EndzoneSports
12-04-2007, 10:25 AM
Folks:
Just thought I’d pass on an experience regarding a recent eBay purchase for the benefit of forum members.
In mid-November, I became aware of a Broncos’ John Lynch game-used jersey being offered on eBay by seller ‘historicauctions’ (see http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230191838301 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230191838301). Before we proceed, a couple of disclaimers are appropriate. First, I am most certainly not an advocate of using eBay exclusively to build a collection; while a vast majority of GU items offered are either improperly described or just flat out junk, I’ve also secured some nice pieces via this medium. One just has to wade hip-deep through a lot of cr*p, in order to find the occasional gem. Secondly, I will acknowledge that I’ve read and digested all of the bad publicity on this forum regarding Historic Auctions (HA). Having never personally done business with them, I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and make judgment for myself.
All bias aside, if one were to view the merits of this item as posted/described, it would appear to be iron-clad in terms of authenticity. The letter of authenticity (printed on Historic Auctions’ letterhead and signed by authenticator Lou Lampson), in part, notes the following:
· Exact photo match (Getty 55780676)
· Player letterhttp://pscoggin.com/Endzone/Graphics/temp/2005_H_LynchJ_COA.jpg
An inquiry sent to the seller prior to the auction’s closing via eBay’s messaging sought to clarify the following:
· Was a full-sized (ie 8x10) photo from Getty used for the photo match noted? If so, would that photo be included w/ the item; if not, exactly what was matched from the jersey to the low-resolution, watermarked photo shown (see below for photo depicted at actual size)
http://pscoggin.com/Endzone/Graphics/temp/GI55780676.jpg
· What was the content of the “player letter” noted in the LOA? We also sought confirmation that the noted letter would also be included (though it seemed obvious that it would be included since it was called out in the LOA).This message went unanswered. Despite not having answers to these questions, we placed a higher mid-range bid on this item which was sufficient to win the item on Nov 18. Despite not having answers to our questions, we were comfortable with all other physical characteristics of this item and at least reasonably convinced of its authenticity.
Having paid for the item immediately after closing (on the 18th), we sent another e-mail directly to HA on the 20th again inquiring about the photo match as well as seeking confirmation of shipping. On Wed the 21st James Brown responded that the item would ship on Friday the 23rd and tracking info would be forthcoming thereafter. Regarding the photo, Mr. Brown stated, “I can print out the photo from Getty, if you want me to include it in your shipment.” Indirectly answering half of my first question (No, an actual high-resolution photo was not used for comparison). I also declined the offer as I was quite capable of downloading/printing the photo from Getty myself.
In a follow-up e-mail reply sent on the 22nd, we again asked for confirmation that the noted “player letter” would be included. Having not received a response to this e-mail, we sent a second e-mail request on the 26th. Again receiving no rely, we called on the 27th; while the person we spoke with could not provide specific additional information regarding the item itself, she was able to at least confirm shipping of the item on the 26th (not on the 23rd as originally promised).
The jersey arrived on the afternoon of the 29th accompanied by only a receipt and the pictured LOA—no “player letter”. On the 30th, I sent yet another e-mail to James Brown:
This jersey received via FedEx yesterday afternoon, however, the "Player Letter" cited in your auction house authentication letter was not included. As I would deem this is as a critical element of the item's provenance, please advise ASAP as to its status. I thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Once again, no response. On 12/3 one final e-mail was sent stating:
Understanding that you had a major auction completing at the end of the week, we have tried to exercise patience regarding a reply to our e-mail sent last week re: the eBay Lynch jersey and its' missing documentation. I would appreciate a reply today regarding this matter.
By day’s end, I had still not received a response. Frustrated by the lack of communication, I called towards the end of the business day. Initially I talked to “Larry”, who, while attempting to be helpful had a hard time understanding what it was that I was trying to obtain (the “player letter”). On our 3rd phone conversation of the afternoon, if was finally clarified that no such letter ever existed. Pressing the issue that the existence of such a letter was both a critical element as to this items provenance, and that our winning bid was at least partly predicated on its existence/inclusion, Larry passed me on to the owner.
While I can’t recall all of the specific details of this brief conversation, below are the critical elements to which I took umbrage:
· The term “player letter” was used incorrectly by the authenticator. What was meant was that “he was aware that the consignor, who he knew personally, obtained this item directly from the player”. Issue #1A - based upon the expectations of a “reasonable person”, would they be more likely to believe A) that the player letter was a document written by the player (Lynch) attesting to the items authenticity or B) that the authenticator (who should be acting as an independent 3rd party) personally knew the person who consigned the item to the auction house and was aware that said consignor had obtained the item from the player? Issue #1B - On a side note, even this flimsy explanation from HA was a bit unsettling since this same jersey sold on eBay on Aug 16, 2006. Though unaware of who seller/buyer were, this fact alone sort of shoots a hole in the “our consignor, who Lou knows personally, obtained this directly from Lynch” theory.
· The error in the misuse of this term was that of the authenticator (Lampson), despite the fact that the LOA was issued on the auction house’s letterhead. Issue #2 - Since it appears that HA and Lou are really too cozy for Lou to be acting truly independently, can we legitimately buy the passing of the buck to the authenticator for this error?
· Both the item’s auction description as well as the LOA rated this as a (perfect) “10” (on a scale of 10), implying iron-clad provenance. Issue #3 - Does it really matter what the seller knows and/or what the authenticator knows if evidence of such provenance cannot be properly documented and transferred with the item to subsequent owners?
· Indicating that the price bid/paid for the item was at least partially predicated on the implied provenance, HA’s response was, “this item was worth $1,500” (apparently implying that I got a great deal?). When I pointed out that a nearly identical item—albeit without claims as to provenance—subsequently sold at their very own auction for nearly $275 less than the one I’d purchased, he stated “Yes, they both sold very cheaply.” Issue #4 – Econ 101… The price/value of an item is set by agreement between willing seller and buyer, preferably in an open market where all potential buyers have access to similar and complete information. HAs assertion that the jersey(s) were “worth $1,500” is absurd. First, as each game-used item is in some way unique, the specific characteristics of each item and the value of those attributes will be determined by the pool of willing/potential buyers at the time that a given item is made available for sale. As such, the jersey that I purchased was “worth” $836 on the day that it was purchased. Even from a less academic, more concrete standpoint, since October of 2004, I have tracked the public sale of 10 of Lynch’s Broncos game jerseys (see http://pscoggin.com/Endzone/UniPrice.xls (http://pscoggin.com/Endzone/UniPrice.xls)). The average selling price of all 10 is $1,171. If I exclude from this sample the 5 sold via NFL Auctions (which often tend to sell for absurdly high prices), the average of the remaining four which sold via public auction drops to $659. If from these five, when only the 3 which were sold by Historic Auctions are considered, the mean sales price is $686. Where, from any of this data, can a claim be based, that any of these jerseys are “worth $1,500”Now, having said all of this, let me make one thing perfectly clear. Once in hand, having physically inspected the item, I am 100% convinced of its legitimacy. I have every intention of keeping this jersey and feel that is was worth the price paid. So why the rambling tirade? To make a couple of points.
ASSUME NOTHING – If you have questions, ask and continue to ask until you get answers. If such answers are important enough to you and you remain unsatisfied (either by having not received an answer or by not receiving an answer that clarified your concern), pass on the item.
COAs/LOAs ARE SELDOM WORTH THE PAPER THEY”RE WRITTEN ON AND ARE OFTEN WORTH LESS! I’m not picking on Lou here, but rather on the authentication process in general. Understand the reality of this process often puts the seller and authenticator in bed together. When selection of an authenticator is based on the lowest cost to the seller, you’re gonna get what you pay for in terms of the time spent on the examination as well as the resulting documentation that is produced. In our example, seven of the 8 elements described in the LOA could easily be ascertained by review of the pictures posted; the 8th was an “error”. When the entire LOA is based upon pointing out the obvious seven times over and then following that with an “oops”, would one really care whether on not a COA was included? Personally, I would have rather had HA save their $ on the LOA and instead spring for an 8x10 of the Getty photo.With that, let the beatings commence...
Best regards,
Just thought I’d pass on an experience regarding a recent eBay purchase for the benefit of forum members.
In mid-November, I became aware of a Broncos’ John Lynch game-used jersey being offered on eBay by seller ‘historicauctions’ (see http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230191838301 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230191838301). Before we proceed, a couple of disclaimers are appropriate. First, I am most certainly not an advocate of using eBay exclusively to build a collection; while a vast majority of GU items offered are either improperly described or just flat out junk, I’ve also secured some nice pieces via this medium. One just has to wade hip-deep through a lot of cr*p, in order to find the occasional gem. Secondly, I will acknowledge that I’ve read and digested all of the bad publicity on this forum regarding Historic Auctions (HA). Having never personally done business with them, I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and make judgment for myself.
All bias aside, if one were to view the merits of this item as posted/described, it would appear to be iron-clad in terms of authenticity. The letter of authenticity (printed on Historic Auctions’ letterhead and signed by authenticator Lou Lampson), in part, notes the following:
· Exact photo match (Getty 55780676)
· Player letterhttp://pscoggin.com/Endzone/Graphics/temp/2005_H_LynchJ_COA.jpg
An inquiry sent to the seller prior to the auction’s closing via eBay’s messaging sought to clarify the following:
· Was a full-sized (ie 8x10) photo from Getty used for the photo match noted? If so, would that photo be included w/ the item; if not, exactly what was matched from the jersey to the low-resolution, watermarked photo shown (see below for photo depicted at actual size)
http://pscoggin.com/Endzone/Graphics/temp/GI55780676.jpg
· What was the content of the “player letter” noted in the LOA? We also sought confirmation that the noted letter would also be included (though it seemed obvious that it would be included since it was called out in the LOA).This message went unanswered. Despite not having answers to these questions, we placed a higher mid-range bid on this item which was sufficient to win the item on Nov 18. Despite not having answers to our questions, we were comfortable with all other physical characteristics of this item and at least reasonably convinced of its authenticity.
Having paid for the item immediately after closing (on the 18th), we sent another e-mail directly to HA on the 20th again inquiring about the photo match as well as seeking confirmation of shipping. On Wed the 21st James Brown responded that the item would ship on Friday the 23rd and tracking info would be forthcoming thereafter. Regarding the photo, Mr. Brown stated, “I can print out the photo from Getty, if you want me to include it in your shipment.” Indirectly answering half of my first question (No, an actual high-resolution photo was not used for comparison). I also declined the offer as I was quite capable of downloading/printing the photo from Getty myself.
In a follow-up e-mail reply sent on the 22nd, we again asked for confirmation that the noted “player letter” would be included. Having not received a response to this e-mail, we sent a second e-mail request on the 26th. Again receiving no rely, we called on the 27th; while the person we spoke with could not provide specific additional information regarding the item itself, she was able to at least confirm shipping of the item on the 26th (not on the 23rd as originally promised).
The jersey arrived on the afternoon of the 29th accompanied by only a receipt and the pictured LOA—no “player letter”. On the 30th, I sent yet another e-mail to James Brown:
This jersey received via FedEx yesterday afternoon, however, the "Player Letter" cited in your auction house authentication letter was not included. As I would deem this is as a critical element of the item's provenance, please advise ASAP as to its status. I thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Once again, no response. On 12/3 one final e-mail was sent stating:
Understanding that you had a major auction completing at the end of the week, we have tried to exercise patience regarding a reply to our e-mail sent last week re: the eBay Lynch jersey and its' missing documentation. I would appreciate a reply today regarding this matter.
By day’s end, I had still not received a response. Frustrated by the lack of communication, I called towards the end of the business day. Initially I talked to “Larry”, who, while attempting to be helpful had a hard time understanding what it was that I was trying to obtain (the “player letter”). On our 3rd phone conversation of the afternoon, if was finally clarified that no such letter ever existed. Pressing the issue that the existence of such a letter was both a critical element as to this items provenance, and that our winning bid was at least partly predicated on its existence/inclusion, Larry passed me on to the owner.
While I can’t recall all of the specific details of this brief conversation, below are the critical elements to which I took umbrage:
· The term “player letter” was used incorrectly by the authenticator. What was meant was that “he was aware that the consignor, who he knew personally, obtained this item directly from the player”. Issue #1A - based upon the expectations of a “reasonable person”, would they be more likely to believe A) that the player letter was a document written by the player (Lynch) attesting to the items authenticity or B) that the authenticator (who should be acting as an independent 3rd party) personally knew the person who consigned the item to the auction house and was aware that said consignor had obtained the item from the player? Issue #1B - On a side note, even this flimsy explanation from HA was a bit unsettling since this same jersey sold on eBay on Aug 16, 2006. Though unaware of who seller/buyer were, this fact alone sort of shoots a hole in the “our consignor, who Lou knows personally, obtained this directly from Lynch” theory.
· The error in the misuse of this term was that of the authenticator (Lampson), despite the fact that the LOA was issued on the auction house’s letterhead. Issue #2 - Since it appears that HA and Lou are really too cozy for Lou to be acting truly independently, can we legitimately buy the passing of the buck to the authenticator for this error?
· Both the item’s auction description as well as the LOA rated this as a (perfect) “10” (on a scale of 10), implying iron-clad provenance. Issue #3 - Does it really matter what the seller knows and/or what the authenticator knows if evidence of such provenance cannot be properly documented and transferred with the item to subsequent owners?
· Indicating that the price bid/paid for the item was at least partially predicated on the implied provenance, HA’s response was, “this item was worth $1,500” (apparently implying that I got a great deal?). When I pointed out that a nearly identical item—albeit without claims as to provenance—subsequently sold at their very own auction for nearly $275 less than the one I’d purchased, he stated “Yes, they both sold very cheaply.” Issue #4 – Econ 101… The price/value of an item is set by agreement between willing seller and buyer, preferably in an open market where all potential buyers have access to similar and complete information. HAs assertion that the jersey(s) were “worth $1,500” is absurd. First, as each game-used item is in some way unique, the specific characteristics of each item and the value of those attributes will be determined by the pool of willing/potential buyers at the time that a given item is made available for sale. As such, the jersey that I purchased was “worth” $836 on the day that it was purchased. Even from a less academic, more concrete standpoint, since October of 2004, I have tracked the public sale of 10 of Lynch’s Broncos game jerseys (see http://pscoggin.com/Endzone/UniPrice.xls (http://pscoggin.com/Endzone/UniPrice.xls)). The average selling price of all 10 is $1,171. If I exclude from this sample the 5 sold via NFL Auctions (which often tend to sell for absurdly high prices), the average of the remaining four which sold via public auction drops to $659. If from these five, when only the 3 which were sold by Historic Auctions are considered, the mean sales price is $686. Where, from any of this data, can a claim be based, that any of these jerseys are “worth $1,500”Now, having said all of this, let me make one thing perfectly clear. Once in hand, having physically inspected the item, I am 100% convinced of its legitimacy. I have every intention of keeping this jersey and feel that is was worth the price paid. So why the rambling tirade? To make a couple of points.
ASSUME NOTHING – If you have questions, ask and continue to ask until you get answers. If such answers are important enough to you and you remain unsatisfied (either by having not received an answer or by not receiving an answer that clarified your concern), pass on the item.
COAs/LOAs ARE SELDOM WORTH THE PAPER THEY”RE WRITTEN ON AND ARE OFTEN WORTH LESS! I’m not picking on Lou here, but rather on the authentication process in general. Understand the reality of this process often puts the seller and authenticator in bed together. When selection of an authenticator is based on the lowest cost to the seller, you’re gonna get what you pay for in terms of the time spent on the examination as well as the resulting documentation that is produced. In our example, seven of the 8 elements described in the LOA could easily be ascertained by review of the pictures posted; the 8th was an “error”. When the entire LOA is based upon pointing out the obvious seven times over and then following that with an “oops”, would one really care whether on not a COA was included? Personally, I would have rather had HA save their $ on the LOA and instead spring for an 8x10 of the Getty photo.With that, let the beatings commence...
Best regards,