Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sling on July 18, 2012 at 4:21pm

Like everything else, its yes or no. To a sophisticated buyer, a coa from a group specifically in the business of doing COAs will add little value (this seems contrary, i know).

But, but, but ... some COAs  contribute highly to value, GIVEN THAT YOU CAN AUTHENTICATE THE AUTHENTICATOR!  For example, if you have beatles items  with a COA from Geoge Martin (and you know it is g martin) that can add substantially to value. Or a COA from Hnedrix's  girlfriend, etc.  It is best not to buy on these alone as other supporting facts should be present, but they can add huge value.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on July 18, 2012 at 4:53pm

To me, it's not so much something you should rely on for authenticity, but rather something that affirms that the piece isn't junk.  For example, you have two Mantle signed baseballs.  Both are 100% real without a question, but one has a major 3rd party COA with it, the other with no piece of paper at all.  Both are real, both are Mantles.  But why does the fact that one has a COA make it more valuable?  I believe it is the fact that one of them has something that essentially "labels" or affirms it's value as an authentic piece.    

I believe it is extremely important to know the autograph you are interested in, but with that research there always should be SOMETHING that can "affirm" or essentially guarantee it's authenticity in writing just to ensure the collector.  Just my theory.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on July 18, 2012 at 6:52pm

I agree but even if you know the autograph is real and did you research, asked questions etc. you have to worry about the other collectors who will buy that piece you are selling. Who is to say that they will do the same research as you did? That's what I mean that certification may be necessary if you plan on selling a piece. At least if you want to sell it for a decent sum.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on July 18, 2012 at 9:46pm

Excellent trapper. Everything you have said is right on. When signatures like Pacino are as crazy looking as they are, id personally prefer to have one that has a coa backing it up just for piece of mind. Opinions from multiple people are also a plus but with Pacino, he signs so much that the price tag on authentic ones without certification can be purchased for pretty cheap figures. Everything you purchase does include some level of risk in that it might not pass though. And companies like psa, sometimes, remain conservative in my opinion. especially with the quick opinion just in case. It is still a great way of having a second eye for only eight dollars.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on July 19, 2012 at 6:36am

There is a distinct difference between a COA and a Full Letter LOA.  As one major auction house saw it;  "too often we see LOAs on smaller ticket items that in return don't necessarily have the expected ROI".  LOAs ought to be reservered for big ticket items as aside from the seller claiming authentic it has an "independent validation" from a known source (in this case the implication on a valid known source and not just PSA/DNA or JSA as there are quite a few extremely good independents who can more than hold their own).  Too bad we don't have a list of these just as good independents (even if we don't like them personally).

At one point I felt PSA/DNA & JSA were in fact better than they really are.  Since noone can produce realistic numbers it ends in a meaningless debate.  Thus we use descriptors like mostly, sometimes, awful, occassionally... and none of which can be quantified.   Then on others they can get tagged with 30k alleged stickering of non-authentic items and in return now every GAI item becomes tainted.   Thus, the value of the item even if authentic has dropped and in some cases significantly.

So in answer to this question; Do you think that certification is detrimental or beneficial to the ability of selling an autograph?  My opinion is - it depends on a number of factors.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on July 19, 2012 at 11:47am

aside from the seller claiming authentic it has an "independent validation" from a known source.

Yes.  This is why I believe it may be necessary.  Regardless of the research you put into an item, and the countless numbers of opinions that can be found either here or elsewhere, it is always crucial to have something affirming the research you have done.  Rather than just have an item that you say is 100% authentic.  "Where's the proof" another collector may ask, maybe because he himself didn't do his own due diligence and uses COAs as a crutch, or because he really wants proof with the item so he can sell it (easier than an item w/ no documentation) when the appropriate time comes without a hassle.  

If a seller has nothing to hide, authentication should never be a problem.  As the person who obtained the autograph knows it's authentic if they saw it IP and they should be able to sell it eventually given their supposed "credibility" in the field.  But never should it be an issue, regardless of who's signature it is or when they obtained it.  Otherwise, in my opinion, the dealer has something to hide.  

• ▶ Reply