REA - Pittsburgh Federal League Jersey

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert Lifson

Hi Barry! Question: How is what Dave Bushing did any different than what you did when you bought the 1871 Boston CDVs on eBay and then put them in your auction. I’m not saying that you should not have done this – you should have – but how was this different?

In both cases the purchase was made on eBay. In the case of the jersey, Dave Bushing provided complete disclosure and it was consigned to an auction (REA) where his ownership and role in contributing to the authentication process was clearly stated in the description both at his insistence and per REA policies. When you sold the CDVs, you were both the auctioneer and the owner and the authenticator, and there was no disclosure in the description. Now I agree that it is the case that probably everybody that had a serious interest in that lot was aware that you owned it, you discussed it and even posted about this on the Net54 board, so I am not saying that you did anything you should not have, I’m just trying to make a point using this as an example. I could have chosen a million other examples but I thought this was a good one. There are many similarities. The CDVs were not authenticated by a third party - they were authenticated by you. It is possible that someone could have had an interest in buying the CDVs who did not read your Net54 posts about them and they would not have been aware of the ownership (and implicit authentication) disclosure from the printed or online catalog. So isn’t it the case that Dave Bushing, on his jersey purchase and auction sale, provided much more transparency than the CDV purchase and sale? And he also provided a written research report and a money-back guarantee. (Note: I could have presented this type of situation as an analogy with any non-third-party authenticated cards bought on eBay and sold by any dealer privately or at auction.)

Now I know it might be tempting to say that the CDVs were “slam dunks” as far as authenticating, and so it is different, and I agree that you are one of the great scholars of nineteenth-century baseball photography. But the fact is that CDVs and other early baseball photography really aren’t slam dunks for being properly described. There are all kinds of problems that come up. And they come up all the time. A couple of auctions ago, Barry, you had a “Goodwin Old Judge proof” of the type that I am certain does not date from the 1880s, but instead dates from post-1900. There is more information to be learned about these photos – who made them, when, and why. They are very interesting, and collectors like them, but exactly what they are has yet to be determined with certainty. After I called you to give you the heads up, you pulled that photo from the auction. I just had a 1904 Horner cabinet of “McGinnity” in the spring REA auction. It was lot #184. Here is the link:

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=9940
It turns out that this photo was not McGinnity after all –it was Sammy Strang. I missed it. I made an error. And this cabinet photo actually WAS authenticated by a third-party – PSA/DNA! Granted, McGinnity and Strang bear a strong resemblance. Between their resemblance and the PSA/DNA authentication letter, I let my guard down and didn’t realize the error until the auction had started. We pulled the lot. “The Old Man” card (Lot #12:http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=9768 was originally identified by you as a card of Bernie Hennigan, years ago when you cataloged this card for another auction. I understood your reasoning, thought you were 100% right, and repeated the very same errors you did in presenting the card in the spring auction. I even wrote an article on the card! We were both wrong, and research by Brian and Michael Wentz of BMW Sportscards was able to identify this card correctly for us and for the entire collecting world as Dave Birdsall. There are lots of other examples. It’s hard to get everything perfect.

The point is I don’t see any difference between Dave Bushing buying a jersey, authenticating it, providing his research in a written form, providing a money-back guarantee, and providing full disclosure in all respects, than with a dealer buying a card or a CDV or some other collectible and then grading, authenticating, and presumably guaranteeing its authenticity when selling it. The way I see it, Dave is doing more than others. I think he is an easy target here in part because he IS providing full disclosure. If he wasn’t, no one would even know what was his and it would be a non-issue, just like it is for all the others that do not provide disclosure. Most authenticators, dealers, and auction houses do not provide any disclosure at all regarding conflicts of interest - as far as authenticators go I think we’re talking about a universe of one – MEARS - so those that do provide disclosure, ironically, appear to be a lightening rod for criticism, while those that do not provide disclosure get a pass (and while it is not a third-party authentication service, the Game-Used Universe auction authentication process also provides this type of ideal disclosure).

The fact is that all dealers in all areas provide grading and authentication and presumably a money-back guarantee. I can’t believe that anyone would think that this should be OK for all types of collectibles (cards, coins, paintings, books, autographs, pinbacks, comics, etc) except jerseys and bats (or items handled by Dave Bushing), let alone when Dave is holding himself up to a higher, more rigid, and more formal standard than dealers in all other areas that I have seen. If one wants to take exception with the MEARS opinion or the authentication process on any given item, that’s fine, I’m all for it and so are they, there is even a forum for that. It would seem reasonable to see what they have based their opinions on and read their report on the item first.

If it is deemed inappropriate for someone to buy and sell any type of collectible solely because they are providing (implicitly or explicitly) authentication services on an item that is owned, and do so with full disclosure, then I have to ask why? And I also have to ask what are the logical implications? Would not all collectible dealerships of all kinds – except those dealing exclusively in third-party-authenticated items (like PSA-authenticated Horner photos or PSA-graded T206 Nodgrass cards) be put out of business overnight? To me, that sounds very Un-American! I really don’t think anyone is suggesting that but these are some of my thoughts regarding these important topics that I thought might be valuable to share.

Sincerely,

Robert Lifson

Robert Edward Auctions, LLC