A Jimmy Spence authentication question.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by drc

I think you should first find a mistake in their opinion before criticizing their method at arriving at it. If their opinion of that many signatures is accurate, it's tough to argue their methods were wrong-- as their methods led to correct answer.

I am pointing out that their method at arriving at their conclusion does not seem to match the method that they explain they use to arrive at their conclusion as written out on the LOA. that is a huge problem regardless if they ended up getting it right or not.

I said before if they say on their LOA that it is an Letter of provenance instead of a letter of authentication, and they are taking the word of someone that the lesser known players signed the piece and they put that on the Letter of provenance, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all as it is truth in advertising.

If they promise a process to authenticate the autographs, shouldn't they be held accountable to that process? That's what you bargained for. Otherwise they could state on their LOA that they arrive at their conclusion anyway they want to and trust them, they will get it right. but they don't say that. You want the autographs authenticated, don't you? Authenticated means inspected.

Otherwise it's the trust game.

I never said they got the piece wrong, I said how can they authenticate according to their process that they promise with over 150 signatures on this piece? And shouldn't they have to do what they promise? Otherwise an LOA with a promise that doesn't get followed is what?


Integrity of the process is no big deal if it happens to turn out okay anyway? That's an incredible statement.

Take the safety guide off of a power saw for ease of operation and if you didn't chop off any hands today, you can't argue with that decision to forego the safety process which is suppose to ensure everything goes right because it's the end result that matters. And today everyone came out alive, so let's keep doing that. And if someone criticizes that decision, tell them to point to an amputee in the shop before their criticisms can have any weight?


Pay the post office for registered, insured mail, for a very important piece you are sending, and if they turn around and send it just regular mail, and it still gets there, would you be happy at how they sent it vs. how they said they were going to send it and the process you paid for vs. the process you got?

Still got there, so how can you be mad if you paid for registered and insured like they promised? Still got there. They got it there. They got the desired result for you. What's the problem? You have no right to complain and expect them to follow the procedures they advertised they will use to move your piece of mail. After all, who are you? Only the paying customer. If it still got there, then no problem, But keep paying for the registered and insured route like they promise.

See how that works?