Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DB on May 18, 2012 at 2:57pm

Is there any reason why a post of the Ruth ball has yet to emerge or am I missing a comment that has it?

Seems to me, if someone sold a ruth ball they would have more than one archived picture of it along with the LOA from Simon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on May 18, 2012 at 5:30pm

It was not a baseball, it was a photo. This item was sold 3 months ago and I had no reason to save a picture for this length of time. The item has not yet been returned.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on May 18, 2012 at 6:30pm

I was talking about whether it was responsible to sell it upon the return to me. I am accepting it as a return with a refund even though I sold it 3 months ago and never heard a word about its authenticity until last week.

My initial question was simply what would members of this forum do if they had an item with an LOA from a legitimate authenticator that was subsequently rejected by one of the more widely accepted authentication companies. Would you still feel comfortable selling an item with conflicting opinions. That was my only question.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 18, 2012 at 8:09pm

Randy did say that in his original post.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 22, 2012 at 2:57am

mike - we need to ask more hard questions when incomplete posts like this occur that have niether a picture nor any other supporting documentation to look at.  Somehow, if I was selling a babe ruth I'd have an archive picture of the one being sold just to ensure when it makes the rounds it can be identified.

as far as what to do - that was simple;   one calls Spence or Orlando to see if there is away to get a possible reiview.  In the meantime - one would also notify the original authenticator as I'd like to believe simon has archives.    At the end of the day if disagreement still exists then the seller either standsfasts or reimburses the buyer based on whatever the T&Cs say.  It won't be the first time this has happened and certainly won't be the last..

but I don't see the nitpicking... so point me to it if you would.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 22, 2012 at 10:39am

If it was on eBay in the last 3-6 months, the image should be on www.goofbay.com.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on May 22, 2012 at 7:44pm

OK guys. I am new to this forum. My original question was simply, what would you do if you had differing legitimate opinions about an autograph from a seller's standpoint? 

First of all, I must say that I have high regard for anyone who is willing to put his reputation on the line and make a convicted determination as to authenticity of an autograph possibly signed 50 to 100 years ago. I know their LOAs all state that it is an opinion and they are not responsible if they are incorrect and they are getting rich giving their opinion, but still it is a difficult task.

I think we all have authenticators we have the most trust in but I respect all of the widely accepted ones including PSA/DNA, JSA, Richard Simon, Mike Guiterrez, Kevin Keating, etc. I know that all of them do their absolute best to verify authenticity in each instance.  I personally place my highest level of trust in Richard Bond who most of you may not even know but he authenticated for Lelands for many years.

However, all of them make mistakes because this is not a science. It is a skill that requires a lot of acquired experience, a library of exemplars, and some common sense.

Having said that, I never planned on posting a picture of this item because my question did not involve who these members think is correct in this instance, but whether or not you would sell the item if you believed in it and it had a legitimate 3rd party certificate. Sellers must stand behind the certificate but we are selling the 3rd party opinion. No one really cares what I think. I'm relatively certain that the most knowledgeable Babe Ruth autograph expert is NOT a 3rd party authenticator. Unfortunately, I don't know who he is.

In this case, I refunded my buyers purchase price and the Ebay seller I purchased this item from refunded my purchase price and told me to shred the item. I have to assume that means he has confidence in the opinion of PSA/DNA but keep in mind that there is no rejection letter from PSA/DNA, just a verbal rejection through an auction house.

I am currently writing this response from my laptop but I will shortly post the picture of the inscription and autograph as well as a picture of the original LOA from my desktop computer so if you are anxious to see them be on the lookout over the next half hour.

Thanks for all of the input.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 23, 2012 at 3:29am

what??  This has to be the bizarrest I have ever read.

In this case, I refunded my buyers purchase price and the Ebay seller I purchased this item from refunded my purchase price and told me to shred the item. I have to assume that means he has confidence in the opinion of PSA/DNA but keep in mind that there is no rejection letter from PSA/DNA, just a verbal rejection through an auction house.

a seller  has "refunded" a purchase based on a "verbal Rejection" and then tells you to shred a babe ruth picture with an LOA From SIMON instead of returning it.   On top of it, you refunded it to begin with based on a "verbal" response?

I just find this way to difficult to accept.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on May 23, 2012 at 5:59am

Difficult to accept honest sellers?  What a statement? When I said there was no letter from PSA/DNA, there was a formal rejection. They do not issue rejection letters through auction houses, they simply return the item. If someone wanted to spend $200 to get a formal rejection letter, that is certainly possible and I'm sure PSA/DNA would gladly oblige.

I accepted the return because my customer asked for one and provided the auction house rejection information to me. My seller provided a refund based on the information provided about the conflicting opinions and wanted to insure the item did not stay in the hobby. I applaud the seller who ultimately took the hit on this item. He obviously answered my original question about "would you sell an item with conflicting 3rd party opinions." It is clear he would not sell it again and wanted to insure it never gets into the hobby again because there would always be questions about its legitimacy even though it could be authentic. That is a refreshing  response in my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 23, 2012 at 6:47am

there is no rejection letter from PSA/DNA, just a verbal rejection through an auction house.\

is what you said!  I didn't say it.  Now you add provided the auction house rejection information to me.    Why not just name the Auction House where this indivudal was trying to sell it?   This item sold twice on ebay I believe you also said.  Now you have most likely an authentic Ruth and have been refunded on top of it.

Sorry but I'm a cynic as it seems the story unfolds more and more in bits and pieces.. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Travis Christenberry on May 22, 2012 at 8:04pm

Wow. That's awesome that the original seller refunded you. He has a lot of faith in you and PSA. I'm on pins and needles to see this thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on May 22, 2012 at 8:06pm

Here are the pictures.

• ▶ Reply

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