We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Mike, no one wants to discredit you. I simply want you to make your case on the authenticity of the autograph in the OP in the normal way, by signature characteristics comparisons, not through accusations.
As i said Steve. I'm prepared to move on. We have all had our say. I'm not even going to ask you to comment on the last post. I'm not vindictive. I prefer to shake hands and move on. I'm also prepared to continue.
I'm even prepared to let you delete this entire post. I can be very agreeable and my intention was not to attack anyone or to discredit anyone's reputation.
I don't want the post deleted. We can close it if you want and someone else can start a new one if they want to discuss related things.
Is it a conflict of interest for Roger Epperson to sell items he has authenticated?
Steve Grad sells BAS authenticated items, but not ones he authenticated himself, yet still the same company. Is that a conflict of interest?
There are JSA reps that do the same as Steve Grad.
I don't know why the assumption here is that Roland authenticated it himself. I think that is clearly just trying to throw things up against the wall and if you agree the above is fair then I don't see an issue.
Just to clarify no one suggested that Roland authenticated his own items. He is a consultant not an authenticator.
It doesn't make it less of a conflict of interest if other people are doing it.
I will wait for the post attacking each TPA company for doing the same so you can remain fair and balanced then.
Also a full post on how Roger made a mistake on a secretarial autograph of Marc Bolan that you made a single comment about.
He realised the mistake and it was removed from an auction. It was being sold by an auction house (omega). I showed Roger the sample i had and he instantly agreed to get it removed. I think that shows integrity. Anyone can make a mistake.
Respectfully, I think there's a difference with Roger selling material that he has authenticated.
When you receive an Epperson LOA accompanying something you might have purchased from him, it's his name and his name only that is on the paper. He's acquired it, examined it, passed it & now he is selling it as he stands behind it. There's no ambiguity. It's the same as any seller who issues a COA or an LOA with their sold offerings, imho. There's no third party involved.
I just think it's a different kettle of fish when any paid rep. (even "consultant") from a TPA sells an item that has been passed their employer's place of business...and it's not explicitly revealed that they are a paid part of that business. Otherwise, it's not really a third party, again imho.
To be honest that is exactly what i was thinking but if i said it i would be accused of bias.
I bracing for being clobbered for saying it...lol.
Seriously, I'd want to know that information as a potential buyer. But that's just me.
Welcome to my world Lol
Exactly. It's about being open and honest. Roger is not holding back the fact that it's his item, that he's authenticated with his COA.
Roland didn't say he was a consultant working for the company that issued his COA. He mentioned he was a RACC trusted seller buy not and ACOA consultant. Why? I'm sure a buyer would find that information important.There is a massive difference. One is being completely open. The other is hiding the truth.
Furthermore, Roger admitted his mistake and corrected it immediately. That shows integrity.