Impossible Ty Cobb autographed ball passed by JSA and PSA

[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.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by 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.

No there isn't.. It's unethical to publicly display a description that states it passed JSA and PSA authentication before it actually did.