We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

A question about authenticators...

Here's a question bound to stir up some more controversy on this site. I suppose the best way to put my question forth is by way of example:

Dealer Joe Schmoe provides his time to PU Authenticators, a publicly held firm, by viewing historic artists' autographs on their behalf. His job is to determine whether an item is authentic or not. When he "passes" an item, the owner is charged a fee by PU and in turn receives a certificate signed by Schmoe. In exchange for his services, Schome is allowed to authenticate his own material, and sign his own PU authentications on the same form that the company uses for all other authentications.

On a regular basis, Schmoe consigns his own material to B&O Auctions. His lots are sold bearing his own signed PU certificates of authenticity, and bidders are of course unaware of the fact that Schmoe is both the owner and authenticator of these lots. They auction house boasts that the item has been examined by an independent third party authenticator.

I have to ask myself about the propriety of this kind of situation. B&O Auctions claims it is offering "third-party" authentications, when in fact it is the consignor who has authenticated his own material: he's not wearing his "PU Authenticator" hat when he sends the material in for auction. This places an awful lot of power in the hands of the consignor/authenticator, and in my mind, temptaion beckons and any impartiality could easily go out the window.

Some may fault me as a hypocrite, as a small fraction of material in Alexander Autographs auctions is owned by the firm. The distinct difference is that we acknowledge that we alone authenticate 99.5% of the material consigned to our auction, and in any event ownership is never an issue.

What say you?

Tags: Alexander, authentication

0 members like this

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 6, 2010 at 10:43pm: I think what deserves discussion and consideration, Bill, is that auction houses, authentication companies and their authenticators are judged by largely by the reliability of the authenticity of their autographs.

The greater the reliability of an auction house's authentication, the more their autographs go for overall. And auction houses with a bankable lifetime guarantee of authenticity end up refunding the purchase price on mistakes, so those auction houses especially have a vested interest in being very careful about authenticity.

While no autograph authenticators that I'm aware of guarantee authenticity besides Frank Caiazzo, the overall value and acceptance of their authentications are largely based on the marketplace's perception of the reliability of their authentications. So while, yes, they do make mistakes, and in certain areas every one makes more than they should, they have to be good overall to have strong market acceptance. It would significantly damage their business if their authenticators took advantage of their positions.

Comment by Lou reves on December 7, 2010 at 6:24am: Steve I wasnt looking for a response from you, but I know there are other registered dealers here, I did email several times to the Uacc members with links and photos but was told that a matter like that had to go before a board for action, and still nothing is done, and I did email the ethics person on the web site so maybe he doesnt care? But I put AACS in the same category as ARA its so obvious you would think they would want to act, and Bill sorry to get off topic.

Comment by DB on December 7, 2010 at 10:38am: Well Mr. Bill, u missed me... sorry but other duties do call.

I feel Steve has summed it up pretty nicely and it needs no further elaboration. Essentially, I have found the claims of widespread "gigundous" number of errors both rediculous and unsubstantiated.

There are inherent risks in all auction houses that take consignments direct or from these "3rd party employees", authenticiate themselves or go to a 3rd party (regardless how small).

However an interesting point is in your "I have to ask myself about the propriety of this kind of situation. B&O Auctions claims it is offering "third-party" authentications, when in fact it is the consignor who has authenticated his own material" thought of B&O and it doesn't sell. Is part of the consignment agreement "an authentication review by the auction house and 3rd party" If the auction house is providing this service and the authentication is provided and it is accurate then they have a value add to their item one way or the other.

Comment by Bill Panagopulos on December 7, 2010 at 11:30am: Steve -

You're not quite right in saying: "PSA/DNA and JSA do not "pay" consulting authenticators by letting them authenticate their own material. While I do think it's true that they may render opinions on their own material in categories they're specialists in there is no such carte blanche arrangement.

Thise dealer/authenticators working for PSA/JSA are allowed to issue themselves COAs on the respective letterheads of the companies to whom they offer their services, and I'd very much doubt they must PAY for that privikege. Matter of fact, they'd probably have to declare the book value cost of the certificate as income!

And Travis: How can we get stats from PSA, when they don't issue any stats?!? I've never seen them "pull back" a lot, voluntarily or even when it has been brought to their attention (witness posts on this website). As for auction houses, can't speak for others, but on dozens of occasions, I've notified buyers of mis-authenticated and otherwise unsaleable material, esp. the famous Reagna A.L.S. I could have just withdrawn it, but instead wnet public to US News and CBS.

Louie: As much as I respect the well-intentioned work of the UACC, the could do a MUCH beter job policing their "registered dealers". Frankly, I haven't seen them police any of them, and that group is rife with crooks and incompetents.

Comment by DB on December 7, 2010 at 12:08pm: I thought there use to be a statement in the R&R catalogue that also stated that some consignments may come from their own personal collections or their 3rd parties... so many catalogues so maybe not R&Rs as I don't see that statement in the current auction.... Although perhaps it is now in the individual listing and I can say if i see a Rez or and Epperson stamp - that is much better then the "obtained by 3rd party employee" as a number of them seem to be listing lately.

Comment by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 7, 2010 at 12:49pm: Bill,

You wrote:

"Thise dealer/authenticators working for PSA/JSA are allowed to issue themselves COAs on the respective letterheads of the companies to whom they offer their services, and I'd very much doubt they must PAY for that privikege. Matter of fact, they'd probably have to declare the book value cost of the certificate as income!"

Where in the world did you hear that? It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and completely untrue.

Comment by roger epperson on December 7, 2010 at 2:12pm: Bill
I used to work for PSA and in no way did I EVER get to "write my own certificate" for ANY autograph I sold. That is complete BS.

Comment by Bill Panagopulos on December 7, 2010 at 11:45pm: You folks misunderstand me. I suggested that a "perk" from doing work for PSA included their issuing certificates on your material, authenticated by you.

Am I wrong?

Comment by john reznikoff on December 8, 2010 at 6:59am: Yes you are wrong but I appreciate your asking for a clarification, it is gentlemanly. If anything they are harder on me because they want to avoid anything appearing untoward, and nothing is. I once had a high-value item that a client wanted a PSA cert on, in addition to my own. The people at PSA went above and beyond and solicited opinions from other people before issuing a certificate. Similar at RR and Bobby has gone over this on his blog. I will request he reprint what he said on your blog. Here are my top ten perks in signing for JSA and PSA not necessarily in order of importance:

1. I get the satisfaction of knowing I have prevented millions of dollars worth of forgeries from entering the market.
2. My name and cache are promoted on the 3rd party web sites and auction houses. Once in a blue moon I get business out of this.
3. Self Pride
4. Every experienced dealer who authenticates their own material, is put out by Third party and me by extension in that their authority seems questioned. I understand and am sympathetic to this but want to remind my colleagues that it is not me who would question them. I am just a cog on the wheel.
5. I am the potential violent target of forgers world wide. Those who know what I do for fun, know not to worry too much about me. I can take care of myself.....but it is a concern.
6. I get to lose decade long friendships because of disagreements concerning my opinions, which I stand tall on.
7. I get every forger, or seller of forgeries, to scrutinize every step I take so that they can point to the very, very few mistakes I make, seemingly to neutralize the effects of their material failing authentication.
8. I get to answer and defend myself constantly on legitimate blogs like this one.
9. I get a complete kook to write lies about me for the past 5 years.
10. Indigestion

Comment by DB on December 8, 2010 at 7:41am: Good one Rez, and I do believe BL covered that one...

but only the Top 10!

on the PSA/DNA thread one poster noted that he was withdrawing as he had hoped the posts would be helpful and unfortunately, in his opinion, saw how negative some of the posts quickly became. So much so, he choose to delete his posts and 'withdraw". Now maybe that's a good thing but I have to agree that some of these threads are incredibly negative.

Comment