What Makes Someone an Expert and Making Your Own Decisions?
January 14 2005 at 4:46 PM
(no login)
What Makes Someone an Expert and Making Your Own Decisions?
By LTC Dave Grob
We live in a very litigious society. Most people will at one time or another will have stopped on the dial of one of the many “courtroom T.V.” shows and had a good laugh at the guy who is suing a neighbor. Often they involve claims like asking $250,000.00 for the pain and suffering he experiences every time the neighbor’s four-year old lets the Frisbee fly over the fence. In any number of cases, someone will have brought in an “expert” to verify why something is the way it is. It is usually equally as laughable. Unfortunately, this is where courtroom television meets the hobby, and if you are involved, it is no laughing matter.
The intent of this article is not to say that someone or anyone in particular is or is not an expert. I am not a lawyer and have almost no formal training in law. What I am trying to do is provide some language and context for use. To begin with, we need to decide just what makes someone an expert. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule #702, states:
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
For this to have any applicability and to make any sense, let’s pick this apart and see what makes sense for the hobby. To begin with, I think that we may all want to agree that anyone who has a question about an item can be considered a “trier of fact” to some degree. All I am saying here is if everyone all had the same level of understanding, experience, reference data/material, and techniques, then it would not be an issue. The plan fact of the matter is that somebody out there knows more about something than you do, hence the desire for an experts opinion.
Before I begin to look at the particulars of what Rule 702 requires of experts, I must make something very clear. In cases where a person has paid for an opinion on an item, I think the results of that opinion are between the person who paid for the opinion and the one who provided it. If you are a third party, there is nothing wrong with asking for some of the information used to substantiate the opinion, but you are not entitled to it. I am not trying to draw a veil of secrecy around the process, but you should not expect to get for free what someone else has paid for.
A possible exception to this exists with the realm of the auction world. Most auction houses incur some cost, either or internal, to the evaluation of their items. If you are a prospective bidder, then you should expect access to this information before you bid as you are in the “trier of fact” mode. I would suggest that after the auction, that information belongs to the auction house, the person providing the opinion, and the winning bidder.
Understanding and Applying the Definition
Like most things in life, application requires an understanding of the context in which they are used or evaluated. I would offer this framework for using the language in Rule #702.
(1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data. For the hobby, I think we are all agreeable that the “because I said so” is a rather weak argument. We did not like hearing this as kids, and certainly like it even less when we are being asked to buy something based on that as a rational. We should expect that any opinion that is based on any number of facts or data points:
a. How does this compare with other know examples and what those examples are? For instance when someone states “All Correct Tagging,” what is the basis for stating this?
b. If photographic references are made, are the photographs included? If not, where I do reasonably go to see this for myself? This goes back to the point I made about what a person is entitled to. In cases where an authenticator has paid for research time and photographic reproductions, as is often the case with the National Baseball Hall of Fame Research Center, what you should be entitled to is know where and how you can obtain those same photographs versus copies of the photos themselves. In other cases it may be nothing more than providing you with the title and page a photograph can found.
Other reasonable questions or issues that should be addressed when considering whether the facts and data are sufficient may include:
a. How long have you been involved in this particular aspect of the hobby?
b. An approximate number of like items the person has seen.
c. Do they have any special or formalized training or experience in related fields such as imagery analysis, manufacturer of the item, or as a researcher?
d. Have they published any works in the associated field that have held up to the public scrutiny of the hobby?
While this is not meant to be the all-inclusive list of qualifications, I would think it would begin to address the basics.
(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods. For me, this means the person has and uses an established process that makes sense given what they are being asked to look at. This process should be expected to be made public in the form of “this is what I look for and this is how I do it.” I am not advocating that all of the reference data be made available since much of this has been accumulated at both the time and personal expense of the person offering the opinion. Once again, this goes back to the point I made earlier, if you are a potential buyer or the owner of the item that you have paid for to have authenticated, then you are entitled to it.
The concept I would like to emphasize centers on the word reliable. This should mean that if you do the same things in the same manner with the same information, you should get the same results, or in this case, opinion.
(3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. In this case, the witness is the person offering the opinion. All this is saying that the process, principles, and methods used served as the basis for the opinion, not the other way around. By this I mean, if the person’s methods or procedures call for use of photographs for comparison, they cannot simply choose not to do this because some of the photographs contradict their opinion. In addition if they evidence that supports more than one possibility, they should state what both are and then clarify why they believe it to be on case over another.
The value of sports memorabilia is often driven by some sort of number. The jersey from base hit #4192, the bat from home run #500, the ball from strikeout #300. The one thing that all of these have in common in relation to real value should be some measured application of #702. I for one don’t want to be the guy standing before Judge Judy and asking her to take my side simply because I said so.
Re: What Makes Someone an Expert and Making Your Own Decisions?
January 28 2005, 11:07 PM
Dave:
Re: your post, I hope you don't confuse two (actually three) very different issues regarding authentication.
1. Bushing's qualifications to authenticate.
While the series of articles in the New York Daily News certainly calls into questions Bushing's ability to accurately do so, my objections to his actions stem not from his qualifications.
2. Bushing self-authenticating items that he owns--and then selling those items.
While I believe this is an obvious conflict of interest and raises serious questions as to the validity of Bushing's findings (due to the monetary motivation to authenticate an item he owns in the best possible light), I think so long as the collector is made aware of the obvious conflict of interest prior to buying or bidding on an item, he can determine for himself (with all the facts available) whether or not to accept Bushing's opinions and continue with a possible purchase. (This is like "Buyer Beware".)
3. Bushing self-authenticating items that he owns--and then selling those items without disclosing his ownership to potential buyers or bidders.
This is where I, and others, believe Bushing crossed a line. This has absolutely nothing to do with Bushing's qualifications as an "expert." Rather it has everything to do with purposefully hiding vital information about an item and the credibility of his authentication from a buyer or bidder. In short, the buyer is intentionally made unaware of the obvious conflict of interest in an attempt to add even more credence and credibility to the expert's opinions as being truly independent. When, in actuality, the opposite may be true. This, simply, is a deceptive practice.
Re: What Makes Someone an Expert and Making Your Own Decisions?
January 29 2005, 1:30 AM
OK. I am going to bite here. I think this discussion is critical and is mandatory for the industry. The issue we have here is that there is a perception of conflict with authenticators, and that some of the standard practices of the industry are not going to allow the industry to really scale. But, like with many things, i think we have to make sure we keep our eyes on the prize which is that we all want to make sure that the number of frauds, misidentified pieces and rouges are limited. It would be very sad if at the end of all of this ranting, we kill the authenticators and end up with a flood of forgeries. As I have said on previous posts, while i worry about the conflict of interest perception, i also think this picture is not complete without focussing on the auction houses where we have little to no acountability for the bidding process in non-live auctions.
1) what i want is that when i bid in an auction, it is in fact an auction and not some scam where i am bidding against the house. I think we should find some way to guarantee the integrity of the auction industry. obviously i know that even live auctions can have their issues, but these anonymous auctions are the worst, and i find that the "standard" practices of the auction houses if published would surprise many people. I think we would do far more to clean up the hobby if the auction houses would create a more honest system.
2) we need some trusted authentication. i do think Dave is getting unfairly hammered on his skills. I think he should be more open about conflicts (but i do think some of this falls on the auction houses again), but at the end of the day i am not sure it changes much where we do know if dave does or does not have a financial interest. If we do not have dave, or dave g, or andy or others, i think we are worse off. we accept the postings on this board, and no not declare our own biases or conflicts, and we take at face value many of the learnings. Te key is that on big ticket items, just like with art, lets put the cards on the table, lets state why we believe certain things, and lets allow desent, opinion, and debate. and lets make sure that we can get refunded where we do not agree.
3) we need forums like this to share info, and to make sure that we make ourselves as informed as possible. i hope this board takes off and that we can trust each other to have debates about things. While i have not seen Robert P post here, i hope he does and i hope that we are able to change the industry so that it is more transparent, more honest, and where auctions are not rigged.
i am hoping we get somewhere, and thank you for this forum
dan
Good discussion, but I am curious about what you think of the topic that this post is about and my attempt to provide a hobby context to some common language.
My intent here is vet language that maybe incorporated into a charter for a hobby wide association I am drafting.
We can spend hours pouring over what Dave Bushing did or did not do. I just hope that every post does not come back to that. The hobby is larger than Dave Bushing and there are other things to discuss. I am not trying to change subjects and take the heat off of Dave, I would just appreciate some feedback on this topic.
Does what I have written provide a good point of departure for establishing what the hobby should expect from individuals expecting to be seen as experts. Please focus on the aspect of the qualifications or background we would want to see a person speaking from in order to be seen as an expert.
While a agree ethics plays a large role in this as well, it can and should be addressed in a parallel manner:
1. We expect individuals to have these qualifications. (this post)
2. We expect these individuals to conduct themselves in this manner (other posts about conflicts of interest).
Remember the lady who drowned her kids in Texas? She's being re-tried, because of sketchy testimony from a so-called "Expert witness". "Experts" lie, cheat, and some do not really know what they are talking about. Sports Memorabilia is complicated, especially the game used aspect. No matter what you know, there is always someone taking a legit, vintage Yankees bench warmer and "transforming" it into a Mantle. You may see a number change, but if the dealer has sold credible stuff for years, then "Why would he lie now?". Snakes take advantage of trustworthy people! There is no reason for a collector to spend outside of his budget, just because of an attachment to his boyhood idol. If you collect items from "common" players, you might never go wrong.
I think the first step is questiong these "experts" like Bushing and Grey Flannel. CALL THEM OUT!!! Maybe, they'll think twice about approving an item that they would'nt buy themselves.
Once again..I would appreciate some specific feedback to what the post was all about.
This is an open forum and folks are free to discuss what ever they wish. I know I would get more out if it dialoge focused on the nature of the post. It is not like there is only one thread.
Not trying to poke anyone in the eye...just focus..
Dave-
I think having a set of rules for what qualifies an authenticator is key. They must have certain knowledge or certain research information available to earn the right to have their letters of opinion mean something.
I think as part of that, just like in pro sports there should be a grading of the authenticators. in football, records are kept of the calls referees made, and the ones they missed. The holds them accountable. That information can only benefit the hobby. If i'm about to put my money down on a koufax glove certified to be from a no hitter, i should know if the authenticator wrongly certified one of these in the past. That's part of doing your homework. That might also help us learn which authenticators are stronger in which areas- if one guy writes letters for the 4 major sports, but he often mis-identifies basketball equipment, i'll stay away from those items with his letter if i'm not 100 percent sure with my own research.
The authenticators should have no problem with those numbers being made public. If anything it would cause them to take extra time before jotting off a letter.
I hope this was more on the topics.
Nice concept, but for this to work, how do you address:
1. What authenticators are tracked and who determines this?
2. Who keeps track of the total number of items a person looks at by type?
3. How are mistakes identified, reported and tracked?
Well, that's the problem. It's not a regulated industry. However, if one of the big authenticators- say one of the dozen or so on the list mentioned in the editorial in this week's scd regarding 'authenticating the authenticators' on their own sent a break down of items authenticated by sport, and mistakes they have been alerted to, wouldn't it put pressure on the others to do the same?
Wouldn't the authenticators then try to outdo each other to be the most accurate?
I think the best way to identify and track the mistakes would be fairly simple.
Example- I buy an Anthony Miller Chargers helmet from American Memorabilia with a Lampson letter. When I get the helmet, i notice it has the wrong facemask- it actually is a lineman's mask or tight end's mask, not a wide receiver's mask as it was claimed. I return it to American Memorabilia and get my money back. They lose their sale- At this point they should report it to Lampson and they also should post on the website that lot x has been retroactively removed because of an inaccurate letter. Same would go for bad psa/dna signatures etc. That would give the auction houses more credibility as well. It would show that they want to put the best products out there only and stand behind those products.
Re: What Makes Someone an Expert and Making Your Own Decisions?
March 3 2005, 2:05 PM
Dave,
Thanks for your posting. I like your points.
First, I agree with you in terms of establishing a process that has proven to be effective and applying that same process consistently. A letter of authenticity could really just be a detailed summary of how an item faired through the process.
I am just kind brainstorming here. As an example, in term of authenticating a bat. If an authenticator were to use the following information to support their findings just for an example:
1. Photo comparison of other game used bats from the player that are strongly believed to be authentic (perhaps because they came from the player themselves, from batboys, are special event bats, etc).
2. Photo comparison of action images of that player with bat in hand.
3. Research of H&B shipping records.
4. Displays characteristics consistent with actual game use (seam marks, ink transfer, ball marks, pine tar, crack, etc).
5. Player use characteristics.
The authenticator or expert could simply state how the item compared in the five areas, include copies of materials used (or reference as you mentioned). Then allow the information to speak for itself.
For instance, a bat may score a 4 / 5.
1. Yes. It compares favorable with other known examples (photos used should be attached)
2. Yes. H&B records support that that a bat of the same model, weight and length was sent to the player during that time period (copy of the entry used should be attached).
3. Yes. Displayer use believed to be consistent with actual game used (description included).
4. Yes. Bat displays appropriate player use characteristics (list of specific characteristics listed)
5. No. Unable to match any action photos of player with bat in hand.
The credibility of the research and information would be assessed opposed to merely accepting an “opinion”.
Shared information or expertise
In terms of sharing reference material or information, I think that it’s healthy for the hobby and should be done by the experts. If their true motivator is to simply make money, I think that they loose a little credibility. I think this is what we see with the auction house. Some gets paid to glance at an item and sign a LOA for it (I am being cynical but that is how it often appears).
Whereas if the experts it is interested being compensated fairly (as they should be) in order to maintain the credibility and viability of the hobby, they would be happy to share the information. The health of the hobby is good for everyone: collectors, dealers, expert/authenticator, auction houses, etc. Based on thoughts shared on this site, the hobby is not healthy at the moment.
Dan, I agree with you. Transparency, consistency, and substantiation.
Sort of early in the season for re-runs..Just kidding..For Andy, you are "spot on" about what a letter should be. About a year ago I developed a worksheet to do two things:
1. Ensure I looked at shirts the same way every time.
2. Establish a means for the person getting the letter to see just what was the basis for my opinion.
The letter is just a recap of what and why. It also serves another purpose for the authenticator..It provides a reference to come back to. In working with SCDA in 2004, they liked this approach so much, they have since adopted it as the basis for how they produce letters on uniforms in 2005.
A process such as this also lets the person getting the letter evaluate just how much the person looking at the item actually knows about the subject and what references they used.
In the guide I am working on, this section features the two page workseet and 11 pages of instructions on how to work through the process (I know..sounds like tax forms, but it is very easy to follow).
