I was just prompted to look at a simular forum for Vintage Baseball Cards..Aaron has taken the liberty to post:
Re: Breaking news about another SCDA controversy March 5 2005, 12:47 PM
LOL. Truly amazing analysis, Lee, amazing.
Troy violated his own policy as stated here on 1/29/05. Point one in fact. He used an SCDA LOA to sell an item he owned.
Even Dave Groh, who helped draft the language, concedes that Troy violated the policy.
Although my name is mispelled, I can only assume it was a typo since B and H are located so close on the key board.
In all of the posts I made, I never conceded or implied that Troy violated his own policy. I have never had a phone conversation with Aaron or communicated and such idea in an e-mail. People are free to speak as they wish..That is a right they have...They do not have the right to speak for me or imply I said something I did not..rather quite the opposite..that the policy does not allow for a member of SCDA to submit an item for evaluation that he will serve as the basis for a sale. The letter was written because the item was consigned to an auction house SCDA was retained to support. The letter was written because it was trated like an auction lot. There is a difference..I would ask that some of the memeber who are versed in the area of law comment on that...Did I admit that a letter had been provided on the item. Yes. That was never in dispute. Did I say it violated the policy or implied that Troy lied..no I did not.
Aaron, I ask that you correct you post on that forum.
You are correct in stating that no one should speak for someone else.
Let me ask you a question as it appears you have some inner knowledge regarding the language and or application of it.
In your opinion, since Troy owned the jersey in question and wished to sell it at auction shouldn't he have done any of the following:
1) Had the piece authenticated by someone other an SCDA since he is an officer of the company?
2) Possibly assigned a different auction house to sell the item for him that was not under contract with SCDA?
3) At very least put a note in the comments box on page 1 of the COO stating that an officer of SCDA owned this item?
Troy as a free citizen has the right to buy and sell what ever he wants. That is what makes America beautiful. He should however go to even further extra lengths to rid himself, the hobby and his company from the scrutiny of a conflict of interest. That really should be his paramount duty as an officer of the company. His wallet should come second and I believe that is what people are taking issue with.
I'm not sure why folks need to post the same info on multiple boards - the people on the other board are aware of this "game-used" forum and can come over here if they are interested - why force-fead this stuff to them? We now have a "game-used" forum and a "vintage cards" forum - no need for a "gossip fence" forum as well.
If I were to post something here and someone was to slam me on the old forum, I would never even see it...and wouldn't care.
Sad to say, but after what has just transpired..I am not going to go there..If I answer any of these in the affirmative, then someone will say that is tanatmount (I know I am a horrible speller..Eric can we get spell check?) to saying the policy was violated..
1) Had the piece authenticated by someone other an SCDA since he is an officer of the company?
2) Possibly assigned a different auction house to sell the item for him that was not under contract with SCDA?
3) At very least put a note in the comments box on page 1 of the COO stating that an officer of SCDA owned this item?
I do have some thoughts on how policies can be modified or better presented..But I will not be posting those here any longer. Just not going to do it..sort of like the "are you still beating your wife?"
I had said I would not comment on policy..My only reason for coming back to this topic is that Aaron took liberties with my posts that fit the argument he was trying to make..Like I said, he or anyone else can post what they wish..but I would have to disagree that what he stated was accurate or within the context (what I said) or spirit (why I said it) that it was offered.
"In all of the posts I made, I never conceded or implied that Troy violated his own policy."
I disagree, Dave. You attempted sveral to explain the motivation and reason for Troy's violation, but you did not dispute it was a violation (you called it a "fine point").
So there's no misunderstanding, please explain to me how Troy's using an SCDA LOA on the Starr jersey auction for Vintage Auction was not a violation of the first-part of his 1/29/05 policy.
Not a re-phrase or para-phrase..a direct cut and paste from what was posted earlier:
"A member of the SCDA could not take an item he owned and submit it to SCDA for a letter so he could then use it for the basis of a sale. I think most will agree this is a good policy..In this case it means Troy could not have bought the shirt and then submitted to SCDA and have a letter written on it.
The problem in this case is that the jersey was consigned to an an auction house. This same auction house also retained SCDA to do their auction work. The letter was written in support of that effort.
Had the shirt been consigned to an auction house that does not use their services such as Grey Flannel or Leland's, then I can only assume that no letter would have been written or provided.
It may seem like a very fine point, but there it is."
"Fine Point" is just that..A fine point of distinction about the totality of the circumstances surrounding the application of the process and policy. It is not a lie (which) I never said it was...It is not an opinion on my part that the policy was violated (which I don't think it was).
The auction house hired SCDA to inspect, grade and offer an opinion in the form of a letter for the jerseys consigned to their auction. Troy's jersey was one of those lots. The letter was produced as part of that service agreement. The auction house is the one making the offer of this item to the public. An auction house can refuse to take any consignment they wish. They chose to accept this lot.
If your contention is that they could have sold it without the letter (there would then be no SCDA statement of finacial iterest as well as part of that letter). If this was done and it was brought to the attention of the board by VIKES that Troy owned the jersey, but no letter (mind you, that is what forces the disclosure to part of the process until such a time as the auction houses like Robert Edwards Auctions in now doing, makes it part of there policy)then I am sure there would have been some up roar about him trying to sneak something through.
You wrote: "In this case it means Troy could not have bought the shirt and then submitted to SCDA and have a letter written on it."
Troy did buy the jersey.
Troy did submit it to SCDA for authentication (Lou Lampson in specific).
Troy obtained and is using an SCDA LOA.
Thus, Troy violated the first part of his policy.
What is in dispute?
I understand you are attempting to explain WHY Troy violated the policy, but you have yet to demonstrate that you have not conceeded that he did, in fact, violate the policy.
I understand that you might work with SCDA in the future, so you won't want to call them out for violating their policy (or at least not while also trying to explain why he violated the policy), but that does not detract from the fact that he did.
I think the part that is confusing people is that Troy did not submit the item to SCDA. Troy consigned the item to VA just like any other collector could, and submitted his own personal letter to accompany it. The auction house then submitted the item to SCDA for authentication along with the other items in their auction. That is when Lampson took on responsibility for grading it.
I'm not sure if this specific situation was covered in the initial discussions, but at least our participations and interjections continue to make positive changes in our hobby.
Read the new description (c/p from VA):
Absolutely breathtaking is this vintage forest green, lightweight durene jersey with full sleeves and embedded elbow padding. The lower left tail has the early-mid 1960s “SAND KNIT” label designating size 46. Both sets of numerals are exquisite in their font styles. The front and back numerals feature “diamond point 5’s”, and the sleeve numerals feature “flat topped 1’s”. It just doesn’t get any better from an aesthetic perspective. Sourced from a Milwaukee, Wisconsin bar owned by Ray Jackson. After a game played in Milwaukee, Bart Starr personally brought this jersey to the restaurant in the original Sand Knit shipping box. Consigned to us with the above facts. Hobby experts up to the time of sale had never inspected the jersey. Since it was stored in the original Sand Knit box, it was originally assumed the jersey to have been unused. For this auction, Lou Lampson carefully inspected the jersey and concluded that it showed light wear. The wear was consistent with other QB jerseys examined from the period.
It doesn't matter that Troy did not submit it to scda and that vintage authentics was the one who submitted it. it's still a conflict of interest if an item from troy kinunen carries an scda letter. it's no surprise to troy that it would be submitted by va to scda. that's not acceptable.
scda staffers should not be able to consign items which are/OR WILL BE authenticated by scda. that seems very simple to me.
i'm not buying this thing that troy didn't submit the item to get the letter himself- he knew the path it was going to take. troy gives to va, va submits to scda, scda writes the letter for the items owned by a guy from scda. if troy really belived this item was the real thing he would have gone to a third party and had a letter from them as well. but he didn't. i'd love to hear why.
this whole thing is a joke.
the only person who should be defending the actions as far as i'm concerned is troy, and he has a lot of explaining to do. no more of this loophole semantics legalese crap.
he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar just like bushing, so please spare us the excuses.
these guys keep finding ways to take our money- don't defend them.
matt
Thanks Marcus, you did a great job of explaining the mechanisms that Troy tried to utilize in order to intentionally circumvent his own policies and how a clear violation of his policy occurred by selling an item he owns with an SCDA LOA.
This really raises new issues in terms of the lengths SCDA will go to circumvent their own rules in order to use SCDA LOA's to sell their own items. (I can only assume that SCDA authenticators believe that their items sold with their own letterheads will not bring as high a price as when they sell their own items with SCDA LOA's, hence their decision to ignore their "reform" policies.)
And obviously the new policies which Dave Grob helped draft are completely worthless and meant simply as a cover so SCDA authenticators can continue to maximize their profits by authenticating their own material under their letterhead, since it's hard to even imagine a situation when there are enough loopholes, exceptions, and overriding circumstances to render a scenario when the policy might actually be used inconceivable.
I say just go back to SCDA's old policies of concealing and hiding conflict of interest. That way there isn't even the illusion that they are attempting to play above board and collectors have a better chance of successful and honest dealing when SCDA is involved in a transaction.
"And obviously the new policies which Dave Grob helped draft are completely worthless and meant simply as a cover so SCDA authenticators can continue to maximize their profits by authenticating their own material under their letterhead".
This means that the whole policy was implimented as a sham and Dave was involved. Brother, you have way too much time on your hands. I spend most of my time on the Vintage card side of things but I am sick and tired of seeing your name and the names of a few others spew your vile slanderous crap. Is SCDA a bad apple? Sure it is! Can this fourm and others like it help clean up the hobby? You bet! However, it need not be done at the expense of good people who are doing nothing but helping the hobby. If you are going to try and help, grow up and act like an adult. Stop playing tit for tat in some sort of pissing contest. Make your points and move on. If you can't do that, aside from needing WAY too much attention, you are not helping anyone. I will not post about this again. I just want to say enough already. SCDA screwed up and they need to be watched. They are the enemy, not good posters in this forum..GET over it!
I can understand your reluctance to answer my questions.
The issue is that the actions of SCDA/Bushing/Troy etc. are leading people to believe that their motives are all about a quick buck at the expense at their own policies and accepted business practice in the real world.
It would not have been that difficult to remove the spectre of a possible conflict of interest than a little more work. Get some one else to give a COO. Is that too much to ask for? Have Lampson right it on his own letterhead and maybe no one questions it. But no, they took the "easy" way out to try make a fast buck and people are understandably upset.
They need to take a step back and have a little loyalty to credibility, honesty and integrity. They owe the hobby that much at minimum. It is the hobby who has afforded them the opportunity to make a living doing this. Anything less is a disservice and a disrespect to the hobby. Period.
Thanks for the note..Not reluctant to dicuss anything...just not interested in becoming a "sound bite".
This has been a very interesting year in the hobby because of the convergence of two things..Attempts to establish and regulate parts of the industry and the leveraging of technology (the internet).
In the past, informtion made its way around the hobby by way of paper publications and talk at shows..Now we have access to resources, information and individuals we did not in the past in such rapid fashion. This includes many new auction venues who all seem to offer on-line auctions and bidding.
The question you raise about having someone else look an item has been offered many time by other folks as well. The issue then becomes who?
It requires that:
1. The person can do it to an acceptable standard. I am refering to both a knowledge base and how it works within the system. Auction work, for the large part is done on site at the auction house. Auction houses get product in, and for both reasons of time and expense, do not want to have to send stuff all over the place or try to coordinate having folks come in who are experts in Cincinnati Reds, Chicago Bulls, Pittsburgh Steelers and then Detroit Red Wings etc..
Any solution would have to make sense for their particlar business model and practice. If they did this (multiple people for various product), it reasonable to assume they would want to recover this additional expense. The only way the could do is pass it along in the form of higher prices charged to both consigner and buyer. I am not sure anyone wants that.
The ideal person is someone knowledgeable in a larger context who has the time to research and travel on a very regular basis..once again, a very small pool. I have asked members of the forum on more than one occasion who they would suggest and have not heard anything. For example, we obiviously have some folks very knowledgeable about Packers uniforms or Astros items..I am sure we could all think of a person we know that has his niche as well in just about every other aspect.
Not sure it makes sense for any auction house to work this way. The question is not why would they don't want to best person to look at every item as I am sure they would in a perfect world..The question becomes one of reality, parcticality and affordability. This same thing applies to house that do their own work internally.
2. The person, even if qualified by experience and time requirements, would want to do it. Once again, there is great reluctance by many to be willing to live under the microscope if you will.
Lots of thoughts on this thread. First off, the problem in having one or a small group trying to authenticate for an auction house will almost assure that errors occur in nearly every auction (which is evident by what I see in the small niche area of football jersey collecting that I feel comfortable in judging). It is unrealistic to expect one or a very small group of authenticators to have the expertise in multiple areas. On the other hand, Dave Grob makes a good point about the practicality of having auction houses sending items "all over the place" to the various niche specialists. But to be honest, anyone in the business of selling/auctioning sports memorabilia has a moral obligation to do whatever it takes to get it right.
Back to the issue with Troy consigning the Packers jersey. Anyone who has taken Ethics 101 understands that a gross conflict of interest was committed in this instance. Matt stated it well when he said, "SCDA staffers should not be able to consign items which are/OR WILL BE authenticated by SCDA. That seems very simple to me."
Troy should have submitted the item to another auction house that does not use SCDA, or followed the suggestion of Vikes and obtained a COA from an independent authenticating service or "expert". (Completely separate from SCDA meaning that a SCDA staff member of consultant should not be involved in any manner, not even independently.)
A few shots have been taken at Dave Grob regarding this entire discussion. Dave has simply tried to explain the SCDA policies and the action that took place. It's fine if you disagree, and I admire anyone who passionately states their position, but let's at least be civil when there is an issue to discuss.
Thanks for your response. I can understand your thought process about not wanting to become a sound bite. As I well know, sometimes people want to shoot the messenger when they do not want to hear what the message is saying. Also I am "living" proof regarding your thoughts about technology.
I can only assume due to outside pressures, I am now "banned" from the VBC board since some influential people in the hobby (umm, I mean business) want to both a) know who I am for "curiosity" reasons and b) want a way to keep me from posting verifiable facts.
That is fine. I really am not that upset though. I told Bill Cornell via e-mail that if he would have asked me to reveal myself before his "gestapo" tactic of deleting my messages I might have done so. As always I was very respectful in my correspondance.
I'm not going to re-hash all the facts since they have been discussed ad nauseum. The bottom line is they are the truth whether they want to believe them or not. Also for those who follwed everything, I was always civil and never bashed or flamed anyone.
I told the board and also Mr. O'Keefee of the NY Daily News that due to concerns for my collection and for the safety of my family and livelihood I wished to remain anonymous. Please note that it cost Robert Plancich a ton of $$ to protect his First Amendment rights.
Well I guess that was not good enough for "Herr Commandant" Cornell of the VBC board. I have been labeled an "internet troll" and I guess the Bushing supporters are celebrating as we type.
As I told them before (but you can't read it since it has been deleted) "The facts will not change and will still be the same when I am dead and gone." And they still won't even after the have "shut me out" as well.
The fact that your posts were deleted simply because you restated PUBLIC INFORMATION about the questionable business practices and lies of Dave Bushing, Troy and SCDA, simply reinforces the belief that SCDA has become a cancer in our hobby.
Needless to say your efforts were not wasted and I for one appreciate the even-tempered and non-combative manner in which you were able to post your thoughts.
"This means that the whole policy was implimented as a sham and Dave was involved."
Yeah, I think that about sums it up. If the already weak "reform" policies can be so easily, readily, and intentionally side-stepped as Dave suggests, then they are worthless--a sham. As lame a PR stunt as their "deomstration".
And, yeah, if Dave was involved in the drafting as he says, then of course he is involved.
You also wrote: "Is SCDA a bad apple? SCDA screwed up and they need to be watched. They are the enemy, not good posters in this forum."
I think this is exactly the point. Dave sounds like a very nice guy, but he has also stated that he is considering going to work for SCDA.
If you think SCDA is a "bad apple" and "the enemy", how can Dave be reasonably seperated from them?
For the benifit of all who read this forum. Let me put some informtion in play about my role in this policy process as it relates to ME. I am the person best qualified to speak about my role..Others may have opinions, but I know about ME.
This is the language that I provided SCDA in a signed letter in the June 2004 timeframe... It was my descision to ensure something like this was on file for ME and was my own idea, even though the work I was doing and did do was on a no cost basis ( I have already posted that only my expenses were covered.
STANDARDS OF ETHICS STATEMENT: To ensure that SCDA is never placed in a position where it’s business ethics are ever called into question, as well as for the greater benefit of the hobby, I agree to the following set of guidelines:
1. In the course of private transactions, I will not submit my items for authentication from SCDA. I will provide a stand alone letter detailing and attesting to the authenticity of the item(s) in the same professional manner as SCDA.
2. In cases where I consign an item for auction, if the auction house has retained SCDA for the purposes of authentication, full disclosure that I have a financial interest in the item(s) will be made on the authentication certificate; and that the individual(s) winning the lot will have 30 days from the time of receipt to return the item if they feel a conflict of interest exists and it has materially affected the objectivity and accuracy of the authentication process.
3. I will provide full disclosure on the source of information used to determine the objective statement regarding authenticity.
4. I will not authenticate items that are outside of my judged area of expertise, as determined by the collective body of experts at SCDA.
5. Should I ever become even remotely associated with what can be perceived as unethical personal or professional behavior, the collective body of experts at SCDA can terminate my association for cause.
6. I consent to have this signed statement of ethical conduct made available to the hobby at large upon request.
For the purposes of further clarification.
On point #1. I have never had an SCDA letter produced on any item.
On point #2. I have never consigned an item for auction.
People are free to think of me what they will..but to suggest that I am part of some PR stunt is wrong. To suggest that I did this to curry favor because I have stated that I may go back to working with this groups is wrong. Like I said, form your own opinion, but do it knowing about what I have done not what you think I might have.
In all posts, I have always listed my complete name and an e-mail link and can always be asked in person. If you want to call me, or write a letter that is fine as well...speculation in the stock market is fine..specualtion about my motives or actions is not.
I think that Dave's intentions are good and noble, and my intentions are neither to bash Dave nor SCDA, but in my humble opinion, Article #2 still presents a terrible conflict of interest. As stated in earlier posts in this thread, in these instances, a COA should be obtained from an independent authenticating service or "expert". It should be someone completely separate from SCDA meaning that a SCDA staff member of consultant should not be involved in any manner, not even independently. Not to do so will always raise questions, no matter how good the intent.
As for Dave's last two paragraphs, I agree with him 100%. I again beg for a little more civility and a lot less spinning of "conspiracy theories" that at times appear to be bordeline libelous. As a wise attorney once advised me, "Unless you can prove it, don't accuse it."
This is like watching a Soap!!You have the villians, Troy K. and Lou L. who has cossed the the thin blue line, never to return to high position of respect in the hearts and minds of collectors everywhere. We have the hero, Aaron, riding the white horse who is fighting for what is good and right. We have the fence sitters like Dave and Mark, that want to be involved but do not want to upset the powers to be as it might damage there interests in future dealings or oppurtunity. You have Eric, now Eric is sick of the whole damn thing, but still has the time in his busy life to read all the posts and toss one in demeaning the people with two much time on their hands. The only thing missing is the hot chick and the guy thats sleeping with her on the sly, I will be him, OK!!
TUNE IN TOMOROW FOR THE CONTINUATION OF JERSEY'S OF OUR LIVES!!
-John Deere
