R E Question

jgmp123 · #1 05-01-2013, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJJ

Rob did the right thing.

Whatever the additional information Rob asked for, and perhaps wanted to make public, was the correct way to go to resolve this firmly one way or the other.

If the autographs and backstory are real, why on earth would you not provide all the info in the world, to prevent the items from being withdrawn from a major auction?

Does the owner think everyone will forget? Or that each auction house has a totally different set of buyers? And that other houses will want to touch what was withdrawn from REA?

Even if someone is concerned about chain of title issues, deathbed gifts, etc., the only way to make certain you lose a good amount, or all, your value is to withdraw items from an auction.

To lose value (by withdrawing) because you are concerned that you may lose value (via legal claim) is really dumb.

The question is, is the owner's backstory true and he is foolish, or is the owner's backstory not true.

JJ,
The photos were certified by JSA...it had the same clout that the Babe Ruth ticket did...The Consignor could have left the items in the auction and they would have sold for a pretty penny. REA would have left them in if the Consignor would not have requested to pull them.

The only thing that was a "good thing" that was done was that they contacted the Consignor for more provenance at the urge of someone here, but they didn't pull the items. Only After the Consignor told them to pull the items, did they pull them.

The Consignor of the Gary Cooper photo has not requested it be pulled, which is the only reason it's still up.

If they are doing the right thing, then why is that Cooper photo still up?

BigJJ · #2 05-01-2013, 08:05 AM

Jim,

Fair question. I do not know the particulars.

My Rabbi once gave a sermon, and I am not outwardly religious, I go to Temple about three times a year, but he gave a sermon that I always keep in mind. He said that humanity's difficult position stems from our outcast from the Garden of Eden. That as a result of our being placed in an imperfect world, that no matter how hard we try to make everything right and perfect, we cannot. Now obviously the existence of an actual Garden of Eden is up for debate. But the idea that it is impossible to act perfectly in an imperfect world is interesting. Man cannot create a Garden of Eden, cannot create a perfect result. And therefore, what distinguishes good from bad, is intent, as we only have full control over intent and not result.

BigJJ · #3 05-01-2013, 08:10 AM

J, I re-read the statement. Based on the statement, it appears that REA would not have left them in without the consignor agreeing to make available additional information. REA was not allowing these items to continue, without additional information provided, or made available to the public. As a result, the consignor withdrew them. That is my read of the statement.

jgmp123 · #4 05-01-2013, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJJ

J, I re-read the statement. Based on the statement, it appears that REA would not have left them in without the consignor agreeing to make available additional information. REA was not allowing these items to continue, without additional information provided, or made available to the public. As a result, the consignor withdrew them. That is my read of the statement.

I understand that everyone will read things a little different I guess I don't get the same translation out of the statement:

This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor due to REA’s efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance being excessive (which they may have been). We are honoring the consignor’s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

The items are gone and until they appear again, it's a moot point. So until REA comes on, I guess we will never really know what happened.

Mr. Zipper · #5 05-01-2013, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgmp123

I understand that everyone will read things a little different I guess I don't get the same translation out of the statement:

This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor due to REA�s efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance being excessive (which they may have been). We are honoring the consignor�s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

The items are gone and until they appear again, it's a moot point. So until REA comes on, I guess we will never really know what happened.

It is worded unclearly, but I think the translation would be:
This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor because the consignor felt REA�s efforts to obtain additional information regarding provenance were excessive. We are honoring the consignor�s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

I'll stand corrected if my interpretation is inaccurate.

jgmp123 · #6 05-01-2013, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

It is worded unclearly, but I think the translation would be:
This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor because the consignor felt REA’s efforts to obtain additional information regarding provenance were excessive. We are honoring the consignor’s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

I'll stand corrected if my interpretation is inaccurate.

Steve,

I agree with that 100%. I just don't have the notion that others do that REA would have pulled the photo's if the Consignor had no issues with their "excessive" nature. I believe that if they would still be active if the consignor wouldn't have requested they be pulled.

BigJJ · #7 05-01-2013, 09:11 AM

J,

Understand other interpretations.

It may be worth noting, even if we disagree over the statement, that we can agree -

REA was continuing to conduct due diligence on the items - even after full JSA.

They were not just sitting on information provided to them. They could have. but they did not, even though the auction was already afoot.

They had full JSA. But apparently continued to comb the provenance to make certain what they were presenting was accurate.

jetsticks · #8 05-01-2013, 09:03 AM

Bigjj,

Not true at all. REA would have left my photos in the auction if I did not request them to be withdrawn. I did not have them withdrawn because of the authenticity issue but more of a personal issue that Rob and I had. That is all. I could have left them up there and they still would have sold for a fair amount but I did not like the way things transpired with Rob and had him pull them. Again, it has nothing to do with him trying to get more information, but rather the way he was trying to acquire it which I felt betrayed myself and my family.

BigJJ · #9 05-01-2013, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jetsticks

Bigjj,

Not true at all. REA would have left my photos in the auction if I did not request them to be withdrawn. I did not have them withdrawn because of the authenticity issue but more of a personal issue that Rob and I had. That is all. I could have left them up there and they still would have sold for a fair amount but I did not like the way things transpired with Rob and had him pull them. Again, it has nothing to do with him trying to get more information, but rather the way he was trying to acquire it which I felt betrayed myself and my family.

How were the items acquired? Were they a deathbed gift? Is there a concern about chain of title?

BigJJ · #10 05-01-2013, 09:27 AM

And by the way, I was trying to discern the meaning of REA's statement. along with many here.

Not stating what the facts on the ground were. I have no idea whether they would have been pulled or not.

You say they would not have been.

shelly · #11 05-01-2013, 09:40 AM

I do and I think the seller should tell the whole truth about what happened. By comeing on here you left your self open to comment.

BigJJ · #12 05-01-2013, 09:42 AM

And items may be pulled for many reasons. and I am not talking about these particular items per se which were not pulled. But items may be pulled for authenticity, but also pulled for questions of ownership. Even if you have a consignor signing that he has 100% ownership, if it comes to the auctioneer's attention that this may not be the case, depending on the circumstances, items may be pulled. I am not stating that this is a question here. but there are many reasons why due diligence might continue on an item after the beginning of an auction other than authenticity.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1955 Topps Trivia Question - Updated with Question #2	toppcat	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	9	01-03-2012 08:51 PM
SGC grading question (possible dumb question)	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	09-08-2006 01:36 AM
Player question & a set question	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	4	11-13-2004 07:41 PM