Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul on January 29, 2017 at 12:56pm

So what does it mean in a nut shell?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 29, 2017 at 2:55pm

They don't have to have a surety bond or insurance, but they have to say if they do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on January 29, 2017 at 4:11pm

Wiĺl that nake a difference to companies selling forgeries?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 29, 2017 at 4:26pm

Irvin, I would not think purchasing a surety bond would be that expensive. At least, it didn't use to be. With the quality of autographs you offer, there should never be a problem. I think the heart of the law is to make sellers accountable and insuring buyers get their money back if there is a problem.

I have purchased from you in the past and always have enjoyed seeing your listings. Hope this doesn't stop you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on January 29, 2017 at 4:28pm

Hope it stops our mate in San frans!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 29, 2017 at 4:32pm

And a surety bond does not guarantee authenticity. It provides protection to the buyer if someone tries to rip them off.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Irvin J. Gelb on January 29, 2017 at 5:33pm

Thank you for your comments and thoughts everyone. This new law certainly needs to be taken seriously, as much as one can comply with it's stipulations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 29, 2017 at 6:18pm

I agree, Irvin. It's a well-intentioned law with a few serious quirks that hopefully will get fine-tuned this year. 

My main concern is that you have to print the source of the autograph, including their address, on the COA. I think that's great except when the source is a private individual. Then their name and address could easily end up on a COA posted on the Internet, leaving them open for robbery and worse.

If there was a way that private individual sources could be protected from that public access, then everything else with the law is fine with me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 29, 2017 at 6:24pm

How in the world does including the person that the seller obtained it from have anything to do with authenticity protection? The seller would be responsible to refund the money if there is a problem. Then if the seller decides for recourse it would be the seller's decision to revert back to the source.

That takes the law too far, IMO. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on January 29, 2017 at 6:32pm

Only if your in California!
At least people wont be robbed blind. Antiquities will have a difficult time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on January 29, 2017 at 6:36pm

That's true, Paul. I have purchased several items recently from California which none have provided that information. And, that information would be of no value to me anyway.

I guess when you can't figure out what is authentic or not, the politicians find a way to make things more difficult on the honest people.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on January 29, 2017 at 6:45pm

It will protect a lot of naive people buying from mass forgery rings.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page