Quote:
Originally Posted by mr2686
Ok, in all fairness they didn't slide one fake by them, it was 17...but that's neither here not there. Since I respect both Steve and Chris, I put this question to you, and that is you both have to admit there is definitely a couple of holes in the system. First, the whole take your autograph to a cardshow and have them authenticate it on the spot or get an in-person autograph at a show and take it over to a separate table to have a TPA put a sticker on it is flawed. Also, the number of submissions that some of these TPA's are accepting in a year makes it hard to give each autograph the proper time needed to authenticate them. I just think they cut corners and make assumptions based on workload.
|
The system is not perfect and I am not excusing mistakes. And there is nothing wrong with fair criticism.
Chris has his pet peeves and one of mine are people posting links to these videos or one-sided bashing sites like it is supposed to be some great revelation or "the final word" on the matter.
I recently rejected a terrible Apollo 11 fake that was sold by one of these "tourist gallery" places that uses one of the usual crooked forensic authenticators.
When my client requested a refund based upon me rejecting the item, guess what the crooked seller did?
Yep... they sent my client a bunch of links to videos and articles just like this one to discredit authenticators. Discredit, smear and spread fake news. This is how forgery scammers operate. While the intent of some of these pieces may be honest, in reality they don't shed much light but are rather used as a tool by dishonest parties.
By the way, my client ended up getting a refund of the many thousands of dollars he spent on a worthless fake in a fancy frame.
10-20-2019, 03:08 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode