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

[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.

[Exhibitman]

This does raise an interesting question that I wanted to address separately: what do you feel is the acceptable limit on authentication? I like this from LOTG:

"We occasionally sell autographed items that have not been authenticated by third-party entities. In general, these are lower-value items. We will not sell a high-dollar autographed item that has not been authenticated. In the event that we sell an unauthenticated item, we guarantee the authenticity of said item for 90 days from the date of purchase. Should either JSA, PSA/DNA, or SGC, the only entities we currently recognize as authorities in autograph authentication, reject an unauthenticated item purchased from our auction within 90 days of purchase, we will refund your money. Please note that this does NOT include large lots of autographed items where a few do not pass. Also please note that we reserve the right to obtain a second opinion prior to providing a refund. Should our chosen authenticators render a favorable opinion on authenticity (at our expense), we will return the item to the initial winner."

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

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.

Adam,

If this is the case, and I am in agreement here with you, then isn't an LOA for said AH actually meaningless? The assumption being that the AH would not be acting on good faith by putting up something for auction that it did not believe to be authentic. So if I win something from the AH, shouldn't my receipt itself from that AH for the purchase of that item be just as good as one of their LOAs? (theoretically speaking)

[drcy]

Originally Posted by tschock

Adam,

If this is the case, and I am in agreement here with you, then isn't an LOA for said AH actually meaningless? The assumption being that the AH would not be acting on good faith by putting up something for auction that it did not believe to be authentic. So if I win something from the AH, shouldn't my receipt itself from that AH for the purchase of that item be just as good as one of their LOAs? (theoretically speaking)

Yes. A receipt and copy of the auction catalog description is both provenance and documentation of the auction house's description/opinion of the item. Obviously, people will judge the value of the provenance/identification judgment based on their opinion of the auction house. An auction house's LOA repeating what they said in the auction catalog is just an extra piece of paper . . . An exception is some auction houses hire outside people to give opinions on certain items, which is why in those cases they include that extra JSA/Heritage or Sotheby's/PSA DNA LOA.

I regularly recommend collectors keep the receipt and copy of the catalog description for various reasons, including that, when the auction house is well known and respected, the documentation will aid you at resale time. As you correctly say, it's serves as the practical equivalent of an LOA.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by 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.

+1. Absent contract language negating same, there will in fact be a statute of limitations period within which any such claim can be brought. Such limitations periods exist to preclude litigation of stale claims, in which significant evidence/testimony may be lost or no longer available. Coming at the problem from the perspective of a lawyer, as is Adam, I do not believe it is reasonable to expect to hold an auction house liable in perpetuity (or more likely, until the auction house ceases to exist). This may seem unfair from the perspective of a collector, but the auction house has an interest too to protect. I highly doubt that many of them would be interested in taking on possible liability pursuant to a LOA several decades later, and I don't believe it is reasonable for them to have to do so.

What it often comes down to with all but self-authenticating items is the old adage: NEVER BUY A STORY! An LOA may well be (at least in some instances an educated story in the form of an opinion, but it remains a "story" nonetheless as compared to those collectibles which are in fact self-authenticating.

Just my 25 cents worth,

Larry

[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."

[yanks12025]

Can we know what the item is?

Any chance the player was wrong about not using it(I once had Chris chambliss tell me he didn't bring any bats from Cleveland with his number 14 on them to the Yankees, but there's photos of him using them after the trade.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Can we know what the item is?

Any chance the player was wrong about not using it(I once had Chris chambliss tell me he didn't bring any bats from Cleveland with his number 14 on them to the Yankees, but there's photos of him using them after the trade.

It was a Robinson Cano Glove. No question Cano didn't use it. The glove was obtained from someone overseas. Someone else's name is written on the straps. Cano and his agent, without question, said the glove wasn't used by Cano.

Many foreign players buy extra gloves and bats and give them to family members and friends overseas, which is common. The glove is an Official Robinson Cano glove, but it wasn't used by him.

You know me from GAMEUSEDUNIVERSE, and you know how anal I am in doing research (Hence, the 1996 Arod HR #15 bat). I dig and dig until all efforts are exhausted (which is what Auction Houses should also be doing before putting their name on the item). Many like to justify in their minds that something could still possibly be good. I go off solid facts. Do you honestly think if the glove was legit, someone would be stupid enough to write their name on the glove and use it?. As you can clearly see, the name was written on the straps and the glove was used a lot thereafter. For Auction House A to tell me they still stand behind their "so called" reliable source, after all the proof I provided, proves that it's all about the $$$ for them! Not much to debate!

[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."

[sox83cubs84]

It has been brought to my attention that I have been disparaged on this board and I have joined to respond to that. I do not know who David Hernandez is (but will confirm with the forum operator or whatever means needed to do so). He made several negative comments about me and my work which I am here to refute. The most egregious comment was one stating he believe I do not even review every jersey. This is completely false

I have been in the game used business since 1978. I have written for Sports Collectors Digest on game used jerseys from 1982-99. I currently perform authentication services for multiple auction companies and individuals, including Goldin Auctions and Huggins and Scott. If my name is on a LOA and my signature is on an LOA, I inspected the jersey personally. By way of example, with respect to Goldin Auctions, I perform the work in their office. They have on hand for my use both a light table and a black light, as well as computer with internet access so I can search for photo matches and style matches. In addition, I fill out and sign a worksheet for each item I inspect. Any item that I fail does not run in their auction. In addition, Goldin Auctions offers a guarantee on anything that I authenticate that it will pass a MEARS certification or it can be returned for a refund.

If anyone including Mr. Hernandez makes further statements that I rubber stamp an LOA and do not actually inspect items I issue an LOA for, they will be hearing from my attorney. I also see that in post 33 where my name was originally posted by Mr. Hernandez and a link to a thread about me was posted, the name ‘Dave Mustaine’ is now listed with no link, which I assume
he did to cover his tracks.

Dave Miedema

[mickeymao34]

Originally Posted by sox83cubs84

It has been brought to my attention that I have been disparaged on this board and I have joined to respond to that. I do not know who David Hernandez is (but will confirm with the forum operator or whatever means needed to do so). He made several negative comments about me and my work which I am here to refute. The most egregious comment was one stating he believe I do not even review every jersey. This is completely false

I have been in the game used business since 1978. I have written for Sports Collectors Digest on game used jerseys from 1982-99. I currently perform authentication services for multiple auction companies and individuals, including Goldin Auctions and Huggins and Scott. If my name is on a LOA and my signature is on an LOA, I inspected the jersey personally. By way of example, with respect to Goldin Auctions, I perform the work in their office. They have on hand for my use both a light table and a black light, as well as computer with internet access so I can search for photo matches and style matches. In addition, I fill out and sign a worksheet for each item I inspect. Any item that I fail does not run in their auction. In addition, Goldin Auctions offers a guarantee on anything that I authenticate that it will pass a MEARS certification or it can be returned for a refund.

If anyone including Mr. Hernandez makes further statements that I rubber stamp an LOA and do not actually inspect items I issue an LOA for, they will be hearing from my attorney. I also see that in post 33 where my name was originally posted by Mr. Hernandez and a link to a thread about me was posted, the name ‘Dave Mustaine’ is now listed with no link, which I assume
he did to cover his tracks.

Dave Miedema

From what I have read through forums and Google findings you did not leave SCD in the most eye to eye agreement . Can you elaborate further and on that same King Jammy post it goes on to infer that at the locations where an a FBI bust took place they found numerous blank LOAs but signed by you . Can u also elaborate on that .
Thanks

[WindyCityGameUsed]

Originally Posted by sox83cubs84

It has been brought to my attention that I have been disparaged on this board and I have joined to respond to that. I do not know who David Hernandez is (but will confirm with the forum operator or whatever means needed to do so). He made several negative comments about me and my work which I am here to refute. The most egregious comment was one stating he believe I do not even review every jersey. This is completely false

I have been in the game used business since 1978. I have written for Sports Collectors Digest on game used jerseys from 1982-99. I currently perform authentication services for multiple auction companies and individuals, including Goldin Auctions and Huggins and Scott. If my name is on a LOA and my signature is on an LOA, I inspected the jersey personally. By way of example, with respect to Goldin Auctions, I perform the work in their office. They have on hand for my use both a light table and a black light, as well as computer with internet access so I can search for photo matches and style matches. In addition, I fill out and sign a worksheet for each item I inspect. Any item that I fail does not run in their auction. In addition, Goldin Auctions offers a guarantee on anything that I authenticate that it will pass a MEARS certification or it can be returned for a refund.

If anyone including Mr. Hernandez makes further statements that I rubber stamp an LOA and do not actually inspect items I issue an LOA for, they will be hearing from my attorney. I also see that in post 33 where my name was originally posted by Mr. Hernandez and a link to a thread about me was posted, the name ‘Dave Mustaine’ is now listed with no link, which I assume
he did to cover his tracks.

Dave Miedema

Dave

How about telling us what your job title was when you were employed by Mears and what your criteria is for issuing a COA calling a jersey game used?

Can you explain how sports jerseys (especially star players) that show little to no use but display characteristics of being spec correct can and are being given IMO the determination of game used time and again thru COA's by industry authenticators such as yourself? With the prevalent misrepresentation and fraud that has been proven to exist industry wide don’t you think the burden of proof should be much more than the appearance of spec correct especially with jerseys that show little to no use?

IMO the task of certifying all aspects of the thousands of different style jerseys in existence as being spec correct is at times impossible without known exemplifiers on hand that are beyond reproach in their own authenticity. If the main reliance of proof is based on images of other examples which are also not in hand and may or may not be authentic is in and of itself problematic in my eyes.

IMO the huge money that is also being made through misrepresentation and forgeries at the collectors expense by some individuals over the years has gotten so good to the untrained eye (its like playing “Where’s Waldo”) that without actually handling both the item being certified and the exemplifier beyond reproach side by side will lend itself to countless mistakes.

Even if a jersey you are certifying as game used is beyond reproach spec correct but still shows next to or no use shouldn’t the burden of proof then be based on some other tangle evidence (especially star type players) such as a photo match prior to a jersey being called anything more than say pro cut or best case possibly team issued?

With the thousands of different combinations of sports teams jersey’s in existence how is it possible for anyone to keep track of all this information outside of over reliance upon pictures of other items that appear to be similar in nature when common sense would dictate that an inventory of thousands of jerseys that are beyond reproach in authenticity would need to be on hand in some cases to make the proper/correct determination?

I’m also not sure why your chapped at Dave H. when IMO the reality is that EVERY BUYER in order to not get ripped off on some transactions has to be their own expert/authenticator while following their own burden of proof checklist. Its also my opinion Dave that almost all COA’s/LOA’s carry next to no value to an experienced collector and only hold perceived value in the eyes of the untrained and under informed buyer purchasing things that they don’t know enough about to make an intelligent decision on.

It would also be interesting to hear you explain how any COA is supposed to be taken seriously when they are being drafted by authenticators being paid by the same auction house that will be selling the item being authenticated along with the fact that the COA’s are being written in such a manner that the authenticator assumes no responsibility for an opinion that collectors are being told they can rely upon?

In closing Dave with your 40+ years in this industry it would also be interesting and vastly informative of your character what your opinion is of the apparent behavior of the individuals whose names appear on the Doug Allen FBI court documents concerning Mastro consignors/shill bidders especially with all of the well known names that appear and your current employers disturbing self imposed on the record silence along with the apparent associated information suppression thats occurred on your employers website GUU to which you happen to remain a major contributor.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by drcy

but the certificate says "In our opinion." Are you claiming that that wasn't their opinion?"

I just have to shake my head with so much of this bull crap with playing on words in this hobby. I'm out! Happy Collecting fellas!