Who is more responsible the authenticator or the auction house?

[amex46]

with all the fake and altered jerseys in current auctions who do you think should be held at fault lou lampson or the auction house. you have to think the owners of all these auction houses have to even think twice about some of the items he authenticates. i think it is comming to a point where the owners of these auction houeses have to be held more accountable and not just lou lampson.

[lund6771]

I think it's pretty cut & dry...the auction houses use Lampson as a shield...

and on Lampsons letter it is his "opinion"...

It's the scam of the century...just keep cranking out letters as fast as you can until the scam ends

[otismalibu]

They're both trying to "authenticate" as many items as possible. There's no money for them in research, just sales. If a bunch of people make enough noise, an item may quietly get pulled.

Anyone see the Bobby Orr jersey that was just auctioned off? Some actual game photos presented with the photos of the jersey (at the auction site). I realize a photo match is rare, but most auction houses don't even offer a photo that shows a style match.

Buyers best be doing their homework.

[CollectGU]

It is the auction houses responsibility to make surre an item is authentic, as the responsibility of an item being real falls on them. The authenticator's should be used as a tool to help them make that decision but they should not be the only factor used. It is not just Lampson, MEARS makes as many mistakes as he does, so does Grey Flannel.....

Dave

[TNTtoys]

While we're on this topic, let's throw a third party into the equation -- the consignor who either knowingly or unknowingly is passing something off that is not what it appears to be... If they are using the auction house and its loose authentication procedures to cheat some future buyer, wouldn't the responsibility start here? Or if we all agree that all three parties share some responsibility, I would make a case that MOST of the blame lies here.

[BarryMeisel]

Hi Greg,

As the authenticator who found one of the photo-matches on the recent Bobby Orr 1972 Stanley Cup Finals jersey, and as the company working directly with NHL, AHL, ECHL and NBA teams, I must take exception to your comment that a photo-match is rare.

Photo-matches are not rare. Photo-matches to real game-worn jerseys, especially jerseys of the modern era, are quite common. These photo-matches are certainly subject to significant research time and effort, and subject to the availability and accessibility of photos from that game/season/era.

MeiGray, which has an agreement with Getty Images and an exclusive agreement with the Dallas Mavericks, for example, needed no more than five minutes to definitively photo-match jerseys worn last season by Dirk Nowitzki.

And when I say photo-match, I mean proof-positive evidence that the jersey in one's hands was the jersey on the player's back based on actual game use, and number and letter positioning, and actual threads on the hand-cut names and numbers.

MeiGray believes that there are far too many non-game-worn jerseys posing as game-worn that are sold to unsuspecting collectors because an authenticator offers an opinion based on tagging, sizing, etc. We think that level of authentication falls far short of the standards necessary to ensure an actual game-worn jersey.

MeiGray also believes that when a company is asking, and collectors are paying, the money they are for legitimate material, this level of authentication is warranted.

Respectfully,

Barry Meisel
MeiGray Group, LLC

[G1X]

Barry,

I agree with you that it is much easier to photo-match uniforms from recent years due to the plethora of photos and video available (thanks in part to modern technology), but I also agree with Greg's statement if we are discussing vintage items. There is often not a whole lot of photographic evidence available for older items.

Collectors of defunct leagues, durene football jerseys, flannel baseball uniforms, and other such vintage items are hard-pressed to find an abundance of photo documentation to begin with, much less an exact match of the uniform being researched. And if a jersey such as a flannel or durene was "recycled" the following season, sent to the minors, or used in practice in subsequent years (many NFL teams did this for years), it becomes a crap shoot trying to find a match.

Just my thoughts.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

[BarryMeisel]

Hi Mark,

I agree with everything you said.

I do not happen to think that photo-matching older items is a "needle in the haystack," as some will have you believe (I recognize you did not say that, but that phrase has been used often). Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.

I say this for this reason:
Today's internet age allows us to access many, many Vintage photos. If a superstar wore a jersey in a bygone era, he likely wore it for a significant period of time. And since many, many photos are taken of superstars, it increases the possibility of the photo-match.

I believe too many authenticators hide behind the fact that photo-matching is difficult to actually spend the money and manpower to do the research necessary. They are more eager to churn out hundreds and thousands of LOAs than to properly research a significant item.

The reason I doubt many authenticators is that we know how long it takes to properly research an item. And I know how to multiply. There does not seem to be enough time in a day/month/year to do the level of authentication to properly research the number of items I see "authenticated."

Respectfully,

Barry

[David]

I agree with CollectGU that it is the auction house that is primarily responsible for making sure stuff is authentic. They know the consignors and, at the least, are picking and chosing what goes in their auction. They don't have to include in auction a jersey if they feel something is amiss or the LOA made an error. Using a second independent opinion (LOA) is fine, even advisable, but an auction house shouldn't rely soly only an an LOA.

My feeling is a good auction house or dealer is knowledgeable and honest. And if I had to chose between the two qualities, I'd chose honest.

[otismalibu]

Barry,

I realize you photomatch quite a bit of stuff. I'll occasionally read posts over at gameworn.net.

I guess what I meant, is that when I'm looking at items at various auction houses, I don't often see an item advertised as photo matched. Now, I mostly look at older hoops (70s & 80s) items and I'd guess those would be more difficult to match. But I'd be content if they simply posted some style match photos, to show that the NOB was indeed that style, or the number was comparable, etc.

I collect Julius Erving memorabilia. His game used stuff is pretty spendy, so I do much more looking than buying. But I see some low cut Converse at American Memorabilia with a Lampson letter saying they are Dr. J. game worn. I'm not asking for a photo match, just show me one pic of Erving wearing lowcuts in that style. Hell, how 'bout lowcuts, period. Or a 1986-87 Erving jersey with another Lampson letter being sold by Broadway Rick. It has a vertical arch NOB and the number style from the previous season. Seeing that the norm was a new number style and block lettering sewn on with a slight arch, I expect to see some visual evidence to support that claim that this "different" jersey is indeed a gamer.

[BarryMeisel]

Hi Greg,

I understand what you are saying.

I am a dealer, but I am also a collector. As a collector, I do not participate in auctions or purchase from dealers whose level of expertise and quality of service are insufficient. It helps me avoid bad jerseys. Yes, I have to pass on some potentially great items that will help my collection. But that is a price I am willing to pay to save myself headaches.

I think if everybody did that, it would help the hobby tremendously because it would force dealers and collectors to raise their standards. I believe the reason so many bogus items exist in the hobby is because too many collectors are willing to settle for questionable items because they are cheaper than properly authenticated and truly legitimate game-worn jerseys.

Regards,

Barry

[kingjammy24]

i don't disagree with what most people have said but let me offer an alternate viewpoint; what happened to being responsible for doing the specific job you were paid to do?

by saying that the responsibility for authenticity ultimately falls on the auction house, not only do the authenticators get another free pass (the first one being the way they pitifully try to absolve themselves of any responsibility whatsoever by claiming "it's just an opinion!". yeah well, doctors deliver opinions yet they can still be sued for negligence if they didn't perform their due diligence in forming these opinions. the "it's just an opinion" b.s. didn't fly when GFC got dragged into people's court for the same reason), but it also implies that if the authenticators aren't responsible for their work, then there's some other entity at the auction house that needs to authenticate the authenticators work and render a final opinion. well if the authenticators, who are niche experts, are simply "tools" then who at an auction is qualified to judge their work and render a final verdict on each item? is victor moreno supposed to look over each of lou's authentications and have the expertise to determine whether lou was right or wrong? the point is, in most business relationships, work must be delegated to niche experts. these niche experts are then directly responsible for the work they're paid to do.

many people liken authenticators to consultants and say that you're simply paying for an opinion and there's nothing forcing you to accept it. ultimately that's true but it doesn't absolve the authenticator/consultant of being required to do their due diligence to render as accurate an opinion as possible. the auction house is ultimately on the line with the customer when they sell a bad item but the authenticator ought to be on the line when they mis-authenticate something. it's a piss poor excuse to say "well you didn't have to accept my opinion". after all, if this person bills themself as a "foremost expert" then is the customer not compelled to accept their opinion? it's like a doctor telling you that eating ice cream will cause you to lose weight and then when you gain weight he says "i didn't force you to listen to me". it'd be slam dunk case for negligence. you paid for the service with the expectation on both sides that you would use it. you can't submit your service to a customer and then tell them you have no responsibility for any lack of due diligence and any resulting outcome. when enron went down, you didn't hear arthur anderson saying "hey, we only issued an opinion. it's not our fault they took it" because it would've been a laughable defense to actually blame your customer for accepting your service. if your customer declines your service, then you're off the hook. however it's insane to think you're off the hook if they accept your service and go by your recommendation.

i think the authenticators are responsible for determining authenticity. on the other hand, i think the auction houses are responsible for remedying the situation when an item turns out bad. i think the auction houses are responsible for having a convenient and efficient system to remedy disputes when they're found to be at fault. (by "convenient and efficient" i don't mean refusing to even entertain the notion they're wrong or pointing to an "all sales final" policy).

amex: good point. with all of lou's errors, common sense would seem to say that his employers would become increasingly wary of using him. unfortunately, i don't think common sense figures into much of this. the people over at gameworn.net seem to have even less respect and more disdain for lampson than we do (if that's possible). what's interesting about this is that it suggests that we're not biased or off our rockers. an entirely different forum with entirely different people came to the same conclusions we did. steve jensen has posted on that forum and has pretty much indicated that he's known lou for years and trusts him and that's that. i'm not sure what lou has done to receive such loyalty. did he once pull steve from a burning building? did he donate a kidney to him? i don't know. i'm not sure how badly lou would have to screw up to finally lose his contracts. however, if your authenticator is constantly making errors and you continue to employ him then that seems to suggest that you're keeping him around for reasons other than accuracy. perhaps lou's cheaper rates help keep him employed with organizations whose primary focus is money and not accuracy? why do people typically use cheap, sloppy labor? is it because they place a higher value on profits than on quality?

tnt & david: not sure how much blame you can place on consigners donating garbage. ultimately, it shouldn't matter because the authenticator is supposed to catch it right? after all, isn't the reason why you're paying a 20% buyers fee vs 0% on ebay because you've got the expectation of a proper authentication that should weed out any garbage?

barry, i agree when you said "They are more eager to churn out hundreds and thousands of LOAs than to properly research a significant item. The reason I doubt many authenticators is that we know how long it takes to properly research an item. And I know how to multiply. There does not seem to be enough time in a day/month/year to do the level of authentication to properly research the number of items I see "authenticated." awhile ago, i commented on the number of loas that lou issues: "the first thing that struck me were the number of certs issued. there are 10 per page and 409 pages for a total of 4090 certs. the earliest year shown is 2003. since 2003, he's issued at least 4090 certs. that's approx. 1363 certs/year or 113 certs a month. given that the output isn't really consistent every month, you have to figure that some months he's issuing around 300+ certs." given that he's the the only one whose name and signature appears on every single one of his certs, i don't how his output is humanly possible. as far as i know, he's a 1-man operation. how can 1 man churn out 300 certs in a month? does his printer ever stop?

anyway, good point that the best solution to all of this is to vote with your wallets. as much as some auction houses defend lou, their ultimate loyalty is to the bottom line and turning a profit. they can adore lou with all their heart, but if people completely cease bidding on any lampson items then they only have 2 choices: get out of the auction business or stop using lou. if you don't feel something is up to par, don't patronize the business.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

by the way, an interesting parallel:

somewhat recently the getty museum came under fire regarding the title to some of their antiquities. (specifically, the illegitimate way that some of them were acquired). in the ensuing fiasco, who bore the blame? the person specifically in charge of acquiring the antiquities - the director of antiquities. she was the sole person indicted. the legal blame did not fall on the museums director, assistant directors or any of the officers. she was the person directly in charge of acquisitions. since it was specifically the acquisition process that was in question it was her that bore the direct responsibility. as such, she bore the full, resulting fallout.

similarly then, if lampson, hypothetically speaking, was the lead authenticator on some AMI items and those items failed in their authenticity, shouldn't it be him who ought to bear full responsibility and not victor moreno who simply paid lampson for his expertise and relied on him in this specific area?

in this example, victor would unfortunately be responsible for cleaning up the results of lampsons errors and making amends to customers (much as the it fell to the getty museum as a whole to fight the PR battle caused by the entire fiasco). however, it's difficult to feel that victor should also somehow be directly responsible for lampson's errors. hypothetically speaking, if victor knew of the errors beforehand and gave his approval, that would be a whole other can of worms.

rudy.

[iceman13]

i don't disagree with what most people have said but let me offer an alternate viewpoint; what happened to being responsible for doing the specific job you were paid to do?

by saying that the responsibility for authenticity ultimately falls on the auction house, not only do the authenticators get another free pass (the first one being the way they pitifully try to absolve themselves of any responsibility whatsoever by claiming "it's just an opinion!". yeah well, doctors deliver opinions yet they can still be sued for negligence if they didn't perform their due diligence in forming these opinions. the "it's just an opinion" b.s. didn't fly when GFC got dragged into people's court for the same reason), but it also implies that if the authenticators aren't responsible for their work, then there's some other entity at the auction house that needs to authenticate the authenticators work and render a final opinion. well if the authenticators, who are niche experts, are simply "tools" then who at an auction is qualified to judge their work and render a final verdict on each item? is victor moreno supposed to look over each of lou's authentications and have the expertise to determine whether lou was right or wrong? the point is, in most business relationships, work must be delegated to niche experts. these niche experts are then directly responsible for the work they're paid to do.

many people liken authenticators to consultants and say that you're simply paying for an opinion and there's nothing forcing you to accept it. ultimately that's true but it doesn't absolve the authenticator/consultant of being required to do their due diligence to render as accurate an opinion as possible. the auction house is ultimately on the line with the customer when they sell a bad item but the authenticator ought to be on the line when they mis-authenticate something. it's a piss poor excuse to say "well you didn't have to accept my opinion". after all, if this person bills themself as a "foremost expert" then is the customer not compelled to accept their opinion? it's like a doctor telling you that eating ice cream will cause you to lose weight and then when you gain weight he says "i didn't force you to listen to me". it'd be slam dunk case for negligence. you paid for the service with the expectation on both sides that you would use it. you can't submit your service to a customer and then tell them you have no responsibility for any lack of due diligence and any resulting outcome. when enron went down, you didn't hear arthur anderson saying "hey, we only issued an opinion. it's not our fault they took it" because it would've been a laughable defense to actually blame your customer for accepting your service. if your customer declines your service, then you're off the hook. however it's insane to think you're off the hook if they accept your service and go by your recommendation.

i think the authenticators are responsible for determining authenticity. on the other hand, i think the auction houses are responsible for remedying the situation when an item turns out bad. i think the auction houses are responsible for having a convenient and efficient system to remedy disputes when they're found to be at fault. (by "convenient and efficient" i don't mean refusing to even entertain the notion they're wrong or pointing to an "all sales final" policy).

amex: good point. with all of lou's errors, common sense would seem to say that his employers would become increasingly wary of using him. unfortunately, i don't think common sense figures into much of this. the people over at gameworn.net seem to have even less respect and more disdain for lampson than we do (if that's possible). what's interesting about this is that it suggests that we're not biased or off our rockers. an entirely different forum with entirely different people came to the same conclusions we did. steve jensen has posted on that forum and has pretty much indicated that he's known lou for years and trusts him and that's that. i'm not sure what lou has done to receive such loyalty. did he once pull steve from a burning building? did he donate a kidney to him? i don't know. i'm not sure how badly lou would have to screw up to finally lose his contracts. however, if your authenticator is constantly making errors and you continue to employ him then that seems to suggest that you're keeping him around for reasons other than accuracy. perhaps lou's cheaper rates help keep him employed with organizations whose primary focus is money and not accuracy? why do people typically use cheap, sloppy labor? is it because they place a higher value on profits than on quality?

tnt & david: not sure how much blame you can place on consigners donating garbage. ultimately, it shouldn't matter because the authenticator is supposed to catch it right? after all, isn't the reason why you're paying a 20% buyers fee vs 0% on ebay because you've got the expectation of a proper authentication that should weed out any garbage?

barry, i agree when you said "They are more eager to churn out hundreds and thousands of LOAs than to properly research a significant item. The reason I doubt many authenticators is that we know how long it takes to properly research an item. And I know how to multiply. There does not seem to be enough time in a day/month/year to do the level of authentication to properly research the number of items I see "authenticated." awhile ago, i commented on the number of loas that lou issues: "the first thing that struck me were the number of certs issued. there are 10 per page and 409 pages for a total of 4090 certs. the earliest year shown is 2003. since 2003, he's issued at least 4090 certs. that's approx. 1363 certs/year or 113 certs a month. given that the output isn't really consistent every month, you have to figure that some months he's issuing around 300+ certs." given that he's the the only one whose name and signature appears on every single one of his certs, i don't how his output is humanly possible. as far as i know, he's a 1-man operation. how can 1 man churn out 300 certs in a month? does his printer ever stop?

anyway, good point that the best solution to all of this is to vote with your wallets. as much as some auction houses defend lou, their ultimate loyalty is to the bottom line and turning a profit. they can adore lou with all their heart, but if people completely cease bidding on any lampson items then they only have 2 choices: get out of the auction business or stop using lou. if you don't feel something is up to par, don't patronize the business.

rudy.

Very, very well said Rudy!

[Eric]

steve jensen has posted on that forum and has pretty much indicated that he's known lou for years and trusts him and that's that. i'm not sure what lou has done to receive such loyalty. did he once pull steve from a burning building? did he donate a kidney to him? i don't know. i'm not sure how badly lou would have to screw up to finally lose his contracts. however, if your authenticator is constantly making errors and you continue to employ him then that seems to suggest that you're keeping him around for reasons other than accuracy. perhaps lou's cheaper rates help keep him employed with organizations whose primary focus is money and not accuracy? why do people typically use cheap, sloppy labor? is it because they place a higher value on profits than on quality?

I think the answer is obvious. Take Lou out of the equation and the auction houses have less to sell. As long as they can say "Our authenticator is considered one of the foremost experts blah blah blah" and there's an All Sales Final policy, it's a good racket.

As we have seen, if they switched to mears it would cost the auction houses more, and in some cases the grades would be lower. As we have seen on the Vlad Guerrero jersey graded by both, a Mears A5 = a Lampson 6.5
http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=7722&highlight=battle
Eric

[CollectGU]

I think the answer is obvious. Take Lou out of the equation and the auction houses have less to sell. As long as they can say "Our authenticator is considered one of the foremost experts blah blah blah" and there's an All Sales Final policy, it's a good racket.

As we have seen, if they switched to mears it would cost the auction houses more, and in some cases the grades would be lower. As we have seen on the Vlad Guerrero jersey graded by both, a Mears A5 = a Lampson 6.5
http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=7722&highlight=battle
Eric


Eric,

I disagree with you on this one. MEARS and Grey Flannel know no more or less than Lou...I've become disgusted with all of them and have spent a majority of my free time becoming my own authenticator..If I see an item I like at auction, I'll research it on my own before a purchase...

Regards,
Dave

[Eric]

I'm not talking about knowledge. I'm talking about who gives the auction houses the free-est pass

[allstarsplus]

Eric,

I disagree with you on this one. MEARS and Grey Flannel know no more or less than Lou...I've become disgusted with all of them and have spent a majority of my free time becoming my own authenticator..If I see an item I like at auction, I'll research it on my own before a purchase...

Regards,
Dave

Dave - I guess everyone can agree to disagree, but your statement regarding MEARs vs. Lou probably can't be substantiated in factual comparison. Use January 1 2007 as your starting point and wipe the prior slate clean and tell us where MEARs was blatantly incorrect????? Can you give 5 examples? Then let the Forum do the same for Lou. We have all the recent 2007 auctions from VA & AM with questionable football jerseys that were discussed with Lou LOAs.

Maybe MEARs by giving a blanket A5 on these properly tagged light use jerseys gets a free pass by their neutrality on these LOAs, but at least the buyer can make their own decision and bid accordingly.

Andrew

[BoneRubbedBat]

MEARS and Grey Flannel know no more or less than Lou...


Out of the thousands of collectors out there, I think Lou would be the only one to agree with this statement.

[staindsox]

Rudy is right on the money. The other thing that concerns me is the no return policy. That's a red flag in my mind. Why wouldn't they issue a refund to the buyer if you went to another legit authenticator and it did not pass? If they truly have faith in their expert, why would they not stand behind his work? It seems like a take and money and run operation to me. Although Lou is a cancer, he wouldn't have a job if auction houses didn't give him work.

[otismalibu]

Why wouldn't they issue a refund to the buyer if you went to another legit authenticator and it did not pass? If they truly have faith in their expert, why would they not stand behind his work?

Instead of the seller/s or authenticator making the effort to "prove that it is", often, it seems to be an attitude of "why don't you try and prove that it's not". Pretty tough to do. One photo could give a pretty good indication that something was "good". How many would you need to conclusively prove that something is bogus? A photo from every game? Every half? Every period? Every quarter?