Should We Publish a List Rating Authenticators?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin-Moderator on February 2, 2012 at 10:23pm

Bill,

I think that's an excellent idea.

You listed Steiner, which handles licensed signings, not authentication. I've wondered for a long time if having a list of licensed signing brands was a good idea or not, since there are a lot of small but reputable names. I don't want to shut them out, but there are too many to watch over. Why don't we make that a separate list at least, and work on it after the authenticators?

I'm looking forward to hearing what others think.

Thanks!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on February 5, 2012 at 9:06am

It's words like fraudulent is where it gets into trouble.

There are few that are completely "fraudulent" per se... just not as good as some others (except perhaps burczyk).  There are also a host of authenticators that are seldomly mentioned but very good in a niche market.

ratings are very subjective....   e.g. PSA/DNA as an example;  does one measure the entire group or the individuals which is difficult to do as individually they are seldomly devulged.  Does one consider JD or Bob from AW as "authenticators" or  mueller from Mueller's auctions or Nelson from Iconographics?  They certainly claim this "title".

e.g. overall PSA/DNA is 4 out of 5 stars (very good) but in some cases (e.g. Heston) they would be a 2 (not good) out of 5.   Someone else might think a 1 (poor) out of 5.  Same goes for GAI (i.e. the early GAI -vs- the let's just hand out 30k certs for "revenue" purposes).

Although those on the EBay Banned list would be an easy grade.   It's so subjective that it seems a difficult task.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin-Moderator on February 5, 2012 at 9:34am

Authenticators would be authentication businesses, existing or defunct, as long as their COAs still come up every now and then. It's the issuer of the COA that matters, not the individual authenticator unless it's a one-man shop, like Roger Epperson or Richard Simon.

I don't think ratings are that subjective. We couldn't easily put an exact percentage down, but we can come close enough to give consumers the information they need.

I could put a list together in an hour.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on February 5, 2012 at 9:48am

So R&R, Mueller's, Pristine, Iconographs, phil sears, coolwater, university archives, autograph store etc..  and so on would be included.  They all issue "COAs".  Even coach's corner as bad as they are do the same for their signed items.

I consider them, I don't know why though, in a different category than those who don't run "auction or memoribillia for sale "shops" but who offer authentication services soley like PAAS, PSA, PSA/DNA, REAL (hybrid), STAT, GA, GAI, ACE, and even Morales oriented ones.

If the latter then I suspect it would not be an extensive list.  I don't believe you nor anyone can come close enough on any authenticator as there are way too many variables.  Just because someone say's so doesn't make it accurate.  There are some factual statements that could be made on some but not others. 

go ahead an put your list together and see where it goes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin-Moderator on February 5, 2012 at 10:50am

The names you listed are in the business of selling autographs, not the business of authentication. John Reznikoff authenticates historical, but not as U.A. None of those companies count.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin-Moderator on February 5, 2012 at 11:32am

Just reread your list, DB. Phil Sears is the top Disney expert, and I believe he offers authentication services. He would fit on the list if he does.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Panagopulos on February 16, 2012 at 5:13pm

They'd have to, Steve. Anyone who issues certificates or opinions for third parties would have to count as an authenticator, whether they do so under their own company name or that of another firm. 

So, if I authenticate material included in my own auctions, I'm out. If I also authenticate material for you, I'm in.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin-Moderator on February 16, 2012 at 5:34pm

Bill...then how would you go about rating them?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 029r4yc06b4rr on February 5, 2012 at 10:59am

Hi DB.

I would not be so quick to put iconographs on that list. I would put them either in the highly questionable category or in the dont know category. I have been looking at their monthly auctions for almost a year now ever since my items failed psa that i bought from them, and i rarely see a good item as far as music goes.  Whats even more as i have posted their music items from monthly auctions on here time and time again and asked for opinions and every time peoples opinions are that they are bad. And a few months ago i sent 4 of their monthly auction musical listings to psa via quick opinion and all failed. Their actorial autographs and others such autographs may be legit but the music related items at least in the monthly auctions, in my opinion, are not kosher. They may have no idea that it is happening as wherever they are getting them from are doing a great job of supplying a high grade copy, but they just arent legit in most cases in my opinion.

But i could always be wrong and im not accussing the company of anything. They may run a top shelf buisness and be simply getting stuff from a bad provider. I can only state my own personal experience, my own opinion and the opinion of psa/dna on the items that i have had them look at.

Just food for thought

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on February 7, 2012 at 5:12am

tis why one might stay with the "private" signing ones only.

we went back and forth over a Tia Carrera one recently since I've have a number of in-person ones.  You aren't the only one that has spoken of the music genre they offer.  Did you request a refund?  If so, what happened?

none the less, if we rate "authentication companies" in a 1 to 5 star rating with supporting rationale (regardless of the fake members that are present, even here) we ought to have a similar rating for auction sites...

maybe it could be a separate forum.  Some sites I've seen have this as a feature and keep track of the ratings of those who "allegedly" have had interactions.  I wonder if this had already been in existence would some who have posted here avoided getting ripped off.

In this way it may also address Louie & my concerns as it won't be just someone's list as they perceive it. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Litzenberger on April 9, 2012 at 7:56am

If you consistently get, and try to sell, material from a bad provider, you are not a top-shelf business. Anyone who is in the business of selling autographs has the duty to vet them in-house. Certainly items coming from a trusted source with a history of providing good material are going to get the benefit of the doubt from a retailer or auctioneer, but they still have to be evaluated, if in somewhat less depth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin-Moderator on February 5, 2012 at 11:27am

DB,

I'm in the middle of intense circuit training. I just finished my second round of Jacuzzi/sauna/steam room and about to start my third. I'll get to my list later today.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page