POLL: Who is responsible to reimburse collectors for bad autographs

[tinkereversandme]

I would like to the authenticator be held responsible because if this happen, about ten of them would close up shop.

Larry

[RichardSimon]

Larry -you are tempting me to switch my vote when you put it that way.

[drc]

Irrelevant to TPAs, I think it's good for the hobby for sellers to feel they are financially responsible for the authenticity of the things they sale. We're in trouble when dealers feel authenticity is someone else's concern.

Duly note that in this thread I haven't considered graded cards, and all those tagged plastic entombments. I know many sellers from here don't allow returns on graded cards and say 'take your grade dispute up with the grader.' One can of worms at a time.

[travrosty]

That's the conundrum. The biggest third party companies give the sense of invinciblity to an autograph, so sellers dont have to be knowledgable dealers or collectors. they can pawn off authenticity on the fact that it has been certed by abc, xyz. thus relegating themselves to little more than distributors of product, middlemen.

The biggest companies need to give guarantees to their authentications, that will hold their feet to the fire to not authenticate too fast, using people who are trying to authenticate out of their specialty.

A guarantee is the only way to use feedback and statistics as to how much they are refunding every quarter as a motivator to change their policies and procedures on how they authenticate to improve their bottom line.

Captialism is about the bottom line, and even though you would think they would want to get better at authenticating due to altruistic reasons, it is the almight dollar that motives.

The absence of a dollar motivator has brought about the anemic performances we are used to seeing. They authenticate that way because they can, they do and they get away with it without any monetary loss.

They have no incentive to offer a guarantee unless someone else introduces it first as a wedge issue to separate their company from the companies who do it now without a guarantee.

If it ever happens, the others will have to follow or suffer customer migration to those that do offer a guarantee.

You would think if they were truly as great at authenticating as they claim, a guarantee would bring in an increase in business over their competitors to more than pay for any refunds they would have to give out every quarter.

But they don't see it that way because if the other companies offer a guarantee too, then they are back to no competitive advantage to offering a guarantee, and are only on the hook for the guarantee and no one wants to start that arms race.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

That's the conundrum. The biggest third party companies give the sense of invinciblity to an autograph, so sellers dont have to be knowledgable dealers or collectors. they can pawn off authenticity on the fact that it has been certed by abc, xyz. thus relegating themselves to little more than distributors of product, middlemen.

The biggest companies need to give guarantees to their authentications, that will hold their feet to the fire to not authenticate too fast, using people who are trying to authenticate out of their specialty.

A guarantee is the only way to use feedback and statistics as to how much they are refunding every quarter as a motivator to change their policies and procedures on how they authenticate to improve their bottom line.

Captialism is about the bottom line, and even though you would think they would want to get better at authenticating due to altruistic reasons, it is the almight dollar that motives.

The absence of a dollar motivator has brought about the anemic performances we are used to seeing. They authenticate that way because they can, they do and they get away with it without any monetary loss.

They have no incentive to offer a guarantee unless someone else introduces it first as a wedge issue to separate their company from the companies who do it now without a guarantee.

If it ever happens, the others will have to follow or suffer customer migration to those that do offer a guarantee.

You would think if they were truly as great at authenticating as they claim, a guarantee would bring in an increase in business over their competitors to more than pay for any refunds they would have to give out every quarter.

But they don't see it that way because if the other companies offer a guarantee too, then they are back to no competitive advantage to offering a guarantee, and are only on the hook for the guarantee and no one wants to start that arms race.

Travis, thank you for a well-reasoned post and suggestion on a way to mend the current system. I've grown accustomed to your tear-it-all-down-and-start-over type rants, and was expecting as much here, but was pleasantly surprised. I don't mean that to say that your other posts were wrong, but rather that I personally enjoy constructive suggestions more. Thanks!