Harry Wright Autograph

[old13man]

I do not want to out the seller because I also believe it was not sold in malice. But that being said it was sold as a Harry Wright autographed telegram and I feel a refund would be appropriate. I will contact him and hopefully everything goes smoothly.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by old13man

I do not want to out the seller because I also believe it was not sold in malice. But that being said it was sold as a Harry Wright autographed telegram and I feel a refund would be appropriate. I will contact him and hopefully everything goes smoothly.

IMO you should go after JSA for the refund, not the seller. I don't imagine the seller purported to be an expert, which is why they had it authenticated by JSA. Does JSA have a buyback policy?

[RichardSimon]

The seller should always be the one to give a refund. If the seller then wants to take it up with JSA that is his business, but the seller is the one with the ultimate responsibility.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

The seller should always be the one to give a refund. If the seller then wants to take it up with JSA that is his business, but the seller is the one with the ultimate responsibility.

I don't think it would hurt to ask the seller, but the seller sold a JSA authenticated autograph and the buyer received a JSA authenticated autograph. I don't think the seller is accountable if the auto is a fake.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Matt

I don't think it would hurt to ask the seller, but the seller sold a JSA authenticated autograph and the buyer received a JSA authenticated autograph. I don't think the seller is accountable if the auto is a fake.

So you think that the seller should profit from selling a questioned autograph, even if he did not know it?
If I am an employer and one of my employees makes a mistake in my business and it costs a customer, who is responsible? The employee or me?

[old13man]

I have contacted the seller and am waiting for a reply. Does anyone know if JSA frequents these boards? I would love to hear them weigh in on this issue.

[barrysloate]

They might prefer not to post on this board, and deal with the matter privately.

[old13man]

Prewar sports is 100% correct...this is not a forged item. It is an authentic item just mislabeled by an authentication company. It is a great piece just not what I set out to buy. The seller has agreed to issue a refund and has been a class-act about the whole situation.

CJ

[Matt]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

So you think that the seller should profit from selling a questioned autograph, even if he did not know it?

Let's be linguistically careful - I am not discussing "should." We can all agree that no one should be profiting from forged autographs. In this particular circumstance, I don't think the seller is at fault for selling the bad autograph. Recognizing he wasn't an expert, he had it authenticated and then sold it; the buyer received a JSA authenticated autograph as advertised.

If I am an employer and one of my employees makes a mistake in my business and it costs a customer, who is responsible? The employee or me?

You are. Of course, that's not analogous to this case as JSA does not work for the company owned by the seller. If they were all part of the same company the responsibility is at the top; however, here the seller did not make any mistakes - the mistake was purely on JSA; as such, I don't believe the seller should be held responsible. Would you feel differently if it wasn't the seller who submitted it to JSA, but rather, the seller bought it already authenticated?

[RichardSimon]

My feelings would always be the same.
The seller should be responsible.

[ramram]

From my Harry Wright scorebook (I don't have a full signature in it).

Rob M.

h wright.jpg

[RichardSimon]

The seller, in my opinion, is certainly doing the right thing and I commend his actions in this matter.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Matt

I don't think it would hurt to ask the seller, but the seller sold a JSA authenticated autograph and the buyer received a JSA authenticated autograph. I don't think the seller is accountable if the auto is a fake.

I absolutely believe the seller is responsible.
Third party is just an opinion. The seller is ultimately on the hook for knowing what he's selling, UNLESS it is sold at the time of sale as no returns for ANY REASON with item sold AS IS on baisis of JSA authentication.
BG

[36GoudeyMan]

I'm not sure if this has been settled or not, but the practice when sending telegrams for a long period of time was not only to dictate to the Western Union employee, but also to fill out a telegram form by hand, sign it and hand it over to Western Union for an employee to transmit at some later point. This was done to avoid the time it took for each telegraph sender to stand at the clerk's window dictating, whereas the written submission form could be handed over and then queued up to be sent when time was available. This was also done to ensure accuracy of the text being sent, and to ensure that any discrepancy between what was received (or intended to be sent) could be compared against the written and signed submission form.

There was recently available a written and signed Western Union telegram form from, I believe, Lou Dials of the Negro Leagues, which follows the same pattern.

[SteveVerkman]

I was not aware of any controversy with this piece. I believe it was consigned to us with a full LOA from JSA and beyond that, we physically showed it to JSA at our offices.

I have sent the image again to JSA once again to review. We are not looking to be misleading in any way, and this is all we know about the piece. If JSA changes their mind, the item will CERTAINLY be withdrawn right away.

This will be my final post on this thread. If anyone wishes to contact me, kindly email me at info@csauctions.com and I will respond with any degree of detail requested.

Thanks much, Steve Verkman Clean Sweep Auctions

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Leaf

I absolutely believe the seller is responsible.
Third party is just an opinion. The seller is ultimately on the hook for knowing what he's selling, UNLESS it is sold at the time of sale as no returns for ANY REASON with item sold AS IS on baisis of JSA authentication.
BG

Well I asked a lot earlier in the thread but never really got an answer.

WHO DOES have final say on the matter?

6 out of 10 experts say it's good?
7 out of 10?
8 out of 10?
9 out of 10?
10 out of 10?

Is every autograph out there a hot potato until somebody, somewhere, says it's no good?

[mighty bombjack]

What I don't understand is that it seems to be marked "received" and the recipient's name is on the envelope. Isn't this the handwritten note from the receiving end of the telegraph?

[mighty bombjack]

This has been pulled from the CS auction.

[mighty bombjack]

This has been pulled from the CS auction.

[Piedmont Sport]

Hey Guys - lets address the Harry Wright Telegram - First JSA took over 30 days to give the ok on the auto - Jimmy Spence came to my shop and spent the whole day working on my stuff - he then told me he was taking a box of auto's with him - JUST TO MAKE SURE - The Harry Wright Telegram was one of them. I clearly saw the auto was much different the the body of the telegram - and if you take the time to google Telegrams, it was common practice in the 90's for the western union person to either have you write it out yourself - or - sign it as to agree the information to be correct. Jimmy stands by his findings that the auto is correct and different then the paragraph above the auto. I don't by any means put myself out there as an expert - but I do take every measure to make sure what I sell is true - can we all make mistakes - of course - but this autograph is real. It's ashame a few of you scared CS autions and we pulled the item.