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

[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