R E Question

[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.

[jgmp123]

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This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor due to REA’s efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance being excessive (which they may have been).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]

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This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor due to REA’s efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance being excessive (which they may have been).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This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor because the consignor felt REA’s efforts to obtain additional information regarding provenance were excessive.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]

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This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor because the consignor felt REA’s efforts to obtain additional information regarding provenance were excessive.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jgmp123]

Hauls of Shame Update:

UPDATE (May 1): Experts Uncover More Ruth Fakes in Heritage and REA Auctions; Feds Building Cases Against PSA, Joe Orlando, Steve Grad, Jimmy Spence and Auctioneers

REA and Rob Lifson just withdrew ten autographed lots that Haulsofshame.com and other experts called out as fakes and the auctioneer’s disingenuous explanation that the withdrawal was at the request of its consignor is being widely ridiculed by collectors and dealers throughout the hobby. REA, however, has not removed the alleged photo signed by Babe Ruth to Gary Cooper despite expert Ron Keurajian calling it a fake and Gary Cooper’s own daughter confirming that the photo was never in the possession of her family or the “Cooper Collection” the family archive she curates. Sources indicate that Lifson does not believe that Cooper’s daughter Marie Cooper-Janis confirmed this information for Haulsofshame.com.

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19877#more-19877

[jetsticks]

All I will say is that I asked Rob to withdraw the photos for personal reasons. Nothing more and nothing less. It has nothing to do with possession rights or authenticity as I still stand that they are legit and am still taking on ANY and ALL that feel they can authenticate these.

[shelly]

Jetsicks.
For a guy who has no idea about this hobbyi you go on hauls of shame and talk about operation foul ball. You did not mention one of the main reasons for the items being taken down. That once he talked with you mother the ages changed and the story changed. I also understand that a promise was broken. That might be a good reason to be mad but not to throw away money. If you mother does not want you to sell them. Please explain why your up here.
I have one more question. Did you mother get the photos from the guy in Boston or Indiana. If she was such a good friend of his why do you not know his name. She was the one who placed him in the retirement home. She was the one he called when he was dying I am 73 years old and I know I would remember someone like that.With that kind of information it would not be hard to find out who the mystery man was.
Posted so the people on here can read what you said.


After all the opinions about them, that has been put out there,I doubt very seriously that REA would want to put them back in their auction,cause they are in a world of deep shit over other forged items they have had in their auctions.After all is said and done,You are not going to find a person who is willing to put his or her reputation on the line,for something that many have said are no good.Just remember Operation Foul Ball ,is still in operation and they are nailing them left and right and if you are up on collecting, you know what I mean.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

Hauls of Shame Update:
... is being widely ridiculed by collectors and dealers throughout the hobby.
...

Peter Nash - yeah, he's never twisted anything to make a point :roll eyes:

Let's interpret Nash's statement:

"collectors" = 2 guys in Indiana, one of whom claims he is not a collector, and the other who hasn't had much to say in the forums other than to bring up fakes that he thought were real.

"throughout the hobby" = Net54, where Nash generally swipes most of his information, then manipulates it.

Okay, James, now I'll put you on ignore where you belong. You and Dean can continue your tap-dance alone.