on the hobby and need to be banned

[Exhibitman]

MEARS offered this lot yesterday:



Described this way:

Title: 1910-1920 circa J.J. Jeffries signed 3 x 5 card (JSA)
Description: Vintage card with excellent condition signature.

Absolutely false. The card is a mail reply card that Jeffries used to respond to fan mail. His signature is a pre-print, readily seen as such by anyone paying slight attention to the item, or with my book, where I cover these cards. I bought the lot, for the Sam Berger-Jim Jeffries PC (bottom row middle) and to a lesser extent the Jordan-Jeffries PC, but if I was in any way relying on the AH or JSA I'd be very, very pissed off when I received the lot, sent it in with the additional fees (because when you get an auction LOA all you are really getting is a discount price on a submission to the authenticator the AH contracts with, not an actual LOA), and then had JSA fail it as a pre-print.

I think it is time we consumers start throwing around our muscle when it comes to these asinine 'auction LOAs'. Let's boycott them by not bidding on any lot that relies on them.

[Republicaninmass]

or the fine print in the rules ection like

"cannot be held responsible for changes in the opinions of authenticators beyond 60 days from the close of the auction"


"Larger autograph lots (10 or more pieces) can contain some secretarial signatures and such"

and such = FAKES?

[D. Bergin]

Great set of auctions last night, but there were certainly many dubious JSA letters scattered throughout. Many of the group autograph lots you would have bid knowing there would be a fair number that would have to get tossed.

Best to ignore the COA's and bid what you would be comfortable with, whether they had COA's or not.

[Exhibitman]

Dodgy opinions I understand. This wasn't a questionable opinion, it was an item that isn't signed at all but was listed as signed. That is worse than wrong, it is fraudulent. Any idiot could see the item is printed. The grey ink of the facsimile signature is a watermark behind the rest of the print.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Dodgy opinions I understand. This wasn't a questionable opinion, it was an item that isn't signed at all but was listed as signed. That is worse than wrong, it is fraudulent. Any idiot could see the item is printed. The grey ink of the facsimile signature is a watermark behind the rest of the print.

Oh, I understand. There wasn't a whole lot of attention to detail in the descriptions. I wonder if JSA even looked at all the lots they slapped their name on.

There WAS some nice stuff hidden in lots if you enlarged the pictures, that wasn't even mentioned in the descriptions.

Thought a lot of the group lots would go under the radar but actually got far stronger bidding then I expected.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

or the fine print in the rules ection like

"cannot be held responsible for changes in the opinions of authenticators beyond 60 days from the close of the auction"


"Larger autograph lots (10 or more pieces) can contain some secretarial signatures and such"

and such = FAKES?

No, such = SUCK

"Larger autograph lots (10 or more pieces) can contain some secretarial signatures and suck"

[bnorth]

I quit buying from Mears when I won a bat that while I was bidding was listed as game used. BAM, then as soon as the auction ended and I won the listing amazingly changed to professional model.

Mears has done this to others I know also. Another member on here was bidding on a vintage photo of Joe DiMaggio. Then when the auction ended and he won at the price of a vintage photo the listing changed. He ended up with a cheap new copy. Crazily he still bids on their garbage.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I quit buying from Mears when I won a bat that while I was bidding was listed as game used. BAM, then as soon as the auction ended and I won the listing amazingly changed to professional model.

Mears has done this to others I know also. Another member on here was bidding on a vintage photo of Joe DiMaggio. Then when the auction ended and he won at the price of a vintage photo the listing changed. He ended up with a cheap new copy. Crazily he still bids on their garbage.

[toybulldog]

Auction LOA's aside, they did a good job at keeping this one a secret. One of the best selection of autograph & boxing memorabilia offered all at once in quite a while and I knew absolutely nothing about it until I read your post. Would have bid up a storm had I known, many items went way under value. Quite a few happy people out there got some really good buys!!

[Exhibitman]

That's so true. If you happened to be on their list great. If not you would never have heard of it. Same as when they sold the Harry Shaffer collection. I didn't hear of it until the last phase. When I saw the stuff I'd missed I threw up a little in my mouth.

Despite the hide the ball stuff I actually thought prices were pretty strong when it was possible to figure out WTF they were selling. Still, I cannot understand how an experienced auctioneer could throw 600 cards in a lot with no descriptions and fewer than half shown or offer an 800 pin lot with a pick up only restriction. It is like they just didn't care.

And of course the usual ridiculous shipping costs. Over $35 to send me a few postcards and a small memorabilia item. I could ship it twice for that.

[TakingStock]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

That's so true. If you happened to be on their list great. If not you would never have heard of it. Same as when they sold the Harry Shaffer collection. I didn't hear of it until the last phase. When I saw the stuff I'd missed I threw up a little in my mouth.

Despite the hide the ball stuff I actually thought prices were pretty strong when it was possible to figure out WTF they were selling. Still, I cannot understand how an experienced auctioneer could throw 600 cards in a lot with no descriptions and fewer than half shown or offer an 800 pin lot with a pick up only restriction. It is like they just didn't care.

And of course the usual ridiculous shipping costs. Over $35 to send me a few postcards and a small memorabilia item. I could ship it twice for that.

You make some very good points. The amount of times I see key (and very valuable) overlooked items throw in group lots in major auctions is stunning.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

That's so true. If you happened to be on their list great. If not you would never have heard of it. Same as when they sold the Harry Shaffer collection. I didn't hear of it until the last phase. When I saw the stuff I'd missed I threw up a little in my mouth.

Despite the hide the ball stuff I actually thought prices were pretty strong when it was possible to figure out WTF they were selling. Still, I cannot understand how an experienced auctioneer could throw 600 cards in a lot with no descriptions and fewer than half shown or offer an 800 pin lot with a pick up only restriction. It is like they just didn't care.

And of course the usual ridiculous shipping costs. Over $35 to send me a few postcards and a small memorabilia item. I could ship it twice for that.

Sounds like they only offer the "shipped in gold plated mailers" option.
$35?, that really sux.

[Exhibitman]

OK, now it gets weird. The "JSA Auction Letter" turns out to be a full JSA LOA. The item, sadly, is a preprint. Here is the one I already own (top card):



Unless Jim Jeffries managed to sign these cards with identically placed and sized signatures, right down to the spacing of the loops between the letters, this is a preprint that JSA certified as an autograph with its full LOA, after being "thoroughly examined."

Really???

ETA: I do have to clarify one thing: the 'signature' is an overprint, not a watermark. Regardless, it ain't signed. I think I'll contact JSA...

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

OK, now it gets weird. The "JSA Auction Letter" turns out to be a full JSA LOA. The item, sadly, is a preprint. Here is the one I already own (top card):



Unless Jim Jeffries managed to sign these cards with identically placed and sized signatures, right down to the spacing of the loops between the letters, this is a preprint that JSA certified as an autograph with its full LOA, after being "thoroughly examined."

Really???

ETA: I do have to clarify one thing: the 'signature' is an overprint, not a watermark. Regardless, it ain't signed. I think I'll contact JSA...

The "signature" may be an overprint, but one thing is certain. The two examples you show are most definitely not identical.

[Bcwcardz]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

MEARS offered this lot yesterday:



Described this way:

Title: 1910-1920 circa J.J. Jeffries signed 3 x 5 card (JSA)
Description: Vintage card with excellent condition signature.

Absolutely false. The card is a mail reply card that Jeffries used to respond to fan mail. His signature is a pre-print, readily seen as such by anyone paying slight attention to the item, or with my book, where I cover these cards. I bought the lot, for the Sam Berger-Jim Jeffries PC (bottom row middle) and to a lesser extent the Jordan-Jeffries PC, but if I was in any way relying on the AH or JSA I'd be very, very pissed off when I received the lot, sent it in with the additional fees (because when you get an auction LOA all you are really getting is a discount price on a submission to the authenticator the AH contracts with, not an actual LOA), and then had JSA fail it as a pre-print.

I think it is time we consumers start throwing around our muscle when it comes to these asinine 'auction LOAs'. Let's boycott them by not bidding on any lot that relies on them.

Don't be so sure JSA will reject as a pre print. There is just as good odds you get a LOA from them. Probably not now since it was brought to light but if nothing had been said it's 50/50. All these places it is just a roll of the dice. This is IMHO, of course.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk