Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on June 27, 2017 at 10:13am

Christopher, I hope you have read this entire thread as well as the other threads linked within. If you haven't, I would seriously recommend that you do. I am not sure you would be so quick to frown upon the actions of people looking out for their fellow collectors.

I think it is well within the realm of reason and good manners to have knowledgeable and educated collectors point out problem pieces to both auction houses and TPAs.

Mike letting people here know that the material was brought to the attention of the TPA, (which it seems was listed without them actually seeing the piece) is fair play. Especially with an item guaranteed to pass said TPA.  People should be complaining about false advertising on the part of the auction.

If you doubt that the piece originated with Mr. Duncan, that is your prerogative. The Don Henley certainly matches dozens that he had on his site, that have never been seen elsewhere. 

Permalink Reply by Christopher on June 27, 2017 at 10:42am

Neil, Wascher and Pete,

Will try to respond to you all at once.  Neil, we don't know one another, but I've been observing Wascher's and Pete's contributions to this site for a long time.  I understand them to both be of high integrity and to maintain long-earned specific expertise.  There are a couple of issues to address, and I may be of a different opinion, which I'll try to convey respectfully. If Iconic claimed any item would be guaranteed to pass any TPA without the TPA having set eyes on it, then this is simply an irresponsible and bad business practice. However, separately, if Beckett rendered an official opinion on a piece to someone who does not own the piece, nor to the auction company to which the piece was assigned, outside of their advertised fee-based services - done behind the scenes and very importantly, by their own admission, still without even having viewed the piece, then I have a far more serious problem. What Neil describes as "in-depth analysis" is not. And from what I can tell, "several of us" means 3 people. Pete, I have reviewed this entire discussion.  Much of what is presented here and described as "fact" and "proof" does not meet even an informal definition of either of those terms. Opinions are important.  Opinions from honest, qualified people are more important and can be influential.  But they're still just opinions.  

Permalink Reply by Neil A. on June 27, 2017 at 11:07am

Christopher, you make a fair point about Beckett - but I don't know that anyone could consider this to be an "official" opinion.  I will not make any further comments about the integrity or ethics of Iconic or Beckett, as that is not what this thread was intended to do.  We were simply here to analyze a particular Eagles piece and share our insights.  I could be wrong (I haven't re-read the entire 12 pages), but I don't believe any of the people who shared their opinions - myself included - used the words "fact" or "proof" which you have placed in quotes.  These are all opinions, and since there was significant doubt introduced through the analysis that was discussed on this thread and performed outside of this thread, I have significant reason to doubt the authenticity of the piece.  That is simply my opinion and I wanted to have an open discussion on whether others had similar concerns.

Permalink Reply by wascher on June 26, 2017 at 12:33pm

This is one I had saved from their Auctions a few weeks back that looked like a Duncan Henley.  I remember it did not go cheap either.  Is this a Duncan?  (sorry if someone already listed this one - I have not been on that much lately)

It no longer comes up on their site but it can be found on Google cache.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0mpwx9zQbKQJ:i...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on June 26, 2017 at 12:36pm

Yes that was the program that sold for $6800 last month. After Beckett went back to Iconic and said it was fake, I believe they stopped the sale.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by michelle on June 27, 2017 at 8:27am

mind you it is good, if I have understood correctly, that beckett is prepared to operate independently  from iconic and pull a mega expensive item because they felt it was fake.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on June 27, 2017 at 8:37am

Beckett provides the authentication and opinions on authenticity, ultimately it is up to Iconic whether or not they want to sell the item. If they pulled the item, they did the right thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher on June 26, 2017 at 1:07pm

I don't believe this came from Stephen Duncan.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wascher on June 27, 2017 at 4:14am

(I did see it sold at another auction house for 1187. in March). 

Do you know more about the piece outside of that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on June 27, 2017 at 6:50am

They are 100% consistent with the Duncan forgeries. Beckett agreed it was fake and notified Iconic, who I believe eventually cancelled the sale and pulled it from their auction last month.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher on June 27, 2017 at 6:51am

I don't.  Before it appeared in the Iconic auction, I'd never seen a Hotel California tour program before.  I looked carefully at this one and had some interest until the price surpassed what I thought was reasonable.  I did not consider it fake then and don't know now.  That said, it contains the sloppiest Joe Walsh I've ever seen, so I didn't like it that much to begin with.  I did ask Stephen if he'd ever owned it, and he said no.  He actually does own a signed HC tour program, which he showed me.  But it isn't this one. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matthew Ryan branche on June 26, 2017 at 10:20am

I wouldn't trust Beckett after they failed something as simple as Andrew benintendi and mookie betts and Jackie Bradley who I watched sign and it had a jsa witness, they failed all 3 lol. They should stick to cards

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• Next ›
• Page