Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 11, 2013 at 12:39am

Brandon,

I didn't censor anything. I rewrote the title because "riddled" was an inaccurate description that could have confused collectors and unfairly harmed RR Auction and their independent authenticators. Rewriting titles when needed is one of the responsibilities of moderators.

Think of the term "riddled with bullets." You picture something that looks like Swiss cheese. Yet Mike Warren, for all his good intentions, didn't review enough of RR's inventory to be able to make that statement about its entire inventory. Mike looked at primarily Kiss and Andy Griffith show stars, and most of the pieces he called out as fakes were sold 8-12 years ago. A lot of things have changed for most reputable auction houses since then. Those were the days before many auction houses brought in independent authenticators.

I didn't change or delete a word of what anyone said, and I even said that I had no problem with the discussion. If people want to use RR's past auction database to assist them in authentication, they need to know its limits. If a number of KISS autographs from before Roger Epperson started authenticating music for them are not genuine, it's important that collectors know it. But Mark's title sounds like it was referring to everything from history to Hollywood, up to today. And unless Mark made such an extensive evaluation that he could make that claim with confidence, it didn't belong in the title.

I did not delete or rewrite a word that was said by anyone in this discussion. 

Permalink Reply by Alastair Mulholland on February 11, 2013 at 1:20am

Steve, you say these items were sold before roger joined rr auction,so does that make it ok that the people that bought those items should accept it.Those people thought they had bought real items and spent a lot of money on them so should get there money back.I like you steve but it looks like you are trying to cover this up because you have connections with rr auction.

Permalink Reply by wascher on February 11, 2013 at 10:41am

Steve wrote this two days ago on this thread....

"The Kiss autographs are from 2001 and 2003. Before Epperson joined them. I don't have time to check the Mayberry/Andy Griffith ones.  RR is top notch and backs their autographs for a lifetime, so if any of the lots you pointed out aren't good, the buyers are covered."

Permalink Reply by Brandon Mysinger on February 11, 2013 at 3:28am

What absolute politically correct / PR B.S.!

You want to get technical over this thread title while you run ( or let others run ) wild when you attack your enemies?

Btw, if the overall body of a car, building, etc has 3-4 "bullet holes" in it, then by definition and by reality, it is "riddled" with holes. Even if all of the holes are on one side of the person or object. The suspected forgeries shown here reflect that multiple fakes have RIDDLED RR's past inventory. It doesn't matter if every catagory has been touched on or not.

What you SHOULD have done (instead of editing something not written by you), is post the other suspected or admitted fakes offered / sold by RR that have been previously shown on this site. That would give people a more robust image of the past actions of RR's former "experts".

Your censorship of this thread ( and lets not forget that posts have been re-written or "edited" in the past.) does more damage to the credibility of R&R than you can comprehend.

RR has their own PR people and authenticators who can deal with this. They should be GLAD that these fake items which have RIDDLED their inventory are coming out, so that they can put their money where their mouth is and contact the original buyer(s) and offer refunds ( if the items are indeed fake ).

They don't need you or anyone else to ride in on the PC horse and protect them by making up a B.S. and totally invalid reason to edit ( censor ) the title and/or content of this thread!

In fact, RR should be glad that these items are being found and brought to light. Like I said, if they truly are forgeries, RR can now deal with them. If they aren't, then RR can defend themselves, or at least have their current experts chime in to explain how the items are authentic.

What you did simply undermines the natural flow of the resolution. It just appears as another advertiser is being "protected". You won't see it that way though.

Permalink Reply by Alastair Mulholland on February 11, 2013 at 3:41am

rr auction wont want this to get out as this would open up a can of worms and would cost them a hell of a lot of money in refunds.

Permalink Reply by Brandon Mysinger on February 11, 2013 at 3:49am

You may be right. At least this gives them a place to respond. In the past, Bobby Livingston was quick to respond about how RR handled the sale and refund of fake items that were sold in the past.

Permalink Reply by Steve Viola on February 11, 2013 at 7:33am

BTW, A Frank Sinatra LP I won in an R&R autction from the 90's was deemed to be no good recently.  They took it back and refunded my money, no problem at all.

Permalink Reply by shawn on February 11, 2013 at 8:44am

Actually, I think rewording the title IS Steve's job. That's what the moderator SHOULD do. He could be sued for the title (I would think). The content is for other people to comment on, but  the title alone could get the site shut down. I don't believe that Steve changed the title because of his dealings with R and R, but because it could have implications that could lead to a lawstisuit in the future. 

I don't know Livingston, does he still post here? I don't think that you'll see an answer in any way from him regarding this issue. He is an employee of R and R and as such, he's most likely not allowed to comment on this issue. This is an issue that should be fixed in house. Or "behind the scenes" as a great many of you seem to think will happen. I don't know of any company tht would allow their employees to comment on in house questions on a public site. AND THIS IS A very public site. Hopefully, the company will address the issue in house. 

Didn't PSA DNA address RR items before Roger? Don't they still opine on items now as well? 

As for the items questioned here. I can't personally address the Kiss items as Gene was the only one I had ever gotten. But wouldn't you think that if these items were all authentic, the handwriting of each individual would be the same. It appears that the Gene signatures were all signed by many different people (and NOT Gene, in my opinion). 

The GNR items, I can assure you that NONE of the autographs that appear here are authentic. I have obtained all those signatures myself and with Duff being probably the easiest to forge, these are not even good forgeries. A total joke in my opinion. 

Permalink Reply by Brandon Mysinger on February 12, 2013 at 3:17am

Wrong! Even as the owner of this site, he can't be held legally responsible for someone else's commentary. What could happen is that he could feel pressure from advertisers or specific members in the light of negatively toned threads or posts. It would then be a personal decision as to which action to take, if any.

If a title doesn't really fit the discussion then the owner of the thread ( original thread author )
should be the one to change it or have agreed to it before it is changed. Changing it unilaterally however is not the way to go and especially where changes follow a pattern.

A lot of new members missed the old "who's the Moderator" debates. It was once determined that a certain well regarded member of this site would be the "Moderator" due to his ability to stay in the middle of the road in any debate. He has since been banned for standing that neutral ground and not "picking sides".

In my opinion, editorial commentary regarding the "fairness / accuracy" of the thread's title would have provided a much less Dictatorship feeling. Also. It would have kept future commentary from opposing sites at bay. Especially since they have made several claims of "willy-nilly" moderation and "selective editing" in the past. In light of that issue alone, it's just not a good idea. Don't prove the opposition to be correct.

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 12, 2013 at 5:54am

Brandon,

I don't recall the "Who's the Moderator?" debates or any determination that someone else would moderate this site. Could you please find them? And who was decided to be the moderator of this site?

Permalink Reply by Xwiesy on February 11, 2013 at 9:01am

With all due respect, Brandon, the First Amendment does not apply to privately owned message boards.

In Steve's defense, the title of the thread was pretty unfair. Especially when there are people who may only see the thread title and then automatically assume that R and R sells bad stuff.

I would hope that if someone posted a thread called "Brandon Mysinger Sells Phony Harrison Ford Autographs" that you would want him to at least change the thread title so that there is a presumption of innocence. I would hope that you would not think that the thread title should stay and that your reputation should then be repaired in the comments below.

It's inspiring to see the anti-forgery crusade, but let's not take that to the point of wrecking an entire auction house based on a thread title.

This is a terrific message board and community that Steve provides at an expense, and I for one don't mind thread titles being edited if they better represent the content and they are more fair to the accused. I belong to several message boards and that is done regularly.

Permalink Reply by Chad B on February 11, 2013 at 10:40am

I don't take any issues with what you did Steve. This is your playground, do what you wish. If any of us don't like it we can play elsewhere. If this was my site, I would be careful with what is posted as well. I especially see no problem being careful with an advertiser. It would be different if you allowed no critique at all.

I think R&R is good overall and much better now than 10 years ago.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page