Warning: Disturbing Autograph "Authentication" Material!

[RickGallway]

Touché

[travrosty]

People that inspect potential Rembrandt painting don't just look at it quick for a minute then decide whether or not it is a Rembrandt. Sometimes it take years. The companies have fallen into the trap of taking a process and adapting it to a business model that stresses squeezing every last penny as quick as they can make it instead of respecting the process and trying to maximize profits only within the confines of what allows for a thorough and complete inspection with safeguards in place.

It is the memorabilia version of killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs. The goose isn't dead yet, but it's bleeding profusely.


These TPA's should slow down at least some and make sure they look for erasures on every piece, and really do a good thorough job, even if it takes awhile and the profit on that piece isn't as much as they would like. Integrity of the process to protect the collector should trump profit at ANY cost.

Just slapping a sticker on it and moving on to the next piece may have worked for the last dozen years, but that is changing. GAI is no longer around, and the other companies haven't seemed to learn anything from that story.

Of course these companies have to make money in order to stay in business, but they also have to stay in business in order to make money!

[drc]

I agree that a company charging a fee to judge the accuracy of their own LOAs-- and, not only that, but saying this should be done on the LOA-- is, well, a curious concept.

I give quick opinions often (as many of us do)-- people email me photos of their items asking for my quick 2 cents--, but I'm hardly going to allow that opinion be printed out as a LOA for an item I've never seen in person. One, I can't authenticate something from digital photos and, two, I value my reputation.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by drc

I agree that a company charging a fee to judge the accuracy of their own LOAs-- and, not only that, but saying this should be done on the LOA-- is, well, a curious concept.

I give quick opinions often-- people send me photos of their items asking for my quick 2 cents--, but I'm hardly going to allow that opinion be printed out as a LOA for an item I've never seen in person.

agreed, many times i give my opinion, but i say that only seeing it in person could i be sure. not going to issue an loa because some scan looked okay.

auction loa was a pig in a poke from the beginning, pay me more to upgrade then i will say it is really real. It is all about revenue streams first and foremost with them.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by travrosty

auction loa was a pig in a poke from the beginning, pay me more to upgrade then i will say it is really real. It is all about revenue streams first and foremost with them.

So if I pay $20,000 for a signed FDC that was given an auction letter by Spence am I pretty much guaranteed I can get a full letter from Spence even if on second look it's an obvious forgery?

[drc]

The basic responsibility and work for choosing authentic autographs for the auctions should be the auction houses themselves. If, in addition, they wish to have outside people give quick opinions, that's perfectly fine if not commendable.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

So if I pay $20,000 for a signed FDC that was given an auction letter by Spence am I pretty much guaranteed I can get a full letter from Spence even if on second look it's an obvious forgery?

well, they said at the time that auction loa was a "preliminary review" and if the inspection for the full loa differed with the auction loa, then you would get some type of credit for another authentication in the future. i guess you would have to take it up with the auction house then, but of course the auction house employs the TPA to avoid that type of liability.

now psa has a pre-certification, which is an auction loa only under another name. but the pre-certification does guarantee that it WILL pass for the full loa, but i dont know that the process they use to issue the pre-certification is any different than what they used for the auction loa's, which in many instances was looking at scans of the items via the computer. probably why jsa issued an auction loa for a mike tyson preprint that sold at heritage auction a couple of months ago with a coveted 'JSA AUCTION LOA'

its all very confusing and i think the companies dont mind it being that way, they are impossible to pin down just as to what an auction loa and precertification really mean.

and we have tried to ask those questions multiple times with a certain auction house, and all we got was circular logic that didn't lead anywhere. we kept asking and asking just what an auction loa was and what is the difference now that they have pre-certification instead of auction loa, and what the deal was, and we got doublespeak, doubletalk and babbling that we couldn't understand.

Can't pin them down on how exactly they inspect each item for an auction loa, pre-certification or full certification for that matter. They don't seem to want to care to explain it either. They all want to push liability onto the other party, with the ultimate excuse is that it is just "their opinion".

[slidekellyslide]

Thanks for the info...it's good to know that auction letters don't mean shinola. And if you get stuck with what turns out to be a forgery nobody is going to take responsibility.