Should auction houses honor all items that accompany their own LOA?

[drcy]

Duly note that I am not suggesting buyers (within reasonable return period) shouldn't get a refund from their buyer if an item is fake or materially misdescribed (of course they should), but the certificate says "In our opinion." Are you claiming that that wasn't their opinion?

As Adam said, LOAs are letters of opinion (unless they state some specific fact, such as "I witnessed the player sign this ball" or "I personally got this jersey directly from the player") and collectors should treat them as such. If the letters have some guarantee on them or claim 100% certainty as to the identity, then that guarantee or claim of 100% certainty is on them. I'm not an Antonin Scalia Republican, but LOAs are documents of words and you go by what they say. You don't get to turn your head the other way, close your eyes and make up what it says.

Bob at antique store: "In your opinion, do you think this postcard is original?"
Bob's friend John: "Let me look at it . . . Hmm, my opinion is yes."
Bob: "So you are saying 100% that the postcard is 100% original."
John: "No. Do you have any idea what the word 'opinion' means?"

Now, maybe the theory is when a document officially says at the top "Letter of Authenticity" or "Certificate of Authenticity," instead of "My idle thoughts" or "Musings on my lunch break after a martini" or is a return reply to someones's email message that signifies something officially official or gives it more legal document whatever in the minds of the hobby-- and collectors may be right in this sentiment and a lawyer would have better legal insight than I on that. But I still take the Scalia textualist approach that you read a LOA by what it says. There's no line item veto, proverbial double spacing for the collector to insert his own lines nor scratching out words and phrases to put in his own. The document says what it says. We'd all be rich if we could legally erase and rewrite LOAs to our benefit, leaving the expert's signature at the bottom. I'd change "One month return period" to "300 million billion years" and "It is my opinion" to "Fifty times your money back even if I'm correct" and would be living in my Manhattan penthouse right now. I'd also change "Thank you you for your patronage" to "Bring in this letter and I'll set you up on a date with Natalie Portman."

And, of course, at auction a bidder would be rightly pissed and deserving of a refund if a seller misrepresented what a letter of provenance or LOA really says at sale. If the seller didn't post the letter, but paraphrased "We aren't certain and cannot make certain claim, but evidence, including that it came from his family friend in Hollywood and the date etched on the side, does seem to support the consignors opinion that this silver flask may have actually belonged to Humphrey Bogart and may have even been on the set of Casablanca" to "The LOA states the silver flask belonged to Humphrey Bogart and he had it with him during the filming of his most famous movie Casablanca" the buyer might consider this fraud and immediately demand a refund. Even though the letter really has "Letter of Authenticity" in embossed text at top and has the original hologram and watermark just as the seller claimed, the text was misrepresented and the high bidder would rightly complain "The document nowhere states the things you said it stated." And if one isn't allowed to rewrite or re-imagine the document in this instance, how can it be claimed that one should be allowed to in others?

An even better example is if at sale you say "The included Company X LOA has a lifetime 100% lifetime money back guarantee of authenticity for what you paid for the item" and the winning bidder demands a refund because nowhere on the letter does it state any such guarantee or anything even resembling that guarantee. You can say "It's implied" or "That's the unwritten rule" all you want, but the winning bidder will likely still demand his money back.

In short, the hobby would be a saner, more intelligent place of collectors making saner, more intelligent choices if people took LOAs a "Some Dude's Opinion" or "Some Dude's Take" and valued the letters at their face value (You can say the same thing about professional grading, by the way). Read and consider what the text says, judge the value of the source and compare it to the actual item and your own research. A letter from an experienced and learned hobbyist can serve as a valuable opinion about the item and can help facilitate a sale as a worthwhile second opinion (the seller's is the first opinion and the buyer's is the third-- and there may be forth, fifth and sixth opinions involved in there too), but it should still be treated by seller and buyer as just one document in a body of evidence including examination of the item. And of course, some LOAs from some sources are worthy of being tossed in the trash can and actually lower bidding on the item when included in the auction description. And, yes, I see the chasm when a collector says at one time "You can't rely only on an LOA. You have to do your own research before you buy an item" or, in some cases, "LOAs aren't worth the paper they're printed on," while at at another time treats an LOA as golden ticket of 100% infalliblness that guarantees 100% authenticity until the sun stops rising. I ask them "So, which is it? Because it can't be both."

Do you know what would be my collecting rule for collectors world-wide? Collect what you are able to authenticate yourself. If you are spending thousands of dollars on T206s or Babe Ruth autographs or ming vases or 1952 Topps Mickey Mantles and you yourself have no clue how to if they are real or fake, you shouldn't be buying them. If your budget is $5 every other week for shiny trinkets for your window sill or to pin to your backpack or wear as funky earrings then that rule doesn't apply. I'm sure you're getting your $5 worth out of them.

"David, how come your theoretical examples always end up with you going a date with Natalie Portman?"
"That's not true. Sometimes it's Charlize Theron."