Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on November 6, 2012 at 5:38pm

Your "Nostradamus predictions" closely resemble free speech Gary.  Feels good doesn't it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 6, 2012 at 5:49pm

No, there are not two options, there are three. They can punt...and that's what I think they're going to do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on November 6, 2012 at 5:50pm

They seem to be trying to take a knee.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carl Ryan on November 6, 2012 at 7:53pm

What do you mean Steve? Do you think that they are going to turn it around and accuse Roger of not knowing what hes talking about? 

One thing i have worried about this particular incident with Adrian, is the concept of a proof video. AFTAL stated that they had rock solid proof of Adrian getting those MJ's. They said it would be made available for anyone to see, yet it wasnt, and seemed to be hushed up. The problem that i can potentially see, is that if they state that the MJ's are authentic and that Roger is wrong, and that they have video proof, how will we know that video proof is really involved with the MJ's in question.

Im not well versed in all of this, but just about every proof video i have ever watched for an item on sale, simply shows the dealer next to the celeb getting the autograph. Most of the time you cant even see the item being signed, let alone determine it is the item in question. And in the case of ARA, the photo proof was doctored (of course im not insinuating anything their with AFTAL, just used as an example). And even if such a video shows MJ signing a photo for Adrian that is one of the same type as the forgeries, more than likely the video wouldnt be clear enough to determine if it was precisely the same signature, all it would show is possibly MJ with the same type of photo. 

One of my concerns is that their has been alot of time since the crap hit the fan. Plenty of time to find real footage of Adrian in the overall same location getting graphs from MJ. Im assuming he does have footage of himself getting MJ's, probably many instances. So it would seem that they could just show this type of footage and say that this was from that same time he got the signatures.

I know this is playing the what if game, but this video proof has been what has been bothering me all along as far as an exit. Photos and videos are only as good as the provider in todays technology world, and if the provider is Adrian, who has alot to loose, i dont think it would be out of the question for tampering to be an issue. Potentially footage of Adrian getting MJ at any old time could be used. The question to me is, would AFTAL actually except that flimsy of video or photographic proof? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on November 6, 2012 at 8:09pm

If they had rock solid prooof it would have already been released. No way would their strategy be to allow their name and dealers go through all this speculation. Bad for business.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on November 6, 2012 at 10:26pm

u must be from california cyrkin.   Punting is the equivalent of saying no w/o saying they  disagree.  when it comes to authenticity from an organization that is suppose to be able to discern authenticity there are only 2 fundamental answers.  They can either agree or agree to disagree.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 6, 2012 at 11:43pm

There are lawyers involved, DB, which means that the primary goals have probably become protecting AFTAL from liabilty and placing blame for the decision somewhere else. That's Door #3.

Here's what we've heard: AFTAL and Adrian Longden have lawyered up and AFTAL demanded a sworn statement under penalty of perjury from Longden saying whether or not he and his crew got the Michael Jacksons in-person from MJ, either directly or through his people. (If they addressed the McCartneys or any others, we don't know.) Since we've heard that a court is involved, it probably means that the court is going to issue some sort of ruling based on that statement, so whatever is agreed to by the parties will be put in front of a judge to approve.

So I think it will go something like this:

It's unlikely Longden would give a sworn statement to the court that he lied about the MJs, so no surprises here: He'll say he got them from MJ, the court will issue some sort of ruling to that effect, and AFTAL can issue a statement saying they know that there have been concerns here, but a British court has ruled that Adrian got them in person from Michael Jackson, so they're officially genuine.

Each AFTAL dealer can decide how they want to handle them, but that decision is now in the members' hands and not AFTAL's, and no one has to refund any money if they don't want to.

Thoughts?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on November 7, 2012 at 3:11am

if the AFTAL board Acquiesce  to a 3rd party, such as what you suggest, then they are also siding with the decision and it's a "resounding" Yes!  Of course, the public backlash I suspect would be similar to the "hanging chad" fiasco of Florida.

Since I've not heard or read about sworn statements and courts is someone leaking information?   AFTAL has already made 2 statements (presuming they are from AFTAL but I believe you confirmed there email so ever comment ends up at that email address presuming they haven't shut them off).

I guess we are gonna just have to wait and see.  Incidently, that Florida Fiasco resulted in all sorts of changes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brandon Mysinger on November 7, 2012 at 3:35am

Hmmmm, to think that a court would issue such a finding on a sworn statement is hard to stomach. Well, lets remember that this is the same "court system" that supposedly allowed Garry King to attack other dealers. Possibly using material bought ( maybe even bought from Adrian ) instead of collected in-person and 1000% authentic.

If this happens, Anyone with common sense ( I know it isn't very common ) should take a HARD look at their associations with the players involved.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 7, 2012 at 4:41am

Brandon,

Who said King attacked other dealers? And do you know anything, anything at all, about these court cases you're talking about?

You're going after him like a hired gun.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brandon Mysinger on November 7, 2012 at 8:50am

Not everyone that asks questions is a "hired gun" unless they ask questions about one of the chosen ones I guess.

No, the reason I ASKED the questions is due to all the UN-answered questions remaining from all the statements of how Garry went after forgers. Including in court cases as was stated here.

I'm not sorry for asking questions about such cases knowing the questions that are being raised about Garry's role in this little "club" and his role in Selling the material being questioned.

I know he is your buddy and I know you trust him. That's perfectly fine. I still have the same questions regardless. BTW, I'm not the only person asking questions. That's why I'm shocked at the people who AREN'T.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on November 7, 2012 at 11:01am

Brandon,

Answer the questions I asked instead of throwing anything you can on the wall and seeing what might stick.

Who said King used the court system to attack other dealers? Did you do any research to find anything out about these cases?

These were criminal and trading standards prosecutions where King was called as an expert witness. He didn't attack anyone. If the defense or the judge thought there might be something wrong with the exemplars used, or his testimony, that would have been addressed. Certainly, the defendants' lawyers would have brought up any possible thing they could to cast doubt on Garry's testimony. Besides, I believe these prosecutions mostly if not all involved sports memorabilia.

And since when is it safe to assume that autographs someone claims to have collected in person are "1000% authentic"?

Here's an example:

Steve Sipe said this in an email to me, regarding the 38 signed movie posters from RightCoastCollectibles and Dirty_Water_Ink I was asking for opinions on:

"Just as Peter Leone stated, all of these guys are willing signers and Bob Gryder actually was in the presence on three of those trips with that group witnessing the Speilberg, Williams and Hanks autographs being done for them."

Go to the album and tell me if you think that the Steven Spielberg, John Williams and Tom Hanks autographs are genuine. After all, according to your boss, Steve Sipe, they were all witnessed by his second in command, Bob Gryder:

http://live.autographmagazine.com/photo/albums/signed-movie-posters...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 56
• 57
• 58
• 59
• 60
• …
• 71
• Next ›
• Page