50,000 dollar removed from auction

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Maddog

The really sick part is that the government STILL hasn't done ANYTHING about this even after receiving numerous reports of fraud.
I don't know what it will take for them to take action.

Whom would they charge, and with what crime?

It's not illegal to be incompetent.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Whom would they charge, and with what crime?

It's not illegal to be incompetent.

If it was, IMAGINE the overcrowding!

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Whom would they charge, and with what crime?

It's not illegal to be incompetent.

That's why they changed COA to COO. The illegal part of the equation is the forgers who the FBI could easily track down by obtaining the submission records of the authentication companies. How is it that the FBI has yet to track down Coaches Corner's submitters?

[David Atkatz]

I'm pretty sure that nobody submits that shit to Coach's Corner. That crap originates with them.

[rjackson44]

agree with david 100 pct ,,scam artists where is the fbi,,,,,

[bigtrain]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I'm pretty sure that nobody submits that shit to Coach's Corner. That crap originates with them.

My favorite item in their current auction is a Christopher Morales certified signature cut of Geronimo. They are low life criminal scum but I did get a good laugh.

[mighty bombjack]

I'm serious about my question above, though. In terms of JSA and PSA, does anyone here believe they are guilty of a crime? I'm not defending their business practices, but I see negligence here, not fraud. I love reading Nash's blog, and if these posts can help move auction houses (and thereby the general buying public) away from total dependence on these authenticators, then I'm all for it. However, when he makes statements like the last sentence of the latest post ("Sources we spoke with could not confirm whether the FBI is currently investigating PSA and JSA for their ties to fraudulent Babe Ruth memorabilia"), he seems to be intimating something for which I have seen no proof or even heard a cogent argument. We need not rehash his own transgressions, but statements like this seem to be mere deflection and a sour grapes of the hopeful kind, if you know what I mean.

Simply put, I think the alphabets are just bad at Ruth autographs. I'd love to hear about any knowledge of ties they might have to larger conspiratorial behavior. Nash sure doesn't have any, or we can bet he would be shouting it right now.

[Maddog]

I am paid to express my opinion on various Tax matters. If I give a BS opinion based on no factual support you can bet your Wagner I will have both legal, governmental and professional issues up the wazu.

These clowns hold themselves out to be professionals and charge for their opinions so fine, treat them as such. If other professionals need to pay fees for licenses and are required to have continuing education so as to maintain their licenses do the same with authenticators.

It is a complete joke that anyone can be allowed to charge for an opinion and then when they're wrong cry that "It's just an opinion". You charged for it, you were wrong, now face a penalty.

If you can't authenticate without a license and you face suspension or forfeiture of the license you can bet your butt they will be more careful with their "opinions".

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Maddog

I am paid to express my opinion on various Tax matters. If I give a BS opinion based on no factual support you can bet your Wagner I will have both legal, governmental and professional issues up the wazu.

These clowns hold themselves out to be professionals and charge for their opinions so fine, treat them as such. If other professionals need to pay fees for licenses and are required to have continuing education so as to maintain their licenses do the same with authenticators.

It is a complete joke that anyone can be allowed to charge for an opinion and then when they're wrong cry that "It's just an opinion". You charged for it, you were wrong, now face a penalty.

If you can't authenticate without a license and you face suspension or forfeiture of the license you can bet your butt they will be more careful with their "opinions".

This is all true, but it is MUCH simpler to prove negligence on a tax accountant's part. Would you like to go into court and PROVE negligence on the part of a TPA, beyond a reasonable doubt? A lot of people hold on to the notion that "an autograph is either real or it isn't". That fact is beautiful in its simplicity, but it is unfortunately irrelevant because it is unknowable. All we have are opinions and opinions of the people giving opinions, and anyone unwilling to admit that or accept less than 100% certainty in an item's authenticity should probably collect something else. After all, what has Nash done in his blog except say that there are "several experts, dealers and collectors we respect" who disagree with the alphabets (without even naming said experts/dealers/collectors)?

Furthermore, there are plenty more autographs that have been certed that unnamed experts say are fake (and they are probably right). We have also all heard numerous complaints of instances where IP autos, ones that the submitter saw signed with their own eyes, were rejected by the alphabets. So I am inclined to ask: what level of accuracy would you like to see demanded of these authenticators? If it's perfection, we are going to have to make authentication of autographs an illegal act.

Or we could individually choose not to pay for it.

This is a much slipperier notion than most collectors realize or want to admit.