Impossible Ty Cobb autographed ball passed by JSA and PSA

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by drc

The Game Used Universe auctions posts their auction lots early in part to give bidders and board members a chance to look over the lots and discuss them before the actions-- the discussions going on at the same site where the auction takes place! There was discussion of a Joe Namath jersey and, due to questions, it was pulled before the auction started so they could further research. I believe this is an example of why they post the lots early and let people discuss. If they made a big boo boo, they want to hear about it before the auction starts rather than after it's sold and shipped.

Thats all fine and dandy but is game used Universe stating that their items are already authenticated by JSA or PSA before JSA or PSA even looks at them?

Personally, if its a preview auction and nothing is actually "for sale" yet, i don't see nothing wrong with posting the items so people can "discuss" them. I really don't think anyone is against that. The big thing is, is they posted that the Ty Cobb ball came with full PSA loa and JSA auction letter, when really JSA and PSA had never even looked at the item.

Post the items early, thats great!! People can discuss these items, but it should state authentication pending from PSA or JSA or both. Like mentioned earlier, what if a collector seen this preview, seen the statement about the PSA and JSA letters and decided to save all their money for this item? The very next day, they see another "Whale" of theirs somewhere else for sale but since the Cobb ball was more important to them, they hold off buying the other item, it sells to someone else then they find out days later that the Cobb ball never was actually authenticated and now they are SOL on both items? That would REALLY suck for someone.

Even if there is 2500 items to "Edit", like Travis said, hire a couple temps/family members/friends for a day or two at $10-$15 bucks an hour and get them to edit the authentication into the preview/auction or give some of their own workers some OT or a "special Project" for a couple days , WHEN the items have actually been looked at and authenticated.

Just my opinion, please don't take any offense if you disagree. I just think it would be wiser to spend a couple hundred bucks to hire a couple guys for a couple days instead of going through an issue like this.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

Thats all fine and dandy but is game used Universe stating that their items are already authenticated by JSA or PSA before JSA or PSA even looks at them?

Personally, if its a preview auction and nothing is actually "for sale" yet, i don't see nothing wrong with posting the items so people can "discuss" them. I really don't think anyone is against that. The big thing is, is they posted that the Ty Cobb ball came with full PSA loa and JSA auction letter, when really JSA and PSA had never even looked at the item.

Post the items early, thats great!! People can discuss these items, but it should state authentication pending from PSA or JSA or both. Like mentioned earlier, what if a collector seen this preview, seen the statement about the PSA and JSA letters and decided to save all their money for this item? The very next day, they see another "Whale" of theirs somewhere else for sale but since the Cobb ball was more important to them, they hold off buying the other item, it sells to someone else then they find out days later that the Cobb ball never was actually authenticated and now they are SOL on both items? That would REALLY suck for someone.

Even if there is 2500 items to "Edit", like Travis said, hire a couple temps/family members/friends for a day or two at $10-$15 bucks an hour and get them to edit the authentication into the preview/auction or give some of their own workers some OT or a "special Project" for a couple days , WHEN the items have actually been looked at and authenticated.

Just my opinion, please don't take any offense if you disagree. I just think it would be wiser to spend a couple hundred bucks to hire a couple guys for a couple days instead of going through an issue like this.

Bilko,
You've brought up some excellent points here. Nice post...

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

Thats all fine and dandy but is game used Universe stating that their items are already authenticated by JSA or PSA before JSA or PSA even looks at them?

Personally, if its a preview auction and nothing is actually "for sale" yet, i don't see nothing wrong with posting the items so people can "discuss" them. I really don't think anyone is against that. The big thing is, is they posted that the Ty Cobb ball came with full PSA loa and JSA auction letter, when really JSA and PSA had never even looked at the item.

Post the items early, thats great!! People can discuss these items, but it should state authentication pending from PSA or JSA or both. Like mentioned earlier, what if a collector seen this preview, seen the statement about the PSA and JSA letters and decided to save all their money for this item? The very next day, they see another "Whale" of theirs somewhere else for sale but since the Cobb ball was more important to them, they hold off buying the other item, it sells to someone else then they find out days later that the Cobb ball never was actually authenticated and now they are SOL on both items? That would REALLY suck for someone.

Even if there is 2500 items to "Edit", like Travis said, hire a couple temps/family members/friends for a day or two at $10-$15 bucks an hour and get them to edit the authentication into the preview/auction or give some of their own workers some OT or a "special Project" for a couple days , WHEN the items have actually been looked at and authenticated.

Just my opinion, please don't take any offense if you disagree. I just think it would be wiser to spend a couple hundred bucks to hire a couple guys for a couple days instead of going through an issue like this.

Good post. +1.
But some people seem to be surprised by what Heritage did. Why?
Alleged COA's out of thin air? Why should that be a surprise?
And are the authenticators complaining to Heritage about this?
I would think that they should be complaining or have they given their permission to Heritage to engage in this practice?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Good post. +1.
But some people seem to be surprised by what Heritage did. Why?
Alleged COA's out of thin air? Why should that be a surprise?
And are the authenticators complaining to Heritage about this?
I would think that they should be or have they given their permission to Heritage to engage in this practice?

I find myself scratching my noggin quite often when reading this and other boards. Why is it people take almost every situation either out of context or don't fully comprehend what folks say? I just don't understand. Chris, above, already said they are going to change the way they do the authentication tags on line. I think that means they feel it wasn't being done correctly, in their mind. If they were doing it correctly he wouldn't have said this-

"We intend to change our policy and figure out a way to add the “authentication tags” only after the authenticators’ visits, in a way that will allow us to launch our auction on time."


.
.

[RichardSimon]

Leon,
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
You stated: "I think that means they feel it wasn't being done correctly"
They might have felt that way but IMHO until someone called them on it they were just going to continue to do the same old thing.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Leon

I find myself scratching my noggin quite often when reading this and other boards. Why is it people take almost every situation either out of context or don't fully comprehend what folks say? I just don't understand. Chris, above, already said they are going to change the way they do the authentication tags on line. I think that means they feel it wasn't being done correctly, in their mind. If they were doing it correctly he wouldn't have said this-

"We intend to change our policy and figure out a way to add the “authentication tags” only after the authenticators’ visits, in a way that will allow us to launch our auction on time."


.
.

Leon, I told them 7 months about this problem and they didn't care.

It's only after it blew up in their face that they decided to change it and if you look at Ivy's post, he says that they are changing it just so people wont take what they are doing and misrepresent it anymore. It didn't seem to me that he wanted to change it solely because they thought they were doing anything wrong. They would have changed it 7 months ago when i wrote an article detailing this very problem, and I told them it was wrong, they DID NOT AGREE with me and Ivy's emails to me called me the equivalent of naive and totally ignorant of the way auction houses do business. that doesn't sound to me like someone who is concerned about this problem and wanting to fix it because it is the right thing to do .

fixing it because its on the radar now and he doesnt want to go through it again.

7 months ago he didn't seem to care, I told them, I told them, I told them. But back then the article was just on a small website, and didn't make it onto deadspin, and tagged by a large national newspaper.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Leon, I told them 7 months about this problem and they didn't care.

It's only after it blew up in their face that they decided to change it and if you look at Ivy's post, he says that they are changing it just so people wont take what they are doing and misrepresent it anymore. It didn't seem to me that he wanted to change it solely because they thought they were doing anything wrong. They would have changed it 7 months ago when i wrote an article detailing this very problem, and I told them it was wrong, they DID NOT AGREE with me and Ivy's emails to me called me the equivalent of naive and totally ignorant of the way auction houses do business. that doesn't sound to me like someone who is concerned about this problem and wanting to fix it because it is the right thing to do .

fixing it because its on the radar now and he doesnt want to go through it again.

7 months ago he didn't seem to care, I told them, I told them, I told them. But back then the article was just on a small website, and didn't make it onto deadspin, and tagged by a large national newspaper.

This policy is stupid and I'm glad it is stopped. Business's that don't care are destined for FAILURE

[tinkereversandme]

I read this first in Nash's site.

The first and easy thing to do is attack Nash who did a great job uncovering this. Why attack him? He's acting like a journalist. Sounds like all the political ads on my television.

Second, so let me get this straight. The item was "in preview" and therefore you assumed it would pass JSA or PSA/DNA, but doesn't Heritage employee authenticators themselves like Mike?

Lastly, I guess Nash should wait until the auction runs before pointing out errors, huh?

Regards,

Larry

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by tinkereversandme

I read this first in Nash's site.

The first and easy thing to do is attack Nash who did a great job uncovering this. Why attack him? He's acting like a journalist. Sounds like all the political ads on my television.

Second, so let me get this straight. The item was "in preview" and therefore you assumed it would pass JSA or PSA/DNA, but doesn't Heritage employee authenticators themselves like Mike?

Lastly, I guess Nash should wait until the auction runs before pointing out errors, huh?

Regards,

Larry

...because he's an asshole?

If Nash thought this item would get by the authenticators (and forums) and actually get sold, he would definitely have waited. That's not his game.

[Splinte1941]

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but how did this ball ever make it past anyone at HA, nevermind that it was published on their actual website, preview or not?

[packs]

Is there anything unethical about previewing items that "might" be in your auction? It seems like if an unknown auction house wanted to make its name known, it could feature lots that might be authentic just to get people to view and bid on its "real" auction.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

Thats all fine and dandy but is game used Universe stating that their items are already authenticated by JSA or PSA before JSA or PSA even looks at them?

Personally, if its a preview auction and nothing is actually "for sale" yet, i don't see nothing wrong with posting the items so people can "discuss" them. I really don't think anyone is against that. The big thing is, is they posted that the Ty Cobb ball came with full PSA loa and JSA auction letter, when really JSA and PSA had never even looked at the item.

Post the items early, thats great!! People can discuss these items, but it should state authentication pending from PSA or JSA or both. Like mentioned earlier, what if a collector seen this preview, seen the statement about the PSA and JSA letters and decided to save all their money for this item? The very next day, they see another "Whale" of theirs somewhere else for sale but since the Cobb ball was more important to them, they hold off buying the other item, it sells to someone else then they find out days later that the Cobb ball never was actually authenticated and now they are SOL on both items? That would REALLY suck for someone.

Even if there is 2500 items to "Edit", like Travis said, hire a couple temps/family members/friends for a day or two at $10-$15 bucks an hour and get them to edit the authentication into the preview/auction or give some of their own workers some OT or a "special Project" for a couple days , WHEN the items have actually been looked at and authenticated.

Just my opinion, please don't take any offense if you disagree. I just think it would be wiser to spend a couple hundred bucks to hire a couple guys for a couple days instead of going through an issue like this.

exactly right, this isnt putting a man on the moon to make this change.

A few temps with a macro key or a cut and paste feature wouldn't take that long, and a more permanent fix by some IT guys wouldn't be that costly. The probably upgrade their auction software anyway on a periodic basis and for an auction house with millions upon millions of sales and a lot of commissions, it would be a drop in the bucket.

It's not finding the cure for cancer.

[thecatspajamas]

I think Heritage's biggest mistake in all this is not in writing the copy for the auction catalog ahead of time, but rather in letting people view the "work in progress" with the expectation that they would understand that it was not finalized. There seems to be a pretty broad misunderstanding that every word in the preview is to be taken the same as the finalized catalog.

I have no doubt that writing up the descriptions ahead of time for hundreds of items as having full LOAs from autenticators, with the anticipation of that being the case, is a common practice with auction houses. After all, who wants to go back and re-work the description of EVERY autographed item sold in an auction? By "pulling back the curtain" to let bidders see the catalog as it is being formed though, they are inviting headaches of this sort. If they feel the headaches are worth it for the additional exposure for their consignors' items, that's their decision, but they should either take the additional measures that have been discussed here as well as add big glaring notices that this is only a preview (subject to change) and not the finalized catalog. That way, if/when someone does a screen capture of the preview, the notice would appear big and bold to put the write-up in its proper context.

Incidentally, this is why I actually avoid looking at auction "previews." Too often I am either disappointed when something I was watching gets pulled from the "live" auction, or else I don't notice when a description has been tweaked between the preview and the live version. I prefer looking at items I can actually bid on then and there.

Lance F!ttr0