What happens when JSA changes their mind???

[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...

[mighty bombjack]

What I think would be unethical (or at least would make me uncomfortable enough to avoid doing) would be to list this on eBay with the auction LOA AND a scan of the original auction house listing and no further information. That would make any people who happen to value JSA's certs falsely believe that a full LOA would be a cinch, and I'd bet that at this point your friend would make the most profit this way. It would be dishonesty through omission, however.

[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.

[whiteymet]

Hi All

This card is now being offered in the BST autograph forum. Take a look and PM me if interested.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...42#post1514642

Thanks,

Fred

[brooklynbaseball]

Many years ago, included in an auction was a "holy grail" signed item in a signed set I collect. I won the auction for a bit over $7k and was thrilled. The one thing that bothered me was there is a collector I am in touch with that ALWAYS outbid me on items like this, as his funding far surpasses mine. I contacted him and he gave me the following reason why he passed on bidding (winning) the item. When Jim Spence worked for PSA, he had authenticated the item, and psa had applied a sticker and slabbed the item. When the owner submitted the item to the present auction house, psa decided they did not believe the card was indeed authentic. THEY PAID the owner $2k to remove the card from the holder and remove the sticker. I was shown the stub from the check paid by psa. The auction house then sent the card to JSA, who slabbed the card again. NO MENTION was made of any of this by the auction house. I decided to pass on the item, and the auction house, when faced with the information, cancelled the transaction and supposedly sold the item to the underbidder. It's just how things work in this, and many other hobbies, honor doe$ rarely exist.

[whiteymet]

Originally Posted by brooklynbaseball

Many years ago, included in an auction was a "holy grail" signed item in a signed set I collect. I won the auction for a bit over $7k and was thrilled. The one thing that bothered me was there is a collector I am in touch with that ALWAYS outbid me on items like this, as his funding far surpasses mine. I contacted him and he gave me the following reason why he passed on bidding (winning) the item. When Jim Spence worked for PSA, he had authenticated the item, and psa had applied a sticker and slabbed the item. When the owner submitted the item to the present auction house, psa decided they did not believe the card was indeed authentic. THEY PAID the owner $2k to remove the card from the holder and remove the sticker. I was shown the stub from the check paid by psa. The auction house then sent the card to JSA, who slabbed the card again. NO MENTION was made of any of this by the auction house. I decided to pass on the item, and the auction house, when faced with the information, cancelled the transaction and supposedly sold the item to the underbidder. It's just how things work in this, and many other hobbies, honor doe$ rarely exist.

Must be more to the story for PSA to shell out that kind of dough!

[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