What happens when JSA changes their mind???

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's all true, Steve. But what of the collector who purchased a piece based on an authenticator's opinion, who now is told--by that self-same authenticator--that he owns a forgery? The authenticator is not affected in the slightest. He made his money. But the collector is screwed.

Good point, David, but that has been part of the evolution of both "autograph authentication" and our own improving-knowledge.

It's part of the arena that will deal in and enjoy.

[Mr. Zipper]

What's missing from this discussion is the concept of risk. Autograph collecting is a risky hobby. There is a tremendous amount of fraud and the barriers to entry are low. Minting a fake coin or printing a counterfeit baseball card is difficult and expensive. Not so with putting a pen to paper.

Every collector should understand that they are accepting some level of risk by participating in this hobby. If your stockbroker recommends an investment in good faith that doesn't do well, do you expect him or her to "make you whole?" If you lose a case in court, do you expect your lawyer to pay the tab?

You can build a solid collection and minimize risk by using all the tools at your disposal: buying from reputable sources, employing a credible authenticator, networking with other knowledgable collectors and using common sense. But there are no guarantees in life!

If anyone would be positioned to make you whole, that would be the seller subject to reasonable limits. They sold and profited from the item.

The authenticator is not a guarantor and does not indemnify. If they make too many mistakes, their reputation and business should suffer accordingly. If you expect TPAs to indemnify, prepare for massive price increases and even more reluctance to "correct past mistakes."

When I first entered this hobby over 20 years ago, a wise and experienced collector told me, "Everyone gets fooled once in a while. It's the price of admission to this hobby. What you want to do is take steps to make that price of admission as low as possible."

[Leon]

Here is a card guys view.

If I sell a card raw and I say it's good, and it turns out to be not good. I give a refund. I guess I don't understand why an autograph company would't refund the original money to authenticate the item when they have now admitted a mistake in their own authenticating. So basically, they make a mistake, admit it and keep your money? How does that make sense again?

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Leon

I guess I don't understand why an autograph company would't refund the original money to authenticate the item when they have now admitted a mistake in their own authenticating. So basically, they make a mistake, admit it and keep your money? How does that make sense again?

Leon - I think we were discussing the authenticator reimbursing the buyer for the item itself.

In my opinion, the authenticator refunding or waiving the authentication fee is reasonable.

[sbfinley]

I'm a supporter of the major TPA's, but that being said, if one is going to backtrack on a previous opinion they themselves rendered then they should make the owner whole for what he/she has into the item.

[Leon]

I think I was "skim reading" which isn't very good for debate. So if the seller can't be found, and someone is stuck with an autograph the TPG now says is bad, after they said it was good, why wouldn't they refund the current owner? They have still admitted a mistake. (if the item can be positively identified as the one with the LOA). But maybe this was discussed too.

I do agree with the risk assessment. Anyone into heavy collecting understands there is some risk (or they eventually will).

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Leon - I think we were discussing the authenticator reimbursing the buyer for the item itself.

In my opinion, the authenticator refunding or waiving the authentication fee is reasonable.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think I was "skim reading" which isn't very good for debate. So if the seller can't be found, and someone is stuck with an autograph the TPG now says is bad, after they said it was good, why wouldn't they refund the current owner? They have still admitted a mistake. (if the item can be positively identified as the one with the LOA). But maybe this was discussed too.

I do agree with the risk assessment. Anyone into heavy collecting understands there is some risk (or they eventually will).

Probably best to read all the posts but the auction house is still in business but they are not the ones who should make the buyer whole. The representation that the sig was good came from JSA. When an authenticator decides something they previously assessed as being ok is no longer ok they should buy it back. In the card world that happens when errors are admitted to.

My guess is that REA submitted the item without letting JSA know it was previously authenticated which shows just how little consistency there is in the authentication process with sigs.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by botn

Probably best to read all the posts but the auction house is still in business but they are not the ones who should make the buyer whole. The representation that the sig was good came from JSA. When an authenticator decides something they previously assessed as being ok is no longer ok they should buy it back. In the card world that happens when errors are admitted to.

My guess is that REA submitted the item without letting JSA know it was previously authenticated which shows just how little consistency there is in the authentication process with sigs.

Really?! Can you give an example of PSA or any other authenticator buying a card back for its purchase price? I am not a card guy and the only example I can think of is the trimmed Wagner, but no mistake has been admitted there.

Authenticators are not guarantors nor insurers. They give opinions. I think JSA should refund the original authentication fee, but they should never be on the hook for a purchase price of any item, otherwise we could cook up some new scams at their expense.

I still think the original auction house should be called on to make a judgment. "Please resell this item I purchased through your house previously. If JSA is who you trust to authenticate, then ask them why they changed their minds and then tell me whether you think you profited from an inauthentic item."

[Lordstan]

IMO, This situation is not about whether the TPAs did a good/bad job with the auto. I agree wholeheartedly with Steve, that TPAs should be learning and not cert styles they know are bad, even if they did so before.

It ultimately comes down to the question of who is financially responsible in a situation where paid expert advice is used to make a decision and it winds up costing the person who paid for the advice something of value(money, time, reputation, etc)?

1)The buyer - If someone buys something relying on someone else's paid opinion and it turns out to be wrong, should the buyer be still held to the "You only paid for their opinion? You still need to be responsible enough to known what you're buying?" Sure, we live in a buyer beware world, but isn't that what the TPAs are supposed to help fix? The TPAs main target should be the person who doesn't know what they are doing, so should we then still hold the buyer at fault for relying on the TPA? Seems to me there have been plenty of doctors who have been held accountable for injuries acquired by their patients based on faulty advice, even if done in good faith. So how much risk is their responsibility?

2)The seller - If a seller sells something without a TPA cert, they usually are willing to take things back if it turns to later to be not authentic, but many sellers seem to have this "Once it certed there are no refunds because if the experts say it's real then you can't give it back based upon authenticity" Ok. So what happens if the authenticator changes their mind? Sure the seller ultimately sold the item, but they also relied on the opinion of the TPA. So how much risk is their responsibility?

3) The TPA - So, if you get paid a lot of money to give an opinion, how much and what type of responsibility do you have for that opinion? In many other fields if your opinion is faulty, even though given in good faith, you are held accountable for that opinion. I think that the minimum is their fee should be refunded, but this situation is trickier. The buyer didn't actually pay the fee. The auction house did. Does that mean he shouldn't get money back because he didn't pay? So how much risk is their responsibility?

Each has some risk and each should take some responsibility. No?

From a financial standpoint, my personal opinion is that the person most liable in this situation is the seller(assuming that the buyer can prove that the item in question is the one that was originally matched with the cert). The AH ultimately sold something that an expert that they use and approve of states the item is bad. To me it doesn't matter if they changed their mind. You live and die by same sword. It's then up to the auction house to seek remedy from the TPA if they see fit and/or stop using their services if they feel they are not providing a valuable service.

From a philosophical standpoint, a big part of why I think the TPA has a large chunk of the responsibility is with the idea that their word is absolute. The TPAs market themselves as the most expert people in the field and charge a big premium for their services. When you do this, it hard to hide behind the it's only an opinion defense. If the TPAs aren't trying to convince people their opinion is a definitive statement of truth, then why do they use wording on their site like this...

From PSA:
http://www.psacard.com/Services/AutographAuthentication
The world's leading autograph authentication experts have been pooled together by PSA/DNA to examine and certify your previously signed autographs. That's not all. PSA/DNA uses state-of-the-art technology to protect your genuine valuable collectible from any foul play. Once an item is deemed genuine, the item is marked with invisible DNA laced ink: naked to the eye but verifiable through a specially calibrated infrared laser. In addition, a Certificate or Letter of Authenticity (LOA) that ties our service with your genuine autograph will accompany your item. With our unique alphanumeric number, any interested party can verify authenticity online even as items change hands time after time.

I am no lawyer, and I know this is marketing verbiage, but this seems to say to me that once they authenticate something, it is genuine. It is stating an absolute which kind of implies a guarantee. Plus, PSA has already set a precedent for taking responsibility for incorrect evaluation with their card grading here...
http://www.psacard.com/About/FinancialGuarantee/
So why should auto be different?

From JSA:
http://www.spenceloa.com/WhyChooseJSA
Peace of mind that your memorabilia is deemed authentic and ready to be sold, passed along to a family member, or cherished forever.

They aren't quite as demonstrative as PSA in their wording regarding the absolute certainty of their opinions, but it's curious that JSA issues a "Letter of Opinion" for rejections, but "Letter of Authenticity" for items deemed to be good. Aren't both opinions? Doesn't issuing a "Letter of Authenticity" imply an absolute rather than opinion?

Now I don't think most of the people on this board think their opinions are absolute, but many of the less educated collectors out there do. Now, I know a lot of the above are marketing tactics, but if any company presents itself and their opinions as the absolute final word, how can they not be held accountable for their mistakes? The question that follows is what I asked above, how and how much do you hold them responsible?

Wayne,
I think the reason no one focused on that question is that the op didn't ask for opinions on the auto. He asked for what his recourse was and what JSA's policy was.

Best,
Mark

[whiteymet]

Gentlemen:

I am the OP and thank you all for your views/ideas/thoughts/research! Keep it coming

A few points:

Greg asked if JSA knew they had previously authenticated the HOF PC. I reached out to REA and got this response:

"After they rejected the signatures I pointed out to them that they had authenticated them at an earlier date".

I don't know what JSA's response was after being told, I assume they just say they changed their mind.

Someone posted earlier that my friend should consign it to the same AH he got it from with the LOA that is now "bad". I stated earlier I did not think this would be honest. Not many of you responded to that question or my question of it it were to be relisted with info about it being authenticated, then later not, how would buyers view it? I would not expect many collectors would bid on it with this info. But, maybe it would be like the buy the card not the case philosophy. Wayne for one here seems to think the autograph looks good, but will others think the same enough to bid?

Wayne also asks if my friend thinks it is real. My friend is not an autographed collector per se. He just gets nice stuff he likes and depended on JSA to verify it was legit.

I never thought about the original consignor/owner who listed it with the AH being "liable". Does anyone have history of an AH contacting the consignor to get the money back and return the item to him?

My friend happens to be friends with the AH who listed it originally thus his reluctance to "confront them" just yet. I told him I would open it up for discussion here to see if others had some ideas on how to proceed or had a similar situation in the past. Of course in being friends with the AH you would think they would make him whole, but who knows. The other thing is, my friend is an attorney and has successfully sued another AH that has nothing to do with any AH in this case, for a client.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by Leon

Here is a card guys view.

If I sell a card raw and I say it's good, and it turns out to be not good. I give a refund. I guess I don't understand why an autograph company would't refund the original money to authenticate the item when they have now admitted a mistake in their own authenticating. So basically, they make a mistake, admit it and keep your money? How does that make sense again?

So one of my old friends used to be in the music industry and has pictures with all these celebrities. He used to work marketing. One of the people he worked with was Michael Jackson. He has photos with him and had tons of signatures. He never parted with ANY of these but I was able to pry one away that seems like it got stuck to the backing of the frame from heat and wouldn't come off. Still cost be 500 to get it from him. I knew without a shadow of a doubt this thing is real. I go to JSA and James says..."Unfortunately this is a bad forgery". I don't understand how they can say that to something that's real. I'm no expert at all with autographs (FARRRRRR from it) but stuff like this gets me so angry.

With the Jackie, they shoudl 100% refund it! no questions asked. and JSA should pay something too. just my 3 cents.

[RichardSimon]

Just a couple of points I want to make:
1 - In my opinion the seller of the item should always be responsible for a refund if the item comes into question. The seller has the money from the buyer. The seller hired the authenticator and should bear the ultimate responsibility.
2 - In my opinion this autograph is authentic.
3 - Just to post a second opinion about this autograph, I showed the scan to the best person on the planet on Jackie autographs (in my opinion), he is a private collector with a huge collection of Jackie autographs and his opinion is that he believes the autograph is authentic.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Just a couple of points I want to make:
1 - In my opinion the seller of the item should always be responsible for a refund if the item comes into question. The seller has the money from the buyer. The seller hired the authenticator and should bear the ultimate responsibility.
2 - In my opinion this autograph is authentic.
3 - Just to post a second opinion about this autograph, I showed the scan to the best person on the planet on Jackie autographs (in my opinion), he is a private collector with a huge collection of Jackie autographs and his opinion is that he believes the autograph is authentic.

Hi Richard:

Assuming that the autograph is real how would you suggest my friend move forward if he wants to sell the item and not confront the AH or JSA?

Is it "ethical" to relist with the "old" LOA as some here have suggested? If so do all AH's resubmit even with a LOA as REA did in this case?

Thanks for your input.

Fred

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Is it "ethical" to relist with the "old" LOA as some here have suggested?

I want to be clear that this is not what I'm suggesting (not sure if you think it is but I think I'm the only one who has said to send it back to the original house). I just think he should resell through the original auction house now that REA is not an option. Be honest about the whole thing and see how they react. If THEY want to relist it, they will, but it seems they will have to resubmit it to JSA (I'm assuming that's their policy, and they can't use the old auction LOA because I think those are one-time-only). Maybe third time's a charm! If they say they won't sell it because it's fake, he's got them in a bit of a bind...

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by whiteymet

Hi Richard:

Assuming that the autograph is real how would you suggest my friend move forward if he wants to sell the item and not confront the AH or JSA?

Is it "ethical" to relist with the "old" LOA as some here have suggested? If so do all AH's resubmit even with a LOA as REA did in this case?

Thanks for your input.

Fred

Sorry but I do not have an answer for that. Advice on this issue is not an easy thing to give. It is up to your friend to decide for himself.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

So one of my old friends used to be in the music industry and has pictures with all these celebrities. He used to work marketing. One of the people he worked with was Michael Jackson. He has photos with him and had tons of signatures. He never parted with ANY of these but I was able to pry one away that seems like it got stuck to the backing of the frame from heat and wouldn't come off. Still cost be 500 to get it from him. I knew without a shadow of a doubt this thing is real. I go to JSA and James says..."Unfortunately this is a bad forgery". I don't understand how they can say that to something that's real. I'm no expert at all with autographs (FARRRRRR from it) but stuff like this gets me so angry.

With the Jackie, they shoudl 100% refund it! no questions asked. and JSA should pay something too. just my 3 cents.

If he indeed called it a forgery, than he was overstepping, but these companies are good at saying "likely not genuine" and then giving a laundry list of generic reasons why they may or may not have deemed it such. It is maddening, clearly so when this message is sent to someone who (even stronger than n the case you give) actually got the item IP. However, we have gone through this on these boards before; we all acknowledge that no authenticator is perfect, and that false negatives are desirable to false positives.

Enjoy your MJ autograph in your knowledge that it is real. It is just going to be difficult to sell for a good price if the "experts" don't like it, unfortunately.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

If he indeed called it a forgery, than he was overstepping, but these companies are good at saying "likely not genuine" and then giving a laundry list of generic reasons why they may or may not have deemed it such. It is maddening, clearly so when this message is sent to someone who (even stronger than n the case you give) actually got the item IP. However, we have gone through this on these boards before; we all acknowledge that no authenticator is perfect, and that false negatives are desirable to false positives.

Enjoy your MJ autograph in your knowledge that it is real. It is just going to be difficult to sell for a good price if the "experts" don't like it, unfortunately.

Thanks I will! Appreciate the input

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

What's missing from this discussion is the concept of risk...

This is spot on and why I asked this question above: What is the purchaser's opinion of the item itself?

If we are not interested in that question, then we are abdicating the judgement of an item's authenticity wholly to the alphabets, something most people on these boards are loathe to do. If the buyer thinks this is legit, he should go back to the original auction house and say so, telling them to resell it regardless of who has changed their minds (he will probably be unsuccessful, but at least he will be able to stand on principle and have an argument that the auction house, if unable to resell, should refund the original purchase price due to the fact that they profited from what THEY THEMSELVES think is an inauthentic item). If he now thinks the item is bogus, he should admit his acceptance of risk and then look in the mirror and slap himself for abdicating to the alphabets in the first place.

Just my opinion

[mighty bombjack]

I still think the autograph is good, but no one seems to care about that question here, which has become the most fascinating aspect (amongst many) in this for me.