Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike T on May 11, 2015 at 6:26pm

Maybe he forgot to pay the bill. Doubt it tho, he hasn't commented on this site in quite some time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on May 11, 2015 at 6:33pm

I think its his loss. He was spoken well of here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on May 11, 2015 at 6:38pm

That's probably it Ian. Word of mouth. Saves the coin.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on May 11, 2015 at 7:07pm

I doubt he was breaking the bank to have a small ad on this site with a few thousand members.. He stopped commenting after his Zeppelin LP failed PSA and he didn't refund the guy. I suspect it has something to do with that whole debacle, but that's just a guess.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on May 11, 2015 at 7:29pm

And MJ. I do see he occasionally is on here reading. Shame to lose him.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on May 11, 2015 at 7:39pm

Roger I believe would have been sick and tired of dealing with some people trying to argue and debate with items that were authentic. It would be difficult to comment without guys wanting to take you on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dane on May 12, 2015 at 1:04am

Mike, as has been written several times on this issue, Mr Epperson's concern was that he wanted to have some say in who would be authenticating the item. He stated that he would have been willing to accept Steve Grad's opinion on the item, but he didn't want to be subject to the opinion of someone he didn't feel was an authority on Zeppelin signatures.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on May 12, 2015 at 5:37am

I doubt Grad would opine differently on an item his company failed, that would put him in a bad spot.. So that's kind of pointless... Plus there's nothing to say Grad didn't see it anyway, how do we know who examined it? I agree its not the best system but that's how this hobby works.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dane on May 13, 2015 at 8:10pm

I'm sure that if Grad's opinion of an item differed from another authenticator's, he would be honest about that. Otherwise, he'd be painting himself into a corner where all his experience gets relegated to the limited experience of the newest set of authenticators for the company.

I've had PSA reject items in the past, where I was sure they were authentic. I contacted Joe Orlando with my information, and he had Steve Grad review the pieces. Steve noted that they were authentic, and PSA issued stickers and COAs on the items. So, yes, sometimes the senior authenticator does have a different opinion than the less experienced members of the staff.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josh Board on May 17, 2015 at 11:19pm

I don't know the Zep story you guys are talking about, but here's a simple, simple solution. He should refund the money. As simple as that. If the autographs are authentic (and I'm guessing if Epperson says they are, they are)...he'd have no problem selling the piece again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on May 18, 2015 at 6:31am

i agree 100%, the entire thing would have been a non-issue.

Permalink Reply by Dane on May 18, 2015 at 3:59pm

I think, with all the negative publicity drawn to the item by Michael Johnson, that it'd be difficult to market/sell. As for refunding the money, I don't know.

My view has always been that when I buy something, it's either something I want or something I know I can make a good margin on. In the first case, if I buy the item, I would hope it's authentic, and if I trust the source, and it fails, I try to work with PSA to have the item reviewed. In the second case, I would do what Mr Johnson did. That said, I don't know how much a Zep signed album goes for, normally. I'd guess it's something in the neighborhood of $8500-$10k. The only way I could see offering the high end of the range is if I really wanted the item, as opposed to it being something I planned to resell.

I just feel that the buyer, if he really wanted the item as badly as his correspondence makes it appear, should have tried to see if there was a possibility of a mistake at the authenticator level.

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