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

[packs]

No AH has to issue an LOA. So to me if they choose to issue one with their company name on it, that should be honored.

[SyrNy1960]

I would like to close this out with my goal here wasn't to trash Auction House A or anyone specific within the organization. I'm sure they did a lot of good things. This was my one time experience with them, which I thought was important to share, as many discuss issues with Auction House LOA's. This was more about Auction Houses LOA's and where does the accountability fall if an item is proven fake or not legit. I really hoped some Auction House people would have chimed in to maybe give their thoughts about it. With that being said, I'm out! Happy Collecting! Thanks!

[dhernandez]

If a AH writes a LOA for a specific item I fully agree in the argument that the LOA is binding. Those AHs which hire in-house writers are generating rubber stamp pieces of toilet paper by the masses. They make Lou Lampson look like Hemingway. Dave M. has been rubber stamping for years. At this point that company can save on $$ by buying Charmin vs high quality print paper to print Dave's pro assessments.

[dhernandez]

In addition I highly doubt Dave M. actually physically inspects each and every item. Every LOA says the same BS. Baseball is actually Dave M's forte and I for one am skeptical of Dave's all around knowledge of other team sports jersey authentication. Dave M has sold out for the buck but the ironic thing is his name actually devalues an item vs adding value (ala Lampson letters). Does not take much to fill in the lines on the same repetitive gibberish over and over. Hell even a monkey could do it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by dhernandez

In addition I highly doubt Dave M. actually physically inspects each and every item. Every LOA says the same BS. Baseball is actually Dave M's forte and I for one am skeptical of Dave's all around knowledge of other team sports jersey authentication. Dave M has sold out for the buck but the ironic thing is his name actually devalues an item vs adding value (ala Lampson letters). Does not take much to fill in the lines on the same repetitive gibberish over and over. Hell even a monkey could do it.

who is Dave M?

[dhernandez]

Originally Posted by Leon

who is Dave M?

Dave Mustaine

[Exhibitman]

We seem to go through this issue every so often. I have a bunch of random ideas on it:

I want to be sure we aren't discussing the so-called auction LOAs that have been such a scourge on the hobby. An "auction LOA" is a popcorn fart. Totally worthless, literally a promise to look at the item if you pay for them to do so.

Assuming we mean full LOA, a "full" LOA is an expression of opinion. Nothing more. You either accept that opinion or you don't. David is spot-on w/r/t people who confuse these opinions with guarantees. They aren't. If the opinion is given in good faith, that's about all you can ask for; unless the seller offers a specific guaranty of authenticity and refund, you either accept the view or you don't. Separate from that is the issue of good faith. An anachronism such as a COA for a signature of a player on a card made after he died isn't offered in good faith; by definition it is reckless at best, intentionally fraudulent at worst. It doesn't sound like the item in question is impossible.

I am always dubious of people definitively saying an autograph isn't theirs, especially if they've signed thousands and thousands of them, or saying an item wasn't theirs. Not saying Steiner is misleading the OP or wrong in this case, just that my experience is that eyewitnesses are often badly mistaken even about their own possessions and past activities. I had to testify once in an insurance bad faith case and the subject matter of one line of questioning was a letter I'd written several years before on behalf of my client, the insured. I had no recollection whatsoever of writing it. The signature looked like mine, the letterhead looked like mine, I could opine that it was most likely mine, but sitting there that moment I had no way of saying that it definitively was my letter or my signature unless I went back to my file and reviewed it for a file copy to confirm it.

I don't blame a seller for not giving a refund to a third party many years later. Any AH is going to limit the time a buyer has to inspect and verify the items he wins regardless of a COA; the rules of the sale typically state so. A month or two, sure, but ten years later? Come on. Is it really reasonable to expect an AH or any other seller to refund a ten year old purchase? If they do so then they deserve kudos, but if they refuse I think that is not an entirely unreasonable position to take absent a specific guaranty and promise to do so.

All this is completely aside from the issue of legal obligation. That is a different story and most likely would be decided on the basis of the contract [rules] between the AH and the original purchaser, or the express terms of the LOA as between the AH and the third party who now has the item.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by dhernandez

Dave Mustaine

That's funny...

[Abeabe]

LOAs don't hold the weight that COAs do. I do think the auction house should stand by their LOA, but I totally understand why they wouldn't. I would never trust an LOA solely if I was skeptical about item. There definitely shouldn't be an expiration date on any item found to be something other then what was advertised, with LOA or not.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by dhernandez

In addition I highly doubt Dave M. actually physically inspects each and every item. Every LOA says the same BS. Baseball is actually Dave M's forte and I for one am skeptical of Dave's all around knowledge of other team sports jersey authentication. Dave M has sold out for the buck but the ironic thing is his name actually devalues an item vs adding value (ala Lampson letters). Does not take much to fill in the lines on the same repetitive gibberish over and over. Hell even a monkey could do it.

Lampson letters don't add value to any item. If you see a item with his letter, then that item is probably 90% fake. He's a horrible authenticator and theres many threads on GUU about him and the junk he has given letters.

[dhernandez]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Lampson letters don't add value to any item. If you see a item with his letter, then that item is probably 90% fake. He's a horrible authenticator and theres many threads on GUU about him and the junk he has given letters.

Your missing the point. I totally agree with Lou letters not adding value. Thus, the comparison.

[drcy]

An auction house issuing an LOA for something they sold is one thing, because they have a financial/authenticity responsibility whether or not the issued an LOA. However, beyond that, I firmly believe letter writers shouldn't also act as insurance agencies. You should want expert opinions from people who feel free to offer their judgments and opinions, not people who hedge their bets for financial reasons. That PSA is so financially intertwined with their opinions is why they suppress information, delete threats and HAVE NEVER ADMITTED that the PSA 9 Wagner is trimmed. This is the complete opposite of what you want from people who are supposed to be giving you expert opinions.

Though not something I do or would do anymore, I have been asked to inspect and write letters about items in the past and, as an art historian, that's what I've done. That's all I've done. They aren't labeled as "Letters of Authenticity," and in fact don't have any title, but are descriptions of my observations and opinions. If you've ever read one of my letters, it resembles an academic essay. And in fact I calculated I was earning less than McDonald's wages because I took so much time and detail in composing them. I've never intended to, nor aspired to act as an insurance agency and if people expect me to every time they ask for my opinion, including via email or Net 54, I would never give my opinion on anything.

So I firmly believe it's a mistake to make experts insurance agents, because it will greatly effect and corrupt what they do and say-- just as it has corrupted PSA. PSA is supposed to be about expertise and information, but it often seems that they spend much of their information suppressing and spinning facts like politicians. Why? Because they have essentially set themselves up as a quasi insurance company. Because their accountants have said that being honest and forthcoming would hurt their bottom line. And when you're talking about historical artifacts, you want professors not insurance company lawyers giving the opinions.

* * * *

The below quoted passage illustrates how finances and such ruined free discussion about artworks in past years:

"Due to the real or perceived litigious nature of some art owners, many scholars, professors and experts have become reluctant to give their opinions about the authenticity of works of art. In years before, open authenticity discussions about art was normal and encouraged as scholarly activity, but scholars have been sued over their opinions. Even when the scholar is correct and the court agrees, the court costs can be prohibitive. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts and the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation, each set up by the artist's estate, discontinued their authentication boards due the potential of lawsuits and liability insurance. Though the Warhol Foundation won a lawsuit brought by a collector, the legal costs were $7 million."

Expecting honest and competence is one thing, but if you really and honestly want honest expert opinions, you don't tie the opinion to some financial pendulum. Because if you do, you'll get something like PSA pr/politics or experts who simply won't give opinions.

* * * *

As Adam said "LOAs" are letters of opinion. The value is what you think of the letter writer and the value of his knowledge. Just as the value of a receipt from an auction house is based on what people think of the auction house.

* * * *

To sum up my personal sentiments on the subject, my old authentication joke is:

Someone asks me how much is my fee to write an LOA for his item and I say "$5." He says "Okay, but if you're opinion is wrong I'm holding you entirely financially responsible for what I paid." I say "How much did you pay for the item?" He says "$5,000." I say "Then the fee is $5,000."

[WindyCityGameUsed]

Originally Posted by dhernandez

If a AH writes a LOA for a specific item I fully agree in the argument that the LOA is binding. Those AHs which hire in-house writers are generating rubber stamp pieces of toilet paper by the masses. They make Lou Lampson look like Hemingway. Dave M. has been rubber stamping for years. At this point that company can save on $$ by buying Charmin vs high quality print paper to print Dave's pro assessments.

Another spot on post David!!

I think this picture sums things up rather nicely

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by dhernandez

If a AH writes a LOA for a specific item I fully agree in the argument that the LOA is binding. Those AHs which hire in-house writers are generating rubber stamp pieces of toilet paper by the masses. They make Lou Lampson look like Hemingway. Dave M. has been rubber stamping for years. At this point that company can save on $$ by buying Charmin vs high quality print paper to print Dave's pro assessments.

One has to wonder just how much stuff in collections are truly legit. Truly sad!

[drcy]

An important question concerning the gloves is what was the description at the sale. Apparently the sale doesn't guarantee they belonged to the player and say they are going on heresay. If the original auction said pretty much the same ("These are player model gloves, but we don't have proof they were used by the player.), then then that's that. I've read big auction house auction descriptions where they say the believe the bat may have been used by the player or speculate that the memento belonged to the famous person, but they have no definitive proof.

As I said, a collector can't rerwrite what the LOA (or auction description) says.

Years back, I actually consigned to SCGaynor on eBay a football player's shoes that come with letter of provenance from a reputable source (a longtime coach) and were supposedly game used. I'm no game used collector or expert, but a collector specialist of that team said on the GUU board the coach was reputable and honest, though the coach collected the game used shoes (meaning he had a bunch or even mass of them) and it's always possible he could accidentally mix up the player name versus number on the shoes. The coach's letter detailed how he got the shoes from the team and guaranteed they were authentic. I'd seen MEARS give LOAs for shoes with the coach's provenance/loa, so I figured they too thought the provenance good. However, I searched NLF game images to find a match, but couldn't. The problem was I could only find images from some a fraction of the games (I'm no Getty or Corbis search master), the player wore the same brand but changed the style about every other game and he always heavily taped up his shoes so it was sometimes hard to tell for sure even if he wore the same exact shoes. But, as I said, I could find neither a photo match or even an exact style match.

In Gaynor eBay auction description, it said the shoes were the correct size and brand, had the correct number handwritten on them, had obvious wear, detailed the LOA from the coach and also included the clipped out auction catalog page where I got them (a reputable enough autograph auction house). But it also specifically gave the strong caveat that, despite searching, no photo matches were found. I thought it gave all the relevant information to bidders, warts and all, good and bad. In fact, i thought it was honest enough it might scare away some bidders.

The funny thing is the shoes sold for much more than I expected. Perhaps the winner was more of an expert and knew more than Gaynor or I, or perhaps the provided paperwork was enough for that collector. Perhaps the winner was able to find a photomatch. I don't know.

But you can bet what I would say in Gaynor's defense if 10 years later someone came back for a refund because "I can't find a photomatch." The shoes were specifically sold under the description that no photomatches were found and bidders should bid with that in consideration.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by drcy

An important question concerning the gloves is what was the description at the sale. Apparently the sale doesn't guarantee they belonged to the player and say they are going on heresay. If the original auction said pretty much the same ("These are player model gloves, but we don't have proof they were used by the player.), then then that's that. I've read big auction house auction descriptions where they say the believe the bat may have been used by the player or speculate that the memento belonged to the famous person, but they have no definitive proof.

As I said, a collector can't rerwrite what the LOA (or auction description) says.

Years back, I actually consigned to SCGaynor on eBay a football player's shoes that come with letter of provenance from a reputable source (a coach) and were supposedly game used. I'm no game used collector or expert, but a collector specialist of that team said on the GUU board the coach was reputable and honest, though the coach collected the game used shoes (meaning he had a bunch or even mass of them) and it's always possible he could accidentally mix up the player name versus number on the shoes. The coach's letter detailed how he got the shoes from the team and guaranteed they were authentic. I'd seen MEARS give LOAs for shoes with the same provenance/loa, so I figured they too at least thought the provenance credible. However, I searched and searched NLF images to find a match, but couldn't. The problem was I could only find images from some a fraction of the games (I'm not Getty or Corbis search master), the player wore the same brand but changed the style about every other game and he he always heavily taped up his shoes so it was sometimes hard to tell for sure even if he worse the same exact shoes. But I could find neither a photo match or even an exact style match.

In Gaynor eBay auction description, it said the shoes were the correct size and brand, had the correct number handwritten on them, had obvious wear, detailed the LOA from the coach and also included the clipped out auction catalog page where I got them (a reputable enough autograph auction house). But it also specifically gave the strong caveat that, despite searching, no photo matches were found. I thought it gave all the relevant information to bidders, warts and all, good and bad. In fact, i thought it was honest enough it might scare away some bidders.

The funny thing is the shoes sold for much more than I expected. Perhaps the winner was more of an expert and knew more than Gaynor or I, or perhaps the provided paperwork was enough for that collector. Perhaps the winner was able to find a photomatch. I don't know.

But you can bet what I would say in Gaynor's defense if 10 years later someone came back for a refund because "I can't find a photomatch." The shoes were specifically sold under the description that no photomatches were found and bidders should bid with that in consideration.

.

[drcy]

Duly note that I am not suggesting buyers (within reasonable return period) shouldn't get a refund from their buyer if an item is fake or materially misdescribed (of course they should), but the certificate says "In our opinion." Are you claiming that that wasn't their opinion?

As Adam said, LOAs are letters of opinion (unless they state some specific fact, such as "I witnessed the player sign this ball" or "I personally got this jersey directly from the player") and collectors should treat them as such. If the letters have some guarantee on them or claim 100% certainty as to the identity, then that guarantee or claim of 100% certainty is on them. I'm not an Antonin Scalia Republican, but LOAs are documents of words and you go by what they say. You don't get to turn your head the other way, close your eyes and make up what it says.

Bob at antique store: "In your opinion, do you think this postcard is original?"
Bob's friend John: "Let me look at it . . . Hmm, my opinion is yes."
Bob: "So you are saying 100% that the postcard is 100% original."
John: "No. Do you have any idea what the word 'opinion' means?"

Now, maybe the theory is when a document officially says at the top "Letter of Authenticity" or "Certificate of Authenticity," instead of "My idle thoughts" or "Musings on my lunch break after a martini" or is a return reply to someones's email message that signifies something officially official or gives it more legal document whatever in the minds of the hobby-- and collectors may be right in this sentiment and a lawyer would have better legal insight than I on that. But I still take the Scalia textualist approach that you read a LOA by what it says. There's no line item veto, proverbial double spacing for the collector to insert his own lines nor scratching out words and phrases to put in his own. The document says what it says. We'd all be rich if we could legally erase and rewrite LOAs to our benefit, leaving the expert's signature at the bottom. I'd change "One month return period" to "300 million billion years" and "It is my opinion" to "Fifty times your money back even if I'm correct" and would be living in my Manhattan penthouse right now. I'd also change "Thank you you for your patronage" to "Bring in this letter and I'll set you up on a date with Natalie Portman."

And, of course, at auction a bidder would be rightly pissed and deserving of a refund if a seller misrepresented what a letter of provenance or LOA really says at sale. If the seller didn't post the letter, but paraphrased "We aren't certain and cannot make certain claim, but evidence, including that it came from his family friend in Hollywood and the date etched on the side, does seem to support the consignors opinion that this silver flask may have actually belonged to Humphrey Bogart and may have even been on the set of Casablanca" to "The LOA states the silver flask belonged to Humphrey Bogart and he had it with him during the filming of his most famous movie Casablanca" the buyer might consider this fraud and immediately demand a refund. Even though the letter really has "Letter of Authenticity" in embossed text at top and has the original hologram and watermark just as the seller claimed, the text was misrepresented and the high bidder would rightly complain "The document nowhere states the things you said it stated." And if one isn't allowed to rewrite or re-imagine the document in this instance, how can it be claimed that one should be allowed to in others?

An even better example is if at sale you say "The included Company X LOA has a lifetime 100% lifetime money back guarantee of authenticity for what you paid for the item" and the winning bidder demands a refund because nowhere on the letter does it state any such guarantee or anything even resembling that guarantee. You can say "It's implied" or "That's the unwritten rule" all you want, but the winning bidder will likely still demand his money back.

In short, the hobby would be a saner, more intelligent place of collectors making saner, more intelligent choices if people took LOAs a "Some Dude's Opinion" or "Some Dude's Take" and valued the letters at their face value (You can say the same thing about professional grading, by the way). Read and consider what the text says, judge the value of the source and compare it to the actual item and your own research. A letter from an experienced and learned hobbyist can serve as a valuable opinion about the item and can help facilitate a sale as a worthwhile second opinion (the seller's is the first opinion and the buyer's is the third-- and there may be forth, fifth and sixth opinions involved in there too), but it should still be treated by seller and buyer as just one document in a body of evidence including examination of the item. And of course, some LOAs from some sources are worthy of being tossed in the trash can and actually lower bidding on the item when included in the auction description. And, yes, I see the chasm when a collector says at one time "You can't rely only on an LOA. You have to do your own research before you buy an item" or, in some cases, "LOAs aren't worth the paper they're printed on," while at at another time treats an LOA as golden ticket of 100% infalliblness that guarantees 100% authenticity until the sun stops rising. I ask them "So, which is it? Because it can't be both."

Do you know what would be my collecting rule for collectors world-wide? Collect what you are able to authenticate yourself. If you are spending thousands of dollars on T206s or Babe Ruth autographs or ming vases or 1952 Topps Mickey Mantles and you yourself have no clue how to if they are real or fake, you shouldn't be buying them. If your budget is $5 every other week for shiny trinkets for your window sill or to pin to your backpack or wear as funky earrings then that rule doesn't apply. I'm sure you're getting your $5 worth out of them.

"David, how come your theoretical examples always end up with you going a date with Natalie Portman?"
"That's not true. Sometimes it's Charlize Theron."