American Memorabilia-whoops!!!!

[hblakewolf]

Forum Readers-

American Memorabila currently has in auction a "1999 Will Clark Orioles BP"
http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/Auction_Item.asp?Auction_ID=26424&auccat=Baseball%20Game-Used&AucListType=open&period=&offset=60&tfm_orderby=&tfm_order=

WHOOPS!!!!!

Note the MLB logo on the back of the neck of this "Will Clark" jersey. The teams began incorporating this in 2000, not 1999. Clark switched numbers in 2000, and was not wearing 12.

As such, how can this possibly be offered as a "Will clark 1999 jersey"??????:confused:

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

[BaseballGM]

Under that decription, when you click on the "Lou Lampson" box, you see the following:

As part of an agreement between SCD Authentic and 100% Authentic, a division of American Memorabilia, Lampson will analyze submissions of items in his fields of expertise as part of SCD Authentic's new equipment authentication service.


Should AMI update this information since SCDA no longer exists?

[trsent]

eBay accepts SCDA as an approved authenticator, but they have no idea of who MEARS is when I spoke to them on the telephone the other day.

http://pages.ebay.com/help/community/auth-overview.html

[bigtime59]

It's pretty obvious that the PANTS in this ensamble got re-issued at some point...could the jersey have been, as well? Would REALLY like to see the tagging and Majestic sleeve logo before I say anything else...

[suave1477]

OK LISTEN EVERYONE!!!

I am starting to notice this is consistent of Lou Lampson to falsely describe item many time it has been brought up here item that have Lampson COA'S an that they were wrong and proven wrong. Does anyone think that he might actually be doing it on purpose? If so shouldnt there be something done about this? Shouldnt he be reported to someone? Passing off a false authentication is just as bad as making a forgery of a jersey!!!!!

[trsent]

Jason, I am sorry, I am not a fan of Lou Lampson, but I must tell you, I don't believe Lou is intentionally writing letters for items that he doesn't believe to be genuine. From my associates who have met Lou and dealt with him over the years, I would venture to guess that your accusations are based on the items that have been brought to your attention on this forum as he must authenticate thousands of genuine items that you never pay attention to since they are not questioned.

Why would Lou authenticate an item as genuine knowing it wasn't? He doesn't make any more money for writing a letter that an item is good or if it is bad.

[suave1477]

Well first of all it was a thought!!! thats all it just seems pretty strange even for thousands of Authentications that he does that so many do get by that are false. I can understand maybe once in a blue moon ( we as humans are all entitled to make mistakes ), but with him in that past couple of months in this forum there must have been 5 or 6 already that are false.

Your asking me why would he pass fake LOAS? you say he wont make any more money regardless if he does or doesnt.

How about he makes money period doing it!!!!!

That would mean I can take up a new career passing fake LOA'S WHY? Bcuz according to you if i do ten or a thousand its irrelevant i still will make the same salary.

I am gonna start looking into this new carrer endeavor of mine!!!!:D

[trsent]

No you are not changing careers.

I just was stating, if Lou authenticates for as a few auction houses, he gets his full work and looks at quite a few items.

[CollectGU]

OK LISTEN EVERYONE!!!

I am starting to notice this is consistent of Lou Lampson to falsely describe item many time it has been brought up here item that have Lampson COA'S an that they were wrong and proven wrong. Does anyone think that he might actually be doing it on purpose? If so shouldnt there be something done about this? Shouldnt he be reported to someone? Passing off a false authentication is just as bad as making a forgery of a jersey!!!!!

Suave,

He make no more or less mistakes than Grey Flannel, leland's, MEARS, etc. They all make mistakes..There are thousands of items offered by these auction houses and yet no one on this board ever talks much about the 95% that are good , onlt the 5% that are bad. Why? Because cotroversial authentcations give us all something to talk about. ...."Sex sells" my friend and in this forum sex= "a mistake by the authenticators"......What fun is it to come up here and announce that the authenticators got "jersey A in Auction house A" correct. So this forum, by its nature, is going to disproportionately weigh and discuss authenticators failures much more than their successes.

[trsent]

He make no more or less mistakes than Grey Flannel, leland's, MEARS, etc. They all make mistakes..There are thousands of items offered by these auction houses and yet no one on this board ever talks much about the 95% that are good , onlt the 5% that are bad. Why? Because cotroversial authentcations give us all something to talk about. ...."Sex sells" my friend and in this forum sex= "a mistake by the authenticators"......What fun is it to come up here and announce that the authenticators got "jersey A in Auction house A" correct. So this forum, by its nature, is going to disproportionately weigh and discuss authenticators failures much more than their successes.

Great reply.

I stopped watching the evening news about ten years ago. I got tired of them glorifying people's problems. Same thing here, we glorify the bad and don't always bring up the good.

[bigtime59]

I don't see the vast majority of the items that Lou! authenticates. I probably don't even see the majority of the Orioles items that Lou! authenticates. And, as I have proven in another thread about fake Ripken gamers, I have been wrong on Orioles items, which I pay closer attention to than anything else.
Having said that, however, I am hard pressed to come up with an Orioles item I've seen with Lou's! authentication that wasn't wrong.

[Eric]

I mentioned the questions to Tony at AMI and he was looking into it.

It appears as if this lot was taken down. It is now listed as "Lot 0"
Eric

[kingjammy24]

As always, I'm a little late to the party but let me throw in a general thought.

"Why would Lou authenticate an item as genuine knowing it wasn't? He doesn't make any more money for writing a letter that an item is good or if it is bad"

Without referring specifically to Lampson or any authenticator or company, let me throw an idea out. The revenue that authenticators make from private collectors/single items pales in comparison to their auction house deals. MEARS, for example, authenticated over 300 items for a recent Vintage Authentics auction. The money is not in attracting the private collectors with their 1 or 2 jerseys but in getting the big auction house contracts. Now, I think it's an obvious fact that the more items an auction house can sell, the more money it will make. So if Johnny Authenticator manages to positively authenticate 600 items, then that means more money for the auction house than if he could only positively authenticate 100 items. Everyone realizes this; the auction house, the authenticators. More authenticated items, more money. Ipso facto, the auction houses have a serious financial interest in getting a greater number of items positively authenticated. If I were a big name, professional authenticator then I don't exactly have a hard time believing that some auction houses are going to slip me some substantial money under the table in order to make some questionable items good. If an auction house receives 1000 items and only 500 are genuinely legit then that's only 500 they can sell. If they receive 1000 items and I, as a big name authenticator, put my seal of approval on all 1000, then that's substantially more profit for the auction house. Well what's going to make me authenticate these questionable items? $$. There is indeed money to be made in knowingly and intentionally authenticating bad items. Sure you get paid the same rate for each authentication but there are substantial kickbacks to be made by positively authenticating bad items so that the auction houses earn more profit.

Rudy.

[EndzoneSports]

In general, I agree with Rudy's comments, however, in splitting hairs on a couple of points, I'm not so sure that any of the pro authenticators out there are really so willing to soil their reputation by intentionally autheticating bad items. They may, however, instead be willing/inclined to look a bit less critically at any one (or a number) of the 100s of items that might be submitted to them prior to a major auction. Doing so serves two purposes: (1) expediance of time; and (2) refusing to bite the hand that feeds them. As a result of rushing a large number of items through in a short time, it is likely that a larger number of questionable items sneak through the cracks during this process than might under other circumstances.

[kingjammy24]

Patrick, thanks for your comments.
In terms of pro authenticators willing to take the risk of sullying their reputation by intentionally authenticating bad items, it's my opinion that it may be far too difficult for some to resist the incredibly large sums of easy money in this hobby. When you consider that there's very little overhead and the cost and time of producing an LOA is trivial, you can see how authenticating can easily become like printing money. $100 bills can be generated as fast as your printer can spew out LOAs. Their perceived reputation, contacts and the lack of knowledge amongst the collecting masses have enabled some to turn their laser printers into bottomless ATM machines. I'm sure that some pro authenticators place a higher value on their reputation than on these large sums of easy money but I think it'd be naive to say that all of them do. To do so would be to greatly underestimate the power of money, especially towards authenticators who have run into money troubles such as divorce, medical bills, or other mounting debts. Money is one of the few things in life that make people do things they ordinarily wouldn't. It makes moral compasses go askew.
Plus, I'm sure that some don't see it as a "money vs. loss of reputation" issue because they don't believe they'll get caught so there won't be any loss of reputation. After all, when you strut around with major auction house contracts in your pocket and a mantra of "I've been authenticating for over 30 years!", you really don't think the hoi polloi are smart enough to catch your errors.
In addition, I genuinely question whether it's even possible to sully your reputation in this hobby given that a certain big-name authenticator who is known to have made an incredible amount of ludicrous errors is still as prolific as ever in his authenticating, including the work he regularly does for a major auction house. It seems there's a huge amount of leeway before one's name finally becomes completely worthless.
Having said all of that, I do agree with your alternate theory that many authenticators simply cannot devote the necessary time to each item given the sheer number of items they receive and the price they charge for each. As I pointed out earlier, it's economically unfeasible for an authenticator to spend an hour or more per item, even if the item necessitates it. I have little doubt that they rush through many items.
I also completely agree that they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them and I think that ties in to my idea that they're going to "help" the auction houses make more money by "looking the other way" on a few items. A contract from a major auction house must be extremely lucrative. It probably doesn't go over very well when you come back and tell them that 50% of the items received aren't legit. That's alot of money lost for the auction house. So maybe you'll be a little sloppy on a couple of items in order to help the people who regularly throw the big bucks your way.
Oddly enough, it really seems exactly like companies who throw their business to investment banks whose analysts who regularly issue favorable reports about the company. You scratch our back, we'll scratch yours. Issue lots of good LOAs, we'll make lots of money, and in return we'll keep feeding you the contracts. We make money, you make money, and most of the plebs don't know they're being taken.

The lesson of all this? Be your own authenticator. You're never going to cheat yourself or be sloppy. You'll learn a ton in the process, sleep better at night, and won't have to rely on someone else. It's really not overly difficult. These aren't NASA engineers we're talking about.

Rudy.

[Eric]

I think the idea of kick backs seems a bit far fetched. There is nothing to gain for the auction house or the authenticator.

If an authenticator "looked the other way" on a bad item, then his name loses value, and the more bad items an auction house carries, the worse their reputation is.

There are many more auction houses than ever before and so the competition for the consumer's dollar is cutthroat. If an auction house knowingly offered bad items, they risk losing customers to the auction houses who don't have issues.

Think about it, the auction houses known to have questionable items get lower prices.

Without naming names, think of what you consider to be the "lower end" auction house- Now think of why they are the "lower end." Poor customer service? Questionable items? Difficult for a comsumer to get questions answered? A documented shady history? Misleading auction descriptions?

Now think about the "higher end" ones. What makes them different? The ability to get questions answered on products? More thorough analysis of the items offered? Better photos? Catalog descriptions that match the authenticator's findings?

My point here is- there is nothing to gain from this kickback scenario. If an auction house is foolish enough to ask an authenticator to "look the other way" they will find themselves out of the auction game soon enough. The best way to make money as an auction house in this industry is to provide quality items and good customer service.

What I think is a more likely explanation of mistakes made is- because of the higher number of auction houses, there needs to be more and more product out there. It can also mean auction houses want to offer more auctions to keep their name out there. Which means tighter deadlines. Which means authenticators sometimes have only a few days to examine hundreds of items. Mistakes then have to happen. It's not an excuse- it's the realiy of the hobby today.

As a consumer, I would rather have an auction house that does only 2 auctions a year, and takes the time (I know it would cost more more for the auction house to pay the authenticator) to examine the details of each item thoroughly and write a more detailed report- even providing photos of the style of the item being used. I think a house like that would command higher prices per item because of the research that goes into it.

There are my thoughts. Take them for what they're worth.
Eric
moderator

[suave1477]

Eric before i make my statement i want you to truly know i agree with what your saying BUT!!!! AND THERE IS A BIG BUT!!! with that being said this is america and our country is founded on one companie or another trying to rip off the american public to make a quick buck. Again I am not saying your wrong but i cant believe that an authenticator passing off fake items is where ripping off the puclic draws its line in any form of business where you can make money there will be someone out there trying to make it quicker, in any industry cars, radios, video games, sneakers, jeans, your local retail stores and YES authenticators!!!

I am not saying thats whats happening here but you can never rule it out because authenticating is a business just like any other!!!

[Eric]

Eric before i make my statement i want you to truly know i agree with what your saying BUT!!!! AND THERE IS A BIG BUT!!! with that being said this is america and our country is founded on one companie or another trying to rip off the american public to make a quick buck. Again I am not saying your wrong but i cant believe that an authenticator passing off fake items is where ripping off the puclic draws its line in any form of business where you can make money there will be someone out there trying to make it quicker, in any industry cars, radios, video games, sneakers, jeans, your local retail stores and YES authenticators!!!

I am not saying thats whats happening here but you can never rule it out because authenticating is a business just like any other!!!

You are completely entitled to that opinion. I just feel that these auction houses would be making a mistake if they think it's about a quick buck. On ebay you make a quick buck- auction houses and authenticators are in it for the long haul, so they have to rely on the reputations they are building.

If I am looking at an auction house, I am going to judge them on how they treat their customers, how they treat their consignors, do they answer questions about items, which authenticators do they use, can they put you in touch with the authenticator, do they offer too many questionable items, how do they respond when an item is shown to be questionable, is there any conflict of interest with their items? It's not about the quick buck, it's about providing a service that works or else they will be working elsewhere.
Eric
moderaotr

[kingjammy24]

Eric, thanks for your comments.
Given that it's an unproven theory of mine, I don't really think there's too much to discuss on this topic. However, for the sake of discourse, I'll add my 2 bits.

"If an authenticator "looked the other way" on a bad item, then his name loses value, and the more bad items an auction house carries, the worse their reputation is."

There are several flaws with your reasoning here. First, if an authenticator looks the other way, his name loses value only if he's caught and publically exposed. Experience has shown that in most cases, this is not going to happen. That is, in most cases they won't be caught (most collectors aren't savvy experts) and when they are caught, there is no way to immediately inform the mass public. They don't report these things on CNN. This Forum is good but it can in no way inform the millions of collectors across all of North America. The knowledge of any incident pretty much dies quickly with a couple hundred collectors.

Secondly, you assume that an auction house will somehow confess to selling a bad item when the reality is they will issue their standard PR line that we've all heard a million times: "this item was authenticated by BigName Authenticator and we stand by his opinion". End of story. If they're caught outright, then they simply play the blame game. The auction house points the finger at the authenticator and the authenticator comes up with some PR-sounding excuse like "if you'll read the fine print, we never actually said it was game-used". Who's fault was the VA/MEARS Carew glove incident? VA says it's not theirs (and I believe them) and MEARS says its not theirs. Dave Grob put a great spin on it. Looks like the blame goes straight to ol Rod! (Whoever told MEARS to take an athlete at their word, I don't know). Nobody ends up any worse off Eric because nobody ever really accepts the blame. When was the last time you saw Lampson come out and say "Woops, my fault!"? Most collectors are left not really knowing what to think because all the parties are pointing fingers at each other.

Your theory would hold up well if:
a) authenticators were consistently caught
b) either the authenticator or the auction house would actually admit fault
b) these incidents were then broadcast to the mass public
Unfortunately, none of these occur.

"My point here is- there is nothing to gain from this kickback scenario. If an auction house is foolish enough to ask an authenticator to "look the other way" they will find themselves out of the auction game soon enough. The best way to make money as an auction house in this industry is to provide quality items and good customer service."

Eric, I guess we just disagree. Kickbacks have been a part of business around the world since the dawn of time and they wouldn't exist if they didn't benefit the parties involved. Eric it's not quality products that keep a business afloat, it's the appearance of quality products. Johnny Authenticator gets a kickback, says "this item is good!", most collectors don't know better (if they knew better then they wouldn't rely on an authenticator), and so how will the auction house/authenticator rep suffer? Sure, the 2000 people on Game Used Forum won't buy from them but that's a pittance in the sea of the hundreds of thousands of collectors who aren't even aware of this Forum.
It took decades for the American auto industry to start tanking. It took Enron 15 yrs to finally collapse. Both of these received national attention. This is a small, quiet hobby without any real method of mass communication. It takes people a long, long time to catch on.

Rudy.

[suave1477]

Eric exactly what KingJammy said is what I was talking about. KingJammy was more detailed with what he said and I commend him for that. I would have done the same I just didnt want mine to be too lengthy but KingJammy hit all the points right on the head.

HIS IS ANOTHER GOOD POINT TO ADD TOO KINGJAMMY!!!

Does anyone actually govern the authenticators to make sure they are doing whats right?

Think about it if no one is looking over your shoulder to make sure you doing the right thing whats to stop you from passing off a couple of bad ones.

Steinersports has Deloitte and Touche overlooking what there doing, just to give you an example.

[Eric]

My point is- you have the freedom to choose the company that you feel has the best safeguards.

If you choose- don't go with the auction houses that don't have people overlooking their work and let that decide who survives in the hobby.

If, as mentioned in your example you feel better about steiner (or mlb.com) products because they use deloitte and touche, then spend your money there, and not with others. If enough people do it, ultimately it could decide the direction of the hobby.

As a sidenote, honestly I'm surprised that MEARS' buyback policy hasn't forced other authenticators to do the same thing.

My two cents.
Eric

[kingjammy24]

Eric,
I thought your point was that kickbacks are highly unlikely because bad items/authenticators will be caught, reputations will suffer, and as a result such people will be put out of business?
If your point was that people are free to spend their money where they like, then I completely agree. People are indeed free to do so. Personally, I prefer saving my money for actual purchases and coming here for all the free and valuable expertise. There are more niche experts on this board than exist in many "pro" authentication firms. And it's all free!

Regarding your comment on MEARS' buyback policy, before I form an opinion either way about it, I'd like to see the fineprint. How easy is it to get your money back? What do you have to prove exactly and how must it be proven? I'm assuming it's a little more complex than simply saying "I think this jersey is fake" and presto you get a check in the mail. It's one thing to have a policy like that but it's another if it's almost impossible to actually abide by the terms. I don't know the details of it so I can't really comment. Are you aware of the details of exactly how it works? That is, what does one need to do to get their money back? If so, can you please share?

thanks,

Rudy.

[Eric]

Eric,
I thought your point was that kickbacks are highly unlikely because bad items/authenticators will be caught, reputations will suffer, and as a result such people will be put out of business?
If your point was that people are free to spend their money where they like, then I completely agree. People are indeed free to do so. Personally, I prefer saving my money for actual purchases and coming here for all the free and valuable expertise. There are more niche experts on this board than exist in many "pro" authentication firms. And it's all free!

Regarding your comment on MEARS' buyback policy, before I form an opinion either way about it, I'd like to see the fineprint. How easy is it to get your money back? What do you have to prove exactly and how must it be proven? I'm assuming it's a little more complex than simply saying "I think this jersey is fake" and presto you get a check in the mail. It's one thing to have a policy like that but it's another if it's almost impossible to actually abide by the terms. I don't know the details of it so I can't really comment. Are you aware of the details of exactly how it works? That is, what does one need to do to get their money back? If so, can you please share?

thanks,

Rudy.

My point was that it is highly unlikely that there are kickbacks AND my point is that if you feel that someone is doing shady business then choose to not spend your money with them.

Consumers have a enormous amount of power to decide the direction of the hobby.

Here's how MEARS describes their buyback policy in their FAQ

Q: Is the “buy back” policy just a promotional gimmick? If not how does it work?</SPAN>
A. This policy is as real as the money you paid for the item. If you own an item that we have written a letter on and that item is shown to be other than what we stated, we will arrange for a refund.

[kingjammy24]

"..item is shown to be other than what we stated"

The beautiful part of that is that MEARS often does not actually state anything subjective beyond an obvious description of the item.

Here's a gem from Bushing himself on the Carew incident in which he attempts to completely absolve MEARS of any responsibility which perfectly illustrates my point:

"MEARS worksheet simply states that the glove is a model A2800 and a correct hand model. We did not date the glove as we have no proof either way and simply refer to the statement by Carew. We offer no opinion on when Carew may have worn this glove as we deal in facts and sans any definite information, we simply give a physical description and list the provanance as is the case in this glove".

Beyond the obvious question of why could Esken roughly date the glove but MEARS couldn't, it illustrates the great unlikelihood of MEARS ever actually being required to buy an item back because all they typically do is describe an item. In order to buy the item back, the item would have to be "other than what they stated". Well what did they state about the Carew glove? Merely that the "MEARS worksheet simply states that the glove is a model A2800 and a correct hand model". Astounding authentication. Now I see why they're the pros. I'm genuinely shocked that they actually charged someone simply for telling them the model number. Literally, anyone over the age of 6 would be able to merely give a description of a glove. If a blind child had felt the glove, he probably would've been able to give a better description.

Eric, one reason why other firms may not offer the "buy back" feature is because other firms tend to render a genuine, subjective opinion as opposed to simply an obvious description. When you're rendering real opinions you take a genuine risk and therefore you might actually be wrong 15% of the time or so. When all you do is describe an item, you're never really going to be wrong so it's impossible for anyone to collect.

Rudy.

[CollectGU]

I would like to respond to the so called offer. A felloe collector had a bat mistakenly authenticated by MEARS as a rookie bat. They publicly offered the owner the option of taking the bat back and paying him the difference between a rookie bat and a 98' bat. When he asked for option 3- he went and found the price of an Arod rookie bat that had sold at auction at AMI for approx. $4,200 (only one he could find) and found the price of 98' Arod bats that had sold at auction - around $1,500. When asked for the difference between the two as offered, he was told "NO, they wouldn't do that only offer to buy it back as a 98' bat"....So much for your MEARS guarantees:

Here is a copy of their offer on their message board -remeber he chose option 3:

MVP ALEX RODRIGUEZ 93 ROOKIE GAME USED BAT SCD AUTH.

November 15 2005 at 10:45 AM Dave Bushing (dbushing1@aol.com) Dave Bushing (Login DaveBushing1 (http://www.network54.com/Profile/DaveBushing1))An SCDA letter was issued for an item currently on Ebay: MVP ALEX RODRIGUEZ 93 ROOKIE GAME USED BAT SCD AUTH., item number 255039

The Ebay item number is: ARODS FIRST LOUISVILLE SLUGGER-A PERFECT MATCH Item number: 8723825728

A MEARS subscriber asked me to review the letter and we found a label period was listed on the letter to be in error.

The actual letter states: 1993 Alex Rodriguez L/S bat A7

In reality, the bat was manufactured during the 1997/98

We have contacted the ebay seller and offered him the following:

1. If you want to keep the bat, please re submit it for a correct letter

2. Please return the bat with proof of purchase and MEARS will purchase the bat back.

3. You may keep the bat and we will pay the difference in value between a 1993 jersey versus a 1997/98

We have double checked A-Rods records and the bat was ordered during the 1997/98 label period.

The corrected information will be updated to the MEARS bat census