MEARS effort to help clean up the hobby. REA signs on.

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

Marc, I do see your concern and perhaps Rob will clarify what he proposes to make available.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Barry,

You stated:

"Thanks Charlie. I can only do so much. I just can't have cards that have already been authenticated to be reexamined and reevaluated by another party. It just doesn't work for me, and I would lose my consignors along the way. They certainly wouldn't put up with it."

Maybe you are only referring to Jim's suggestion that Kevin be allowed to review all cards, etc. However, Im unclear as to whether this statement also applies to your objections to Mears' efforts.

As I read the Mears letter, there is no request that graded cards be examined by an independent grader/authenticator before being put up for auction. They are only asking that any KNOWN cleaning/alteration/etc. be noted in the lot description.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you are, for example, mastro and have an sgc graded card that has had glue stains removed or a crease pressed out prior to encapsulation (and you know this because your employees did the work), it should be disclosed, end of story. The fact that so many auction houses are balking at this surprises me, but perhaps its the totality of the requirements (ie auditing, disclosure of ownership, etc.). I just dont see what is so objectionable. As it is, most businesses routinely get audited, whats one more given that there would be no cost to the auctioneer according to Mears (of course, I'd prefer to see an independent auditing firm do the work)?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Dave,

My son will never sell and he promises his kids will not sell--so we are probably talking over 100 years into the future and his grandchildren may want Kevin's grandchildren to check the cards--maybe not though.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Concerning game used auctions, Lelands authenticates their own stuff and has a good reputation for reliability amongst game used collectors. Beyond that, MEARS is widely considered superior to some other game used authentication services that auction houses use. When an auction house uses mostly or only one of the 'diploma mill' LOA services, it will hurt their reputation in the long run, especially if an inordinate amount of items are juged to be fake. Being able to use MEARS' services and LOAs is an advantage to an auction house.

It's somewhat comparable to if a major auction house decided to save money by having all their Pre-War cards graded by Beckett instead of SGC. Even if you thought Beckett was a decent enough company, you'd really wish cards were in SGC holders not Beckett. A lot of Net54ers may switch their bidding to an other auction house that still uses SGC. Duly note that many serious game used collectors will say the gap between MEARS and some other GU authentication services is much wider than between SGC and Beckett. So the Beckett/SGC comparison was a conservative example.

I'm sure if an individual collector got a MEARS LOA, then later consigned it to Mastro or whomever later, that would be acceptable. I'm sure MEARS is not about to discourage individual collectors from getting LOAs then later selling the items.

Though I believe he does bats not jerseys, John Taube of PSA/DNA authenticates for the big auction houses and is highly respected as an expert. So an auction house can still hire the services of Taube/PSA for their bats. I've noticed Mastro, for one, already uses his LOAs a lot.

MEARS' disclosure of alteration concerns are legitimate. I know of a case where an auction house changed a game used item, and didn't disclose the change. Collectors noticed a problem, then the auction house disclosed the change. There was another case where MEARS said in their letter than an item appeared to be altered, the auction house got a different positive LOA and did not disclose MEARS opinion to the bidders. Again, eagle eyed collectors following the auction deduced that the item was altered. These two instances should illustrate why MEARS has decided to set disclosure rules.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Josh- I was specifically referring to Kevin when I talked about cards being reexamined.

I have no employees and I do not work on cards. I either sell them graded exactly as I receive them, or if they are given to me raw I send them to SGC. Period.

If I think a card is misgraded I almost always make some mention of it in my description. I recently was about to put one of my consignor's cards on ebay, that was graded but not by PSA or SGC. It was almost certainly trimmed. I returned it to him and told him I won't sell it.

If I have a card that has some alteration which is undetectable, and it currently resides in a holder, I will sell it. As such, a couple of these cards may pass through my hands. If I can't see the alteration, then unfortunately there isn't anything I can do.

Like I said, I do the best I can but it is not perfect.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Thanks for the reply Barry.

I really wasnt questioning your practices so much as making an observation (which I think youve confirmed) that what Mears is asking (with the exception of the auditing) is exactly what the better auction houses such as yourself are already doing or should be doing.

That said, unless it is the auditing or the perception that they are being strong-armed that is at issue, I dont understand why none of the auction houses other than REA have agreed to Mears terms.

[Archive]

Posted By: pas

Josh, I would guess it is because they think it is presumptuous for MEARS to demand a short notice audit and to tell them how to keep records?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I believe MEARS auction house services are more expensive than with many other gu authenticators. I believe some auction houses use less respected services because it's cheaper. With MEARS, there's no PSA-style bulk discount if you submit 1,000 jerseys. MEARS said a couple of years ago that an auction house and a collector were charged the same rate to have an item examined. Whether the submitter was Sotheby's or Joe Schmoe, it didn't alter the amount of time it took to examine a Warren Spahn jersey.

[Archive]

Posted By: onlychild

Since I saw my name I've been trying to stay real low here.

Chimed in to say, I really like Barry's attitude and approach to his auctions.


Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"My son will never sell and he promises his kids will not sell--so we are probably talking over 100 years into the future ...."

Jim, how old is your son? My boys are 3; I'm wonderng how old mine have to be until I trust them not to sell off my collection as soon as I'm gone.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

I think by then the "Rule Against Perpetuties" will be the downfall of your well thought out plan.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Thanks Kevin.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Saucier

About a year ago I told my son, "this collection will all be yours when I die." He replied, "I’m selling them the next day."

I put him in foster care for that comment and willed my collection to my attorney/friend who will put them in a trust...or keep them.

(all true except the foster care part)


Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycle

When senile, inappropriate Abe Simpson was visiting the hospital bed of his son Homer, he said "I've always been told that the worst thing that can happen to a father is to have his son die before him. But I have to tell you, it's not that bad."

///////

It's not right for sports card collectors to demand that their kids continue with the collection, as the kids might have good taste.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich Klein

At some point, everyone has their moment when they are ready to accept their cards as being graded correctly, their autographs as being verified authentic OR their memorabilia as being verified as legit.

Everyone has a different point: Jim's point is he is only currently OK with anything new if Kevin authenticates it. Barry's point is that he recieves cards from consignors, he sends them off (almost always to SGC -- just don't want to use an absolute Barry -- as an English professor I'm sure you understand why) to a 3rd party professional grader so they can sell better in his auctions. Some collectors are OK buying cards raw off EBay with scans they find acceptable,....

But at some point, we are all making a decision that the item is acceptable. It seems to me, that we go round and round about that everyone has to have the same point. That to me, is one of the arguments that will never end and we'll always have Jim C. and Barry S. disagreeing about this (at least in their case, it is professionaly argued and nothing personal seeps in)

I'm going to hijack this thread slightly - and ask a different question (If Leon wants -- and this turns out to be a better way to do this -- he can copy and paste these words below and create a new thread -- I do trust Leon )

Here is the question: This is NOT a poll, there is not a right or a wrong answer -- and to me, these create the best discussions

Jim C believes he will take the leap of faith ONLY after Kevin looks at any card he (Jim) is thinking of purchasing

Barry believes that once the card is properly slabbed, then he can take the leap of faith to sell the card.

What is YOUR leap of faith for purchasing or selling cards or memorabilia items?

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Good and fair question.

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

Mears should not dictate authenticity where their expertise is not, period. REA is a great auction, if they choose the path of being the front lines to MEARS, Rob obviously knows what he is doing. The problem I have is exactly what Barry, Charlie and others are saying, why use a grading service if they are only opinions anyway? Because, they are vital to collectors that really spend their money and to the dealers that earn a living. They also legitimize a business that really was the wild west before they began, yes they make mistakes, but they are important.

To Jim Crandall- Respectfully, I know your answer and I know you are leaving your collection to your descendants but the real truth is if you want a "clean" collection to leave, why not use the man (Kevin) you so endorse, to clean up your collection if you are so industry concerned. This way maybe the cards you bought so long ago that could have be doctored or sold by some of the same people you have faith in now, could really be verified.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

It would have been interesting to see Mears go over the Harris Collection before it was pieced out...

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Wow. Look what happens when I tune out for just a day. Some random responses:

I don't see that MEARS is dictating authenticity or anything of the kind. Nor that they are requiring any responsibility for card alteration that happened before an auction house got it. Nothing to do with any expertise they may or may have with cards - totally irrelevant. They are dictating disclosure of those facts that the auction house knows. Just what they know. No responsibility to investigate or find out or even ask. Just what they know. Disclosure. That's it that's all.

They are also dictating disclosure for employee or auction house owned lots. Not saying they can't auction material they own, just that it has to be disclosed.

What could be wrong with disclosure?

As to privacy, if you have bought a car from a large dealership, your records and contact info may very well have been part of an audit. The Big Three audit their dealerships all the time. That's how they get those "service dealer of the year five star whatever" awards. Audits. If you've used a credit card lately, you may have been part of a financial audit. If you've done business with any company that has an ISO 9000 certified sign in the window, your records may have been audited.

Audits happen every day folks. Every day, and they probably include your record at some point. Believe me, the auditors aren't sneakily copying down people's names and emails or whatever. It's routine. And quite dull, I might add.

And who is MEARS to decide they will dictate to the hobby? Who are they do decide what's right or what's not? Well as best I can tell, they are the first company to do anything substantial to get at these issues, that's who.

It's odd, because all of these disclosures and problems have been debated here forever, and one of the questions has always been "but what is anybody doing about it?". Or "all we do is talk - no action".

And finally, I think many of us have wondered what WE can do. I know I've kind of struggled with what I can do to help. Well here's something I can do. I can support this effort. I know it's not much - negligible is being charitable!

But it's something. And it's something I can do myself. So even though it's completely meaningless in the business that is this hobby, even though my money and contribution to many auctions do not add up to jack, it IS meaningful to me in that I've done something - anything.

I can't not support the effort. This company has put it's financial interests on the table to try to do something. How can I not do one little thing for 08, just to see what happens?

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Red

Cleaning up the hobby sounds great and nobody would argue against it, but Mears had to be thinking their "deal" with the auction houses would go over big and they'd see a big increase in their market share for authentication services. It sort of backfired as the only auction house to sign on with them runs one auction a year. They may be the best authenticators out there but nobody wants to be told how to run their business or be forced to give valuable consignor and buyer info to a competitor.

But maybe what changes now is that a collector will need to send their item to Mears prior to giving it to a big auction house like Mastro for example. If the only reason you're getting something authenticated is to sell it then Mears would obviously be in a much more advantageous position of being able to make a play at handling the sale of the item as well. So while they'll lose out on submissions from auction houses where they have no chance of handling the sale, they would pick up submissions directly from collectors where they'll have a better opportunity of becoming the person handling the sale of the item. This will make them a bigger player in selling the stuff rather than just making a few bucks authenticating it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Joann,

I think a lot of us (well, at least me) like the idea of a set of standards for the Auction Houses. Putting pen to paper and then concept to work are entirely different. Yes, I believe the Auction Houses should disclose what they own. Yes, I believe the Auction Houses should disclose any/all alterations. Yes, I believe...

The tough part is enforcing this. Who? At what cost? I'm sure it wont be free so it'll translate into business expenses that get passed on to the consumer (higher buyers/sellers premiums). There's so much more...

Good idea! Implementation is not so clear and even with all the efforts nobody is going to figure out what is being shilled and what is not being shilled. There are just too many variables.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Businesses may be audited all the time, but they are done by professional auditors. Mears authenticates game used equipment. Auditing is not their business.

If my car needs a new transmission I will call an auto mechanic, not a dentist.

I too applaud any effort to clean up the hobby. I just don't think this particular practice is appropriate. That only a single auction house took them up on it suggests it has not gone over too well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Moss

Perhaps they stayed at a Holiday Inn?

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

When I looked at that Mears link, and the list of auctions... I wonder about ones left out.

I like Mr. Lipset's auctions, but he's not on the list.Barry isn't on that list, nor is Bill Goodwin. Those 3 guys are pretty straight, forthright fellows. I think a boycott of auction companies that don't sign on with the Mears' position isn't fair to these 3, and others.

I agree with Paul, Jay, and Barry. I'm not in favor of the switching of lots, and of auction houses doctoring cards. It does seem to me that most of the SGC slabbed cards are correctly slabbed. But what it comes down to is for a fellow to do business with folks he trusts. And to avoid the ones he doesn't. That might fit in with the boycott idea, just from with a different approach.

I figure a few of Jim's cards wouldn't grade out now as they did before. But not many, 'cause it seems to me that Jim has a keen eye for pristine cards. If his cards were mine I wouldn't get them regraded, either. I have 4 kids of varying ages. One infant grandchild at present. Will probably have half a dozen more. I hope to keep my wits about me for about 20 years, then assess my heirs to see if any of 'em give a tinker's damn about ball cards. If they don't, I'll probably sell them myself... Although I do like Kevin's 'foster care' strategy!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Great points Frank. I guess I should make something clear at least as to my position.

I definitely think that there are very good auction houses out there. Whether one signs on to the MEARS policy or not does not mean they are or are not honorable to deal with. Certainly Barry is the lead case in point on this board, and I also have high regard for Huggins and Scott along with others.

My going with REA only in 08 is not, repeat and emphasize not, any indication that I think all others are of lesser ethical behavior. Far from it. I actually hold a few of the non-signers in higher regard than REA (and that's pretty high).

It's a matter of me having found one small thing that I can do. I want to support MEARS in this policy, and REA for having signed on. My contribution is not much, but to me it is 100% because I've finally identified a way that I can do ... something.

And as to the merits of the policy, I agree with some of the concerns and analyses that there may be some bobbles in what it is and how it will be implemented. But perfect or not, MEARS is the first to do something and I'm getting behind that. It may not be perfect, but it's actually pretty good. If we all waited for perfect, nothing would ever get done or move forward.

So it's my way of being comfortable with myself and feeling like I am at least trying. It's not at all an indication of my views on non-signers to the policy.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

So what if REA has nothing you need for your collection and another auction house does?

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

Joann- You seem like a righteous and decent person, I applaud you for your stand but it is very lonely on a picket line when the alternative is clear, no auction house except for REA wants to be under MEARS' doctrine at this time otherwise they would have met this deadline. There are most likely only a few collectors or dealers that care to be so personally restrictive of who they transact with, and really it is up to the individual to decide for themselves who they should conduct business with without having their name, address and other personal information exposed.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Red,

You stated:

"but Mears had to be thinking their "deal" with the auction houses would go over big and they'd see a big increase in their market share for authentication services"

I think you have failed to accurately analyze the Mear's deal. All of these auction houses were already doing business with Mears. They were/are one of the most respected authentication services in the country. They didnt need this deal to increase their business. Moreover, the deal that they proposed was "you do this, and you can continue to submit to us" (i.e. continue to do what youve been doing). The deal was not, "you do this and then we will allow you to increase your business with us."

That said, I see nothing about this "deal" that would directly lead to an increase in business. Quite the contrary, I think the strong likelihood (probably known by Mears in advance) was that several auction houses would reject this deal and they would lose business.

Think about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Moss

Here's the real world for you. The Mears strongarm tactic will have no effect on the auction houses as they probably have another authenticator du jour to promote in their catalogs and who will gain acceptance or might already have within the game used sphere in the hobby. In fact, is it possible that they might retaliate by not accepting merchandise accompanied by Mears letters of authenticity?

I know that I'd certainly be somewhat resentful if a non-governmental entity wanted to rummage through my books on the premise that I must prove my innocence. If I do not succumb to their demand, then I must have something to hide and must be punished accordingly. Guilty until proven innocent, the Napoleonic laws live! It's just so un-American. I suppose this sort of bullyboy tactic is more acceptable nowadays as this country descends from freedom to a fascist authoritarian state but it's nice to see that some (most) still stand up for their rights to do business without succumbing to threats, intimidation, and essentially false accusation. If they're guilty, prove it, but not this way.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The Sloate auction house not submitting to MEARS rules is a straw man argument, as Barry doesn't auction game used items. He auctions baseball cards. Barry has nothing that requires MEARS' services and MEARS doesn't authenticate anything Barry has. MEARS rules are for sports auction houses that use its game used examination services. My supermarket hasn't signed on with MEARS, but I will continue to purchase my milk there. I might even buy a pack of baseball cards there. I'm sure MEARS would have no have a problem with this.

[Archive]

Posted By: keyway

Here we go. First we need someone to guarantee the cards or auto's, now we need someone to police them. When does it end. Enough is enough. I have good faith in 3'rd party card grading and absolutely no faith in 3'rd party auto. authentication. It is amazing how many auto's are called authentic that are an absolute joke and paid big bucks for because of it. It is also amazing how many legit auto's are turned down. Facinating how oppiones are held as fact. The only fact is if you saw the auto. sighned yourself.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

way to stay on topic.