Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 4, 2019 at 10:36am

If they did this with Gleason they'd have their hands full! The Facts page still...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on July 4, 2019 at 10:45am

So sweeping their mistakes under a rug is the correct approach? When I make mistakes I have to face it straight up. Mistakes happen. New evidence is discovered. Make it right; don't hide it.

Permalink Reply by James on July 4, 2019 at 6:41pm

Ballroom, I agree with you.  But it’s also very disconcerting to collectors.  Imagine if a collector paid say over $10k for an autographed item based on a particular LOA.  And then say 10 years down the road or so, the TPA pulls the LOA from the database reversing their initial decision.  And now that collector is out $10k or who knows...$50k or more.  

Does the collector have any recourse?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on July 4, 2019 at 7:48pm

I agree that it’s a major flaw. They disclaim any liability if their opinion changes, but obviously mistakes are made. If they pull the LOA, the owner is indeed stuck with a costly mistake. If they don’t pull it, it’s knowingly allowing someone else to potentially suffer an even greater loss.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on July 4, 2019 at 8:20pm

That’s true because many pricey autographs increase in value with each passing year.  

You know about my John Lennon signed book.  Well when I got it, it came with an LOA from 1999 by Gary Hein, an avid Beatles collector.  So in 1999, he appraised it at $1000.  And I’ve seen a similar sell for as much as $4400 a couple of years ago.  

But if there’s a fake with a good LOA, its passage through the hobby has to be stopped somewhere.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TheThinWhiteDuke on July 4, 2019 at 7:39am

Well in my opinion Beckett aren't the right ones to als for a quick review when it comes to Rock n Roll. Roger Epperson is the right one to go to. I had a bunch of weird experiences with Beckett so I don't use them anymore for Music graphs. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 4, 2019 at 10:54am

"...So sweeping their mistakes under a rug is the correct approach?..."

Certainly not! All I was saying was in the instance of Gleason, there would be a large chunk of Cert #'s gone missing. Why they don't fix the many secretarial exemplars is anyone's guess. Happy 4th everyone!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on July 4, 2019 at 11:01am

Perhaps they don't agree on the secretarial evidence. If they do they should remove them from the exemplar files. What I am talking about is when an autograph is issued a full certification. If later, they determine it's not authentic, it still should be noted their opinion changed when the cert number is looked up.

At least, when someone looks up the number they will see it's no longer deemed authentic. Just deleting it from the system is wrong. Again, in my opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on July 4, 2019 at 11:13am

They have to know better IMO or what are they doing? So many secretarial Gleason's have been fully certed in the past (A lot of $)... A course change now would impress me but how does one make money and look good doing it? What is truly interesting is that they don't seem to cert the secretarial anymore, not for several years, but those Sydel Spear secretarial signatures remain in the facts page. One wonders why. Could cause confusion, making bad look good...you could take a certed/slabbed PSA "Gleason" and check the facts page and get a very wrong impression...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on July 4, 2019 at 11:22am

I can't count the number of times I've looked up on one of the TPA sites to verify a COA number only to find it's not in the system. Am I to assume all certs are no longer valid?

What a racket. I'm not against TPA services although, if their opinion has changed on a specific item, they should update the record to say so. That would make them more credible than simply deleting it from the system.

As far as exemplars, removing them from the system is the right thing to do. That simply means those examples are no longer considered authentic. That's a free public service.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on July 17, 2019 at 6:40pm

The item in the OP is included in the current Iconic auction, still with a Beckett LOA despite the fact that a Beckett signature review returned a result of “Unlikely to pass full authentication.” The current bid is $1,099 plus buyer’s premium.

https://www.iconicauctions.com/The_Beatles__Paul_McCartney_Signed__...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ru007 on July 17, 2019 at 8:04pm

hmm interesting, I guess as long as it’s authenticated the saler has a right to sals it, as far as BAS saying unlikely to pass full authentication I guess it all depends on what the examiner sees once he has it and looks at in person, 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page