GUU: Romo/Portis/Bruce/Johnson/Ringo jerseys [Archive]

View Full Version : GUU: Romo/Portis/Bruce/Johnson/Ringo jerseys

kingjammy24

10-25-2009, 01:20 PM

josports

10-25-2009, 05:23 PM

Rudy note the two reapairs extending on the left shoulder from jersey photos and the 58 card. Now you have a better match on the 1959 Topps card. You are good at this...take a 1959 topps card zoom in on the left sleeve numeral "5" at the end of the "5". You can see the end of the 5 has a cut/repair through it same as the jersey. After you do this ask Chris for a job :D

josports

10-25-2009, 05:42 PM

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/83022387.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF19303D83A05122D2369CF518D37CF8DDB4D E30A760B0D811297

josports

10-25-2009, 05:43 PM

Notice the blood spot on back left shoulder. Perfect placement.

josports

10-25-2009, 05:47 PM

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/83871265.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193003A50471BAAE0D5C38846D5A183E29B E30A760B0D811297

josports

10-25-2009, 05:49 PM

AGAIN... A perfect match. see the ball marks on the front numeral "2".

Clinton Portis 11/30/08

I can keep going.

kingjammy24

10-25-2009, 06:45 PM

".. note the two reapairs extending on the left shoulder from jersey photos and the 58 card"

honestly, i don't see them. if you believe you have a photomatch and are selling the jersey as being "photomatched", then match it and post the results for all potential bidders to see. this is just common sense isn't it?

"You are good at this...take a 1959 topps card zoom in.."

no. YOU take a 1959 topps card and zoom in. you're the one selling the shirt, you're the one calling it a photomatch, and GUU is the one collecting the buyers premiums and you're asking me to match for you? you know what i'm also good at? not doing other people's work for them.

"Notice the blood spot on back left shoulder."

honestly, truly, i don't. i wish i did but i don't see it. the auction has been running for a few days now. you've had plenty of time to post the matches. get on the ball.

"AGAIN... A perfect match. see the ball marks on the front numeral "2".

your picture didn't show up for me.

"I can keep going."

then do it! post a clear, conclusive photomatch for each of the jerseys currently being sold as "PHOTOMATCHED", in their respective lots. you "can keep going" but you won't? you'll just sell the jersey as "photomatched" but won't actually provide the match? jarrod, honestly do you think this is amateur hour over here? you head a large firm with several exclusive team deals. you sell jerseys for thousands a pop, some into the tens of thousands. you had plenty of time to come on the forum and tell everyone you sold a sanchez shirt for $20k. stop this dog-and-pony show nonsense. if you sell a shirt as "PHOTOMATCHED" then show the photomatch! afterall, photomatched items go for a considerable premium over non-photomatched. who's going to realize that premium? you and chris cavalier. if you want collect this premium, get off your ass and do the work. who's going to pay a "photomatched" premium without seeing the actual match?

i look forward to seeing your results.

rudy.

josports

10-25-2009, 08:36 PM

First of all I dont have to post anything on the auction. It's NOT MT JOB either. Secondly, open your eyes they are photomatched it is plain as day I supplied the photos on your post. I dont have to supply any photos to the auction. If they are photomatched then they are photomatched. No where state "KINGJAMMY request if you state an item as photomatched then you must supply the photo" Get off YOUR ASS and search the photo's to prove it wrong if you are unhappy that GUU didn't post photos on the lots. YOU ARE THE AMATEUR. Not asking you to do anything for me. I was just giving a compliment. Wasn't actually expecting you do to it.

Your matches you request are on your post. I will scan a close up of the sleeve numeral of the 59 card to make you feel all nice and satisfied. How Chris runs his auction is up to him if he wants to actually post the photo on the lots. If you have anymore questions in regards to the photomatches Chris can help. ALL MIGHTY KINGJAMMY LOL!!

josports

10-25-2009, 09:45 PM

Just for you Kingjammy: I am going through all of my lots I consigned to find photomatches found one for the Brees. I will be in contact with Chris Monday to get all photos added to the lots. Hope this helps happy bidding:rolleyes:

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xr/78378843.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=3&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193BDCE2EE16407E7888B182CB2B188FB4C 207CAAE8C4C94190 (http://javascript<b></b>:popDetail('78378843', 'Getty-Images-Sport', '', ''))

karamaxjoe

10-25-2009, 09:59 PM

Wow, is this a confusing thread or what?

josports if you attempted to post some pictures on this thread, only the rough shot of Ringo actually showed up and it really doesn't help much.

I have absolutely no interest in bidding on any of these jerseys. If I was interested, I would definetly need to see the photo matched pictures. Why say the jerseys are photo matched without actually supplying the hard evidence? It just doesn't make sense. I have to believe GUU has the photos and I look forward to seeing them.

kingjammy24

10-25-2009, 10:10 PM

jarrod, one would never guess that you once worked for AMI.

"It's NOT MT JOB either"

when you consigned your items, did you tell chris that they were photomatched? its apparent you didn't give him the photomatches so i suppose the issue here is that GUU listed items as "PHOTOMATCHED" for which it had no actual photomatches at the time. disconcerting to say the least. i don't think chris or robert have any issues with posting photomatch photos; afterall, they did it for the boggs helmet they're currently selling.

"I dont have to supply any photos to the auction."

that's true. in which case, chris can remove "PHOTOMATCHED" title from your consignments.

"No where state "KINGJAMMY request if you state an item as photomatched then you must supply the photo""

right. if you state an item is photomatched, then it's not necessary to actually show the match. brilliant.

sort of like your $20k sanchez titled "PHOTOMATCHED" and there was no photomatch shown:

http://www.josportsco.com/view_product.asp?ProductID=2245

"I am going through all of my lots I consigned to find photomatches"

wait a minute. you're just doing that now? after the lots were already listed as having been "photomatched"?

chris, robert..really? list an item as "PHOTOMATCHED" and then after-the-fact hope to find a photomatch? when jarrod consigned his items how did you guys determine they were photomatched if, at the time, he hadn't provided you with photos?

rudy.

kingjammy24

10-25-2009, 10:25 PM

"Wow, is this a confusing thread or what?"

mike, not really. in a nutshell, jarrod consigned jerseys to the auction. GUU listed them as "photomatched" even though at the time such matches apparently did not exist. (jarrod is in the process of finding them as we speak.)

what he's posting are simply the photos without any solid indication as to what the specific matches are. if you have a match, supply the photo. no photo, no match. common sense right? not for jarrod who is apparently under the impression that his items can be sold as "photomatched" but he is under no obligation to provide any photos.

jarrod, here's what a photomatch looks like: http://www.guuauctions.com/site/bid/bidplace.asp?itemid=1852&getauctionid=12

rob steinmetz apparently had the sense to know that if his helmet were called a photomatch, he'd have to provide the proof.

"If I was interested, I would definetly need to see the photo matched pictures."

you and every other sane collector. we're amateurs though. jarrod's the pro in all of this. really, i'm not being facetious. you and i are simply hobbyists. jarrod actually does this for a living.

"Why say the jerseys are photo matched without actually supplying the hard evidence? It just doesn't make sense."

no it doesn't make sense. although to jarrod it seems to make sense. in his words "I dont have to supply any photos to the auction. If they are photomatched then they are photomatched."

"I have to believe GUU has the photos and I look forward to seeing them"

if the matches were already done, jarrod would have them. he's looking for them and the ones he's posted so far are just the raw photos. on one of them he instructed me to "zoom in".

rudy.

josports

10-25-2009, 10:49 PM

jarrod, one would never guess that you once worked for AMI.

"It's NOT MT JOB either"

Personal attacks now...typical from you.

The work was done pre auction and I was under the impression the auction staff was going to post the photos of the photo ID matches that were supplied. The auction staff is working on getting the matches up on the lots. Thanks for all your efforts and concerns and comments. Keep up the good work KING!! You are the man.:eek:

5kRunner

10-25-2009, 11:37 PM

Could it be possible that GUU can't use Getty Images because they don't own the rights to them? :confused:

Just a question.

kingjammy24

10-25-2009, 11:46 PM

Could it be possible that GUU can't use Getty Images because they don't own the rights to them? :confused:

Just a question.

Although I'm no attorney, it seems to me that in editing the photos to show the photomatches, GUU's use might fall into the category of Fair Use which stipulates that copyrighted works may be used, without permission, for the purposes of criticism, commentary, and/or parody. if you're discussing a jersey and use a getty photo to illustrate what you're talking about, i believe that constitutes Fair Use.

a long time ago, people here discussed Historic Auction's listings and used their photos. In reply, Historic said it wanted all of its auction photos removed from any GUU threads. the GUU discussions were completely in the realm of criticism and commentary. while i argued it constituted Fair Use, chris cavalier played it safe and removed them.

there's plenty of information available on Fair Use but here's a quick primer:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

rudy.

indyred

10-26-2009, 10:18 AM

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/83871264.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548240C091C31D4D20C 3B8F7CEFCBF723596D1F9253E47FCC31

Rock solid match, jersey picture of Portis on JO Site

http://www.josportsco.com/photos/1233_5.jpg

mvandor

10-26-2009, 10:27 AM

Certainly, GUU is still feeling its way through the beginning stages of being an auction house. However, the criticism seems fair, if GUU is going to post that kind of a reference, they should - if they really want to exceed past industry norms as stated - post the supposed photomatches in support. And these standards should be equally exacting for their business partners as well as Joe Consignor.

BTW, disappointed JO didn't exercise more professional restraint in response. As a business partner, that reflects on GUU.

aeneas01

10-26-2009, 10:51 AM

re: the Romo/Portis/Bruce/Johnson/Ringo jerseys in the current GUU auction. All of these jerseys are listed as being "PHOTOMATCHED".

1) what is the point of listing an item as "PHOTOMATCHED" and not providing the actual photomatch? if someone went to all the trouble of photomatching those jerseys, then why not post the photomatches so bidders can evaluate them and adjust their bids accordingly?

it was a decision based on the limitations of the new auction software (only allows 8 photos per lot) and the the consignor's input. i understood the consignor as wanting to use the limited number of image spaces to showcase the details of his lots (closeups, game wear, etc.) given how easy it was for any interested party to confirm that these lots were indeed photomatched (based on the provided game dates). after i confirmed these items could be easily photomatched, using the image reference numbers he supplied as well as the abundance of other online images available that qualified as photomatches, i agreed.

2) the jim ringo description and accompanying photos are confusing. the auction lists it as being "PHOTOMATCHED". again where is the photomatch? the description then reads "The jersey has been style matched to his 1958 Topps football card (#103)." is the jersey photomatched or stylematched?

we had originally planned to list this incredible jersey as photomatched based on consistent shoulder area repairs that can be seen in two vintage ringo topps cards (compared to the original cards, the lot scans understate how visible these repairs are to this area) but after much deliberation felt that the reference images just weren't sufficiently conclusive. as such we went with stylematched, which i believe it certainly is, but i dropped the ball on the lot title although i did amend the lot description. this has since been corrected.

secondly, it'd be unfair to slam MEARS for their sloppy stylematching and then claim that this photo is a stylematch: you can't even discern the fonts, the number of sleeve stripes or their thickness. ie: the very elements that define the "style" of a jersey. the GUU jersey has 3 sleeve stripes. the topps photo appears to show 2. i think this is most likely a case of the sleeves being folded and obscured in the topps photo but my point is that you can't tell conclusively. in the topps photo is he wearing a jersey with 3 sleeve stripes in a thin-thick-thin order as seen on the GUU jersey? are the fonts a match? if you can't tell from the photo, then the photo is not even a stylematch.

with all due respect, i really have to disagree here. we are not pointing to phantom stylematched photos that don't exist, or referencing specific getty images to support a claim that, if checked out, would prove to support no such thing. as i mentioned earlier, the software allows for only 8 images. conversely, there is an ocean of images available online that support this style of jersey worn by the packers during the era in question. that supports the colors, the three sleeve stripes, the font style, etc...

regarding the sleeve stripes you mentioned as an example - yes, only two stripes are visible in the photo supplied, a thin stripe and a wide stripe. yet i believe there's enough photo evidence in circulation to conclude, to support, conclusively, that the third stripe is hidden given ringo's "hiking" position in the photo. just as i believe there's enough photo evidence in circulation to conclude, to support, conclusively, that there's a number on the back of ringo's jersey in that picture as well.

Could it be possible that GUU can't use Getty Images because they don't own the rights to them? :confused: Just a question.

i agree with rudy. in fact i've actually called getty and wire image to ask about this very topic, auction houses (and ebayers) using their photos as reference material - they seemed as if they could care less...

mike, not really. in a nutshell, jarrod consigned jerseys to the auction. GUU listed them as "photomatched" even though at the time such matches apparently did not exist. (jarrod is in the process of finding them as we speak.)....

chris, robert..really? list an item as "PHOTOMATCHED" and then after-the-fact hope to find a photomatch? when jarrod consigned his items how did you guys determine they were photomatched if, at the time, he hadn't provided you with photos?

please refer to my first response.

...

kingjammy24

10-26-2009, 12:39 PM

"it was a decision based on the limitations of the new auction software (only allows 8 photos per lot)"

the end game in this hobby, for every collector, is whether or not their piece is really game-used. there is nothing that settles the score in that regard as well as a photomatch. if you have a solid photomatch, then discussions of tagging, fonts, etc., are all superfluous. it is difficult to understand why then, if a consigner had a photomatched piece, that proof of the photomatch would not take priority over everything else. if an auction house told me it could only send me 1 photo and that photo could be of the tagging, front of the jersey, back of the jersey, LOA, or a photomatch guess which photo i, and every other collector, would take?

take the larry johnson jersey. there is 1 photo devoted entirely and only to the patch. the patch is already seen in the front shot of the jersey! is there any potential bidder that would rather see a closeup of the patch than an actual photomatch? what about the romo. you devote one photo to simply showing the steiner letter. again, if you have a photomatch, the steiner letter is irrelevant! there is noone who would take provenance over a photomatch. let's keep going to see how intelligent these decisions were. the bruce jersey; you devote 1 photo just to showing the JOSports tag. again, a photomatch is more important than provenance. provenance and ID tags and patches do not prove game-use. a photomatch does. it trumps everything.

"given how easy it was for any interested party to confirm that these lots were indeed photomatched (based on the provided game dates). after i confirmed these items could be easily photomatched, using the image reference numbers he supplied as well as the abundance of other online images available, i agreed."

you'll sell a lot as "PHOTOMATCHED", not provide the match, and instead tell bidders that the pics are out there and they can match it themselves? if you are selling an item as "photomatched" and collecting the respective premiums, then the onus is upon you to do the work. sell what you say you're selling. if you say you're selling a photomatch, then sell a damn photomatch and not an excuse as to why don't have one.

secondly, even if you did require bidders to do their own photomatching (even though they're paying for a photomatched piece), you didn't even include the image locations and specific image numbers! the assumption being that every bidder must necessarily be familiar with the image sources out there and how to photomatch? so they buy a piece listed as "PHOTOMATCHED" and then are required to go out, hunt for photos, and match it themselves? point blank, if a bidder bids on and pays for a photomatched piece, then its up to you to provide the photomatch.

"or referencing specific getty images to support a claim that, if checked out, would prove to support no such thing."

you did exactly that only with a 1958 topps card. verbatim, you said "The jersey has been style matched to his 1958 Topps football card". in fact, his 1958 topps card is not a stylematch. this is exactly what mears does when they point to getty photos that do not provide enough information to declare a stylematch.

the auction began on the 22nd. it is now the 26th. none of the jerseys listed as "PHOTOMATCHED" show any photomatches. if you aren't going to do the work, then remove the "PHOTOMATCHED" titles. sell what you say you're selling.

rudy.

kingjammy24

10-26-2009, 02:05 PM

re: the ringo photomatch

jarrod said: "note the two reapairs extending on the left shoulder from jersey photos and the 58 card. Now you have a better match on the 1959 Topps card. You are good at this...take a 1959 topps card zoom in on the left sleeve numeral "5" at the end of the "5". You can see the end of the 5 has a cut/repair through it same as the jersey... open your eyes they are photomatched it is plain as day"

robert said: "...after much deliberation felt that the reference images just weren't sufficiently conclusive."

and there, in a nutshell, is the problem with not showing the actual match for bidders to see. one man says "open your eyes, they are photomatched it is plain as day" and another says it's not "sufficiently conclusive". when you don't post the actual match for people to make their own determination, how are they supposed to know whether it really is a match? apparently what jarrod feels is "solid" is not solid under robert's standards. everyone has seen sloppy matches on here. when you don't post the match, how are bidders supposed to know if its sloppy or solid?; whether they're getting a "jarrod-quality" match or a "robert quality" match?

rudy.

ndevlin

10-26-2009, 02:10 PM

skipcarayislegend

10-26-2009, 02:43 PM

I agree that it's confusing as to why a seller would NOT include photomatch proof if it exists. In fact, I would prefer to see multiple game images over multiple item details if conclusive in-action images are that abundant. If GUU or Lelands or MEARS shows me the photomatch but tells me it's tagged properly and carries an LOA from Steiner, MLB or whomever, I'll believe you. We're not talking about AMI or Coach's Corner here.

I'm reiterating, but it almost seems as if LOAs and provenance and tagging carry more weight than a conclusive photomatch. I really doubt that's case with GUU but you sometimes have to wonder. IMO, JOsports would rather see its brand promoted over indisputable evidence of game use. Not a knock on JOS, but why else treat game photos as if they're less valuable than a piece of paper with a logo on it? It reminds me a little of when I see a g/u Yankees jersey up for auction and it's accompanied by letters from both Steiner and Lou Lampson. Only one of them really matters.

otismalibu

10-26-2009, 03:36 PM

IMO, JOsports would rather see its brand promoted over indisputable evidence of game use.

I think most memorabilia sellers would want their brand to be so well respected, that it's as good as a photo match in the eyes of the buyers.

Ya can't photo match every piece, but you can write a letter on every one.;)

bigtruck260

10-26-2009, 05:08 PM

BTW, disappointed JO didn't exercise more professional restraint in response. As a business partner, that reflects on GUU.

It sure does. Jarrod's responses in some cases were childish. Rudy is a wealth of knowledge and gave some pretty detailed responses. As a collector and person who spends money on auctions like this one - it's his right to scrutinize things that don't seem to connect - after all, the whole purpose of this forum is to educate...

aeneas01

10-26-2009, 05:31 PM

All of which should have been decided and done before these auctions even started.

if you read my last post i think you'll find that it was...

...

kingjammy24

10-26-2009, 05:51 PM

"If GUU or Lelands or MEARS shows me the photomatch but tells me it's tagged properly and carries an LOA from Steiner, MLB or whomever, I'll believe you."

if it were 100% photomatched but it wasn't tagged properly, would you even care? i wouldn't.

collectors are mainly interested in tagging, fonts, size, provenance, etc only because they're using these things to ascertain whether the item was likely to have been game-used. however if you have a photomatch then you've conclusively proven game-use. as long as the jersey is all-original, then none of the other stuff matters. the photo likely even provides the date and location of use. the photomatch is the holy grail for everyone; consigners, bidders, and auction houses. to have one and deliberately choose not to show makes absolutely no sense.

it is not a limitation of the auction software when someone chooses to display a JO tag or a patch or an LOA over a photomatch. let's take the toughest of the photomatched lots; the clinton portis uniform. a tough one because it's not just 1 jersey. you've got the pants and the cleats as well and only 8 slots. here's what took up 3 slots:

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9155/slotsg.jpg

pants shown closed, pants shown open. ?!? and the patch which was already shown in another pic. all of those were chosen over showing this:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8581/slots2.jpg

here's what robert is essentially saying; he has irrefutable proof that the drew brees jersey was worn in a specific game. however, rather than show you that proof, he'd rather show you these:

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/331/slots3.jpg

why? because there are plenty of photomatch pics out there (you just need to find them). as if there aren't even more pics of brees wearing a "C" patch? the worst is the Romo. robert stated that the reason they didn't include the photomatch pics is because of photo limits imposed by the software. here is the Romo listing:

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2721/slots4.jpg

each lot gets 8 image slots. 2 of the Romo slots are empty. rather than show you the photomatch for the jersey, robert would rather just show nothing. in every instance, including the complete portis uniform, there was room for the photomatches. instead things like patches, LOAs, JO Sports tags, and even nothing/empty space was thought to be more important to consigners and bidders than irrefutable photo evidence of game-use. its unfortunate to see GUU go this route; to prioritize the marketing of JO Sports over showing matches on jerseys billed as being matched. on 5 jerseys billed as being photomatched, not a single photomatch was shown. conversely, there are 19 jerseys from JO Sports in this auction and in every single one, the JO Sports tags were shown.

rudy.

TriplexXxSports

10-26-2009, 06:49 PM

on 5 jerseys billed as being photomatched, not a single photomatch was shown. conversely, there are 19 jerseys from JO Sports in this auction and in every single one, the JO Sports tags were shown.

rudy.

Rudy, I couldn't agree with you more. I am an interested collector that would like to hear some answers.

gingi79

10-26-2009, 07:45 PM

Not bidding on them anyway but a Buyers Premium was described in prior auctions for covering things like listing times and RESEARCH. If you are charging a fee (which is stupid anyway in my opinion) for such services and not showing the research, isn't that contradictory?

I am not saying these items aren't photomatched by how can you charge a fee for the research that shows a photomatch and then expect us to do the research?

earlywynnfan

10-26-2009, 08:13 PM

I agree with Matt and that porn guy, XXX.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

mvandor

10-26-2009, 09:57 PM

Things feel a bit different from the auction house side than it did a few months back when you were just a consumer like the rest of us, huh Robert? :D

Just teasin' a bit amigo...

aeneas01

10-27-2009, 01:24 AM

Things feel a bit different from the auction house side than it did a few months back when you were just a consumer like the rest of us, huh Robert? :D

Just teasin' a bit amigo...

to tell ya the truth michael, not really. the same occasional healthy debates with rudy who btw is one in a billion, the same great email exchanges with my regular forum buddies (minus one, too bad really) and the same ridiculous addiction i get to this board whenever i start jumping into debates! when you and i start bumping heads again then it will be exactly the same! ;)

...

ndevlin

10-27-2009, 03:06 AM

if you read my last post i think you'll find that it was...

...

No, I was talking about items having "Photomatched" in the description, with no photo to back that up. That probably should have been done before the auctions even started.

Doesnt matter anyways. I dont plan on bidding, especially when your consigners etc etc come on here and dont act quite as professional a potential bidder would like. Kind of puts a sour taste in your mouth.

aeneas01

10-27-2009, 05:54 AM

No, I was talking about items having "Photomatched" in the description, with no photo to back that up. That probably should have been done before the auctions even started.

again, if you read my post i think you will find that the matches were completed before the auction - i did them.

...

mvandor

10-27-2009, 06:39 AM

to tell ya the truth michael, not really. the same occasional healthy debates with rudy who btw is one in a billion, the same great email exchanges with my regular forum buddies (minus one, too bad really) and the same ridiculous addiction i get to this board whenever i start jumping into debates! when you and i start bumping heads again then it will be exactly the same! ;)

...

For the record, you'll recall we never once bumped heads until you jumped the fence to the 'for profit' side of the hobby, my friend. Once you go from fellow hobbyist to businessman we go from fellow hobbyist to potential customer. Things change. Tis inevitable. ;)

genius

10-27-2009, 10:35 AM

I've never seen an auction house use a Getty Image as a photomatch, probably due to copyright protection.

ndevlin

10-27-2009, 05:14 PM

I've never seen an auction house use a Getty Image as a photomatch, probably due to copyright protection.

Yeah, you dont have to. Just list that the item is photomatched by getty image #22224445996 and you're golden.

lund6771

10-27-2009, 08:54 PM

Lelands auctioned off a walter payton that was "photomatched"

Lelands offerered numerous photo matches.....and hocus pokus it goes for 50k...

moral of the story...

1. marketing 101..listen to what your customers want

2. prove to your customers that your item is 100% legit

3. reap profits

seams simple to me

suicide_squeeze

10-27-2009, 10:04 PM

WOW.....did THIS thread ever get edited.

I spent my lunch hour today reading through it, and I have to say it was quite the bomb. I am sad to see a LOT of the posts have been removed.

I guess the site is under mandate from the Obama administration. We're losing everything else, I guess it was only a matter of time before the "freedom of speech" thingie went to.

Um, sorry B-T-P-H for the political reference....:o

both-teams-played-hard

10-27-2009, 10:57 PM

I guess the site is under mandate from the Obama administration. We're losing everything else, I guess it was only a matter of time before the "freedom of speech" thingie went to.

Um, sorry B-T-P-H for the political reference....:o

I truly wish you would loose your freedom of speech.

both-teams-played-hard

10-27-2009, 11:57 PM

Um, sorry B-T-P-H for the political reference....:o

You know what Suicide? There's no need for an apology. I have been going through a lot of personal stuff lately. Illness in the family, I lost my job a few months ago. I've had to sell much of my collection, just to make ends meet. I wanted to keep this forum free of political debate....but what the hell, Americans do have a freedom of speech. I guess I do take things too seriously. I realize the whole country has hit tough times. I am a subversive radical at heart, so I always encourage folks to question authority. Keep up the comedy and those clever little animicons. Just jokes between collectors. This forum would not be the same if you lost your freedom of speech.
your pal,
B-T-P-H :)

suicide_squeeze

10-28-2009, 09:56 AM

You know what Suicide? There's no need for an apology. I have been going through a lot of personal stuff lately. Illness in the family, I lost my job a few months ago. I've had to sell much of my collection, just to make ends meet. I wanted to keep this forum free of political debate....but what the hell, Americans do have a freedom of speech. I guess I do take things too seriously. I realize the whole country has hit tough times. I am a subversive radical at heart, so I always encourage folks to question authority. Keep up the comedy and those clever little animicons. Just jokes between collectors. This forum would not be the same if you lost your freedom of speech.
your pal,
B-T-P-H :)

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif ......I'm not sure which is the sincere post, this last one, or the prior.....

But I will say I hope things improve for you in all regards. I hope your family member recovers 100% from whatever is ailing them, and you find a new job that makes your last one look like a nightmare you woke up from.

Life is short, we need to make the most of what we have. And help eachother.

genius

10-28-2009, 11:40 AM

Did anyone catch Paul Lukas' shout-out to B-P-T-H in his Uni Watch blog???

kingjammy24

10-28-2009, 11:44 AM

1. marketing 101..listen to what your customers want

you'd think this would be common sense. it reminds me of the old sam walton adage "If you don't listen to your customers, someone else will". when GUU went into the auction game, there was grousing among other industry folk that they were just using the Forum to slam their competition; that the Forum itself was biased towards GUU's competition. the only way around that criticism is to apply the same standards and critical eye to GUU as this Forum does to every other auction house and industry entity. i'm sure chris cavalier would agree and wouldn't have it any other way. to that end, one of the big issues that a lot of people seem to have with auction houses, beyond the offerings or authentications, is their customer service. stories of AMI/kieta's special brand of customer dis-service could fill a book. unfortunately, i think that's the other issue, aside from the photomatches, that reared its head here; the quality of customer interaction.

either you're interested in improving things or you're more interested in winning arguments with clients. with the portis jersey, for example, i suggested that pointing out the specific photomatched marks, via red circles, would be good. GUU/robert's response?..:

"only when necessary, thanks - if someone struggles or fails to see a match going on here without the benefit of circles, well..."

this was a public response. how exactly does that sentence finish off? well, screw 'em? well, they're idiots then? you can either be that sort of company or you can go the extra mile and be the sort that says "good idea! sometimes what's obvious to one person isn't always obvious to another. thanks very much!".

i've experienced 5-star establishments and i've experienced 1-star establishments. the former realized that going the extra mile for customers, listening to them, and being appreciative for good suggestions paid off. the latter didn't and did things "only when necessary". i'm not sure why or when chris cavalier stopped being GUU's main point-of-interaction for clients but i have to think that having him return to that position would be a step in the right direction.

rudy.

Dewey2007

10-28-2009, 12:00 PM

Did anyone catch Paul Lukas' shout-out to B-P-T-H in his Uni Watch blog???

I did and it was nice to see BPTH getting some props for the great website he's put together.