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

[SyrNy1960]

The auction house that stepped up and took responsibility 10 years later, their auction house LOA read as follows: OUR OPINIONS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO US FROM WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE RELIABLE SOURCES. HOWEVER, WE CAN NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE EQUIPMENT WAS USED BY A SPECIFIC PLAYER.

First, that is the dumbest thing ever! How can you provide an LOA and state that. Makes no sense.

Second, even with that said, they did step up and take responsibility. Kudos to them!

[ZachS]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

the auction house that stepped up and took responsibility 10 years later, their auction house loa read as follows: Our opinions are based on information available to us from what we believe are reliable sources. However, we can not guarantee that the equipment was used by a specific player.

Our letter of authenticity in no way guarantees authenticity.

[jfkheat]

Originally Posted by ZachS

Our letter of authenticity in no way guarantees authenticity.

What is the purpose of a letter of authenticity if it doesn't guarantee authenticity?
James

[packs]

In my humble opinion if an auction house doesn't want to stand behind their items and their POV is that what's bought is bought, then they shouldn't offer an LOA at all. They should fully disclose that they don't stand behind the authenticity of their items and all approximations made about the potential authenticity of their lots is assumed by the buyer.

That's more or less what they're saying with those BS disclosures. I have no idea what being a second or third purchaser has to do with authenticity. If it was fake the first time it sold, it was still fake the second and third time.

[drcy]

Not commenting on this specific case, but I think in general the refund comes from the person you bought it from. Especially after ten years, the seller has to be doing his own research on the items he sells. He is the seller.

I can also see how a person would be troubled about ten years later giving a refund to a person who was the person who bought it from them. In these days of theft et al, the person with the item at least has to prove he is the rightful/legal owner. If I sold something at a garage sale and a week a stranger else came to my door for a refund, my first response would be "Who are you? I've never seen you before in my life."

Lastly, look to the refund terms of the auction house. If at the original sale, the auction house said we will give full refund if an item turns out to be fake if it is returned within a year, those were the terms. Someone ten years later who didn't participate in the auction retroactively rewriting the sales terms (in their favor) sound pretty dubious.

Though I understand that you're not just talking about an auction, but a LOA. If there had been no LOA by the auction house, you may agree with everything I wrote above.

Though I will say one thing: you can't rhetorically rerwrite an LOA. If, for example, an LOA says "We believe this bat may have been used by Peter Rose" you can't ask for a refund under the guise that it says "We are 100% certain the bat was used by Pete Rose." A LOA is a document and you go by what it says. Though I have read many LOAs that, for example, say "We guarantee this item is 100% authentic and was hand signed by Joe DiMaggio."

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by drcy

Not commenting on this specific case, but I think in general the refund comes from the person you bought it from. Especially after ten years, the seller has to be doing his own research on the items he sells.

I can also see how a person would be troubled about ten years later giving a refund to a person who was the person who bought it from them. In these days of theft et al, the person with the item at least has to prove he is the rightful/legal owner. If I sold something at a garage sale and a week a stranger else came to my door for a refund, my first response would be "Who are you? I've never seen you before in my life."

It always will come back to the original owner eventually. If AH sells a card for 100k to person A, then Person A sells the card to Person B for 100k. You think that the AH is in the clear? Person B would end up suing person A and person A would end up suing the AH....it will always trace back to the original buyer if they can find him

[drcy]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

It always will come back to the original owner eventually. If AH sells a card for 100k to person A, then Person A sells the card to Person B for 100k. You think that the AH is in the clear? Person B would end up suing person A and person A would end up suing the AH....it will always trace back to the original buyer if they can find him

There is a chain of command (sales).

In cases of stolen items, the buyer gets the refund from the seller, that seller gets a refund from the person who he bought it from, etc. That's the legal chain of command and is also one reason why people should keep their receipts.

I was just saying, and in fact said, that my opinion is in general the refund should from the person you bought it from. If you buy a counterfeit T206, you expect the refund to come from the person you bought it from (and eBay, paypal and your credit card company will agree). The seller may honestly say he too was duped, but he still has to give the refund. The seller of course has the right to turn and get his purchase money back from the person he bought it from, but he doesn't have the right to say "I was duped so I don't have to give a refund." . . . As I acknowledged, this thread's scenario is a bit different than the home computer reprint T206 in that the issue is about a LOA that accompanied and not just the sale itself-- though I definitely still look to the terms of the original auction. Should the return/refund terms have been included in the LOA? Sure . . . If a LOA states "This LOA will expire on June 1 1992. If this letter is in error you must get your refund before then." will someone down the road on a chat board say that it should still be a lifetime guarantee? Probably.

I will add that if sellers and buyers took more responsibility for the the items they bought/sold, the hobby would be better. When a seller says "Is the card I'm selling altered or correctly graded? It doesn't matter to me and I don't even care, because it's in a holder with a PSA label at top. Not my responsibility" and when a buyer doesn't even look at the signature in the eBay picture because it comes with a LOA and the LOA is "all that matters", there are problems. And the problem is that, even with people who acknowledge the fallibility and margin of errors and "it's just someone's opinion" of LOAs and grading, this has on a become institutionalized into the hobby. The original poster both said to the effect "I know LOAs aren't worth the paper they're written on" and considered it as an ironclad lifetime guarantee of authenticity. Those two statements are a mismatch and demonstrate an elemental problem in today's hobby. If he instead said "I know LOAs aren't worth the paper they're written on" and "I know the LOAs aren't worth the paper they're written on, then his statements would have been in alignment. . . . Duly note that I'm not casting aspersions on the original poster in that I know he is a seasoned and knowledgeable collector and was in fact the one to do the research and uncover the misidentification of the item. I'm not suggesting that he's one who doesn't do his homework and blindly takes LOAs at face value. I realize his post is about how and from whom to get a refund on a misidentified item he bought-- and that (following my line of thinking) he first inquired about getting the refund from the seller.

A fundamental problem in today's high grade graded card hobby is that the grading has a margin of error (that is acknowledged by most everyone on any baseball card chat boad and as demonstrated by all the resubmissions do to get different grades), yet the PSA registry and auction house prices are often based on 100% accuracy of the grade. Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians would mock this, and there's no other way to put it than to say its foolishness. And that's not even touching on the subject of altered cards which makes a '10' in reality a '0.' The high grade card hobby and all those "record prices" involve a lot of smoke and mirrors and a line of thinking that would earn you an F in college 101 classes that require elemental logic . . . Though I'm not ignorant about economics and understand that many people are really collecting prices not cards. For the investor in high grade cards, it's the financial return that is the key, and successful investing and business regularity involves playing on the irrationality, psychology and margins of error in the market. Card resubmitters for profit are the first the be aware of the margins of error in professional grading.

[Rich Klein]

Please name the auction houses in question.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Please name the auction houses in question.

Auction House A: SGC Gaynor Auctions
Auction House B: Grey Flannel

[botn]

Originally Posted by 3arod13

Auction House A: SGC Gaynor Auctions
Auction House B: Grey Flannel

I always thought Scott Gaynor was a good guy. Now it better explains why he was going after me on the Ken Goldin Intro thread a few years back. That is disappointing. Hopefully there is a good explanation.

[1952boyntoncollector]

A fundamental problem in today's high grade graded card hobby is that the grading has a margin of error (that is acknowledged by most everyone on any baseball card chat boad and as demonstrated by all the resubmissions do to get different grades), yet the PSA registry and auction house prices are often based on 100% accuracy of the grade. Scientists, statisticians and mathematicians would mock this, and there's no other way to put it than to say its foolishness. And that's not even touching on the subject of altered cards which makes a '10' in reality a '0.' The high grade card hobby and all those "record prices" involve a lot of smoke and mirrors and a line of thinking that would earn you an F in college 101 classes that require elemental logic . . . Though I'm not ignorant about economics and understand that many people are really collecting prices not cards. For the investor in high grade cards, it's the financial return that is the key, and successful investing and business regularity involves playing on the irrationality, psychology and margins of error in the market. Card resubmitters for profit are the first the be aware of the margins of error in professional grading.[/QUOTE]

Anything subjective has a margin of error but i would rather hear from PSA saying a card is a NM than a seller of a raw card...

people go to trial and the jury has a margin of error....innocent people have gotten the death penalty then are free on DNA evidence years later..

my point is everything has a margin of error that is subjective....thats why people rely on experts....doesnt mean the experts get it right and you want to know the background of the expert such as who is paying them and their business model etc..but again much better than an ebay seller like battlefield saying a card is near mint

[drcy]

I notice that my answers to your questions involve me repeating what I said in the first place.

The foolishness isn't that there's a margin of error, but when people treat, say, 95% accuracy as 100%.

[Stampsfan]

I have to tell you about my recent (and only) experience with Heritage, and their LOA's. In the early November 2015 auction, I consigned two pieces. One was a Jerry Rice 49er game worn jersey from the mid 90's, and the second was an Andres Galarraga Expos uniform (jersey and pants) from 1987. The Rice jersey came with an LOA from Carmen Policy, and the Galarraga jersey had his signature on the Expos logo on the front of the jersey. I'd had both pieces for years.

When the listings were done, there was an additional LOA from HA on the Rice gamer, and another LOA from HA on the signature of the Galarraga. At that time, I naively thought "Wow, what a nice touch to add an HA LOA to each piece."

When I finally got my check for the lots (at the end of December), there was a charge for each of the LOA's totaling (if I recall) $250. I was pretty pi$$ed. To me, the $100 for the Galarraga signature verification did nothing to add to the credibility or increasing the bid total. As for the Rice gamer, the LOA from Carmen Policy on 49er stationary provided credibility far outweighing any LOA Heritage could provide. That piece cost me $150.

I felt ripped off, as I was not asked if I wanted Heritage LOA's, nor was I informed there would be a charge when they produced them.

To me, it was an excuse to keep an additional $250 from the sale of the items, without running it my me prior.