My name is David Bushing and this is my first personal foray into the official “Bash Bushing” website. Let me lead off by stating that this open letter is my own personal opinion and I am not writing this in any official capacity as a representative of SCDA or any other organization. I have noted with humor the attacks against my stupid smile, (not my fault) my poor taste in loud clothing (which was quite appropriate at the Kit Young Hawaiian convention) and my being “slightly” overweight (in this I am surely not alone in this business but I was glad they used the term “slightly”).
Let me start by offering a word related to my post-graduate studies, which are now being lambasted. If I offended anyone, I apologize. I completed the entire three-year full time 60 hour creative writing program at Columbia with a 3.8 GPA and have submitted my thesis twice where it now rests awaiting final submission if I can ever find the time. It was in no way meant to be deceitful and wasn’t even taken on with the field of authenticity in mind, it was meant to be used as a tool to sharpen my writing skills and allow me to officially use really big words correctly, not to gain any puffed up praises and even though I never listed any such claims on any of my resumes, the facts to wit where erroneously listed and have now been corrected.
Beyond the personal attacks and attacks regarding my education I’ve endured attacks based on conflict of interest, the grades given an item, credentials, and the actual authenticity of items of which we (SCDA) have issued letters. I’ve been labeled greedy, self serving, and many more adjectives than I care to repeat. Why I have become the bane of some people’s existence has been of some conjecture but I do have a theory that closely follows the JFK bantering.
The most interesting thing is that beyond Josh Evans, none of these attacks come from knowledgeable hobbyists. The critics have been self proclaimed hobby watchdog Robert Plancich (publicly praised by Josh), tabloid journalists from the New York Daily News (personal friends of Josh), unknown anonymous posters (spineless) and a number of collectors who to my knowledge have never purchased a piece of game used memorabilia. I don’t have a problem with the latter if they are willing to be educated. To that end we (SCDA) invited 5 of our fiercest critics to come out so they could see how the authentication process worked first hand. Only 3 of those individuals took us up on the offer and, having viewed our methods, were convinced as to the legitimacy of our process and now have been ostracized as “patsies” for their support of SCDA. I understand why Josh Evans of Leland’s applauds Plancich and befriends the tabloid journalists. They leave him alone! In the case of Plancich’s vendetta related to conflicts of interest with third party authenticators, there has been no public outcry against Leland’s, a company that not only buys, sells and auctions their own material, but they authenticate all of their own merchandise as well this is most definitely a conflict of interest 100% of the time. The crack reporters at the New York Daily News find activities such as using the phrase “Game Used” in our titles and making modifications to lots after the catalog has been printed as newsworthy events, yet with Leland’s who also employ these common industry practices it is ignored. In fact, none of the pundits write about anyone other than us. While it may be considered flattering to be the only persons held to such scrutiny and viewed under a microscope by spiders waiting in their webs to devour their prey, it sure stinks of ulterior motives according to my book.
With a full guarantee on any SCDA full letter hand signed by me and with the recently implemented policy of full disclosure, we feel we are meeting the increased scrutiny and collector demands head on and we strongly feel that our competition should be held to the same standards. If you want to bid on an item with an SCDA letter but feel we are not qualified to make such a judgment, and then feel free to use another service as that is your right.
In no way am I saying we don’t make errors. The key is how you stand up to those errors and make it right. A dating mistake was made on a DiMaggio glove that originally came from the Barry Halper sale. The glove came with provenance dating it to the 1930’s when in fact the glove may well have been DiMaggio’s but dated from the late 40’s or early 50’s (we knew it was not dated in the 30’s even though it was cataloged as such). We didn’t turn our back on this situation. We worked with MastroNet to make it right and refunds were issued to all financially interested parties. That is common sense, standing up and being accountable for errors we make. Recently we examined a DiMaggio game used gloves that came with a letter from a hobby BIG wig and was submitted to a major auction house. The letter identified it as a gamer except there is no provenance and it is a cheap store model Vince DiMaggio softball glove yet he sold it for tens of thousands of dollars and issued his own personal LOA with no provenance. Presented with evidence this hobby BIG wig declined to make amends. Maybe there is a statute of limitations on fraud where he does business, but the result is this bad piece of memorabilia will probably be thrust on the unsuspecting public through eBay or some other venue. We will do what we can to warn the public if it surfaces. As a matter of fact last week at the Hawaii Convention I spoke extensively to the FBI representative in charged of Operation Bullpen and we intend to fully cooperate with them on many ongoing as well as upcoming investigations. If anyone has claims of fraud they would like reported contact me directly and I will be happy to put them in touch with the FBI.
In conclusion we will be happy to take on a live challenge anywhere and anytime against any pundit but it will have to be a public forum so that the truth may not be distorted as it has been up to now. One condition is that our self authenticating competition must also show up and answer the same tough questions demanded of us. Reporters whom have direct allegiances with such parties will never again get a quote from us as it matters not what we say as they will write the story with an agenda and ending that they want. That’s not reporting, that is tabloid press, period. What was it Mike Ditka once said, “Opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one”, some are just prettier than others.
If anyone has legitimate questions about items I have authenticated and are currently being offered for sale my door is always open. I can be contacted at Dbushing1@aol.com.
Well, I must say that Dave did a hell of a lot better job defending himself than Troy Kinunen did. Dave didn't piss anyone off in his thread here (besides Lelands but who cares anyway) and most of all didn't blantantly lie like Troy did and make himself look 100 times worse. Dave, you better write something good for that moron Troy, the hole he dug himself is 20 feet deep and he's begging for help!
Ian was 100% right in everything he just said. I would only have to add one thing. In terms of this line here:
"If anyone has claims of fraud they would like reported contact me directly and I will be happy to put them in touch with the FBI".
Dave you might be getting a lot of emails from collectors who were victimized by Steve Misturini from www.authsports.com
As you know, this guy may be easily the biggest fraud the hobby has ever seen. I think the FBI's number should be posted here so they are aware of the ongoing activities of this individual. Crap, I think the FBI should have a Steve Misturini victims hotline number posted for collectors to call.
Dave - On Feb 20th, I wrote something positve about you and the industry so it isn't all bad (lol). I am attaching what I wrote on the forum:
February 20 2005, 11:04 PM
I think the industry has gotten better on the upper end products. Maybe it was the FBI Operation Bullpen that got rid of a lot of bad dealers. I think eBay has done a better job of policing their site although you can't catch everything. Also, many athletes surf the net and report "fake" items. MLB has probably done the best job with their authentication system.
The industry has some great authenticators. We always feel confident buying and selling bats authenticated by John Taube of PSA/DNA or jerseys authenticated by Dave Bushing with the SCD or GAI CoA, and Autographs from Mike Gutierrez or James Spence. TriStar, Steiner, UDA, Mounted Memories of course are great also with autographed items.
I understand that 3rd party authentication is expensive so a lot of dealers don't go that route, but personally I can't understand how buyers are spending thousands of dollars on items that the dealers are authenticating themselves. Maybe it works on inexpensive items, but this is where all the problems seem to be coming from on this site.
My solution is to buy from reputable dealers only. If you continue to buy from the "problem" dealers you are just keeping them in business.
Thanks for coming to the board! I can imagine some of the things you might have read on this board or even heard about must have been tough. Not sure the motives of people when they start picking at details and looking for character/personal faults in people, but that drives some people. I honestly think the efforts by yourself and others is well intended and meant to help, not hurt. I also think the "authentication" business can get to others and cause them to go bad. The simple hobby to others is a BIG business for others. I have been criticized recently for forming my hobby into a small business. People tell me I am going to change my ways! I tell them to make sure and point that out if they see a change. We all need to watch out for each other and "police" the hobby. If something seems wrong, then someone should point it out. When people start looking into details of our personal resumes or profiles to see what degree we have or don't have, then it probably has gone too far. Thanks again Dave for coming forward and setting people straight. This past couple of weeks has been nuts with this witch hunt! Troy tooks things too personal and let people get to him. You did the right thing in my book!
Thanks,
Chris Boyd
Houston Sports Investments
________________________________________________
Specializing in GU Astros Equipment & Autographs
713-385-1155
ccboyd@houston.rr.com
Glad to see you post Dave. The bashing has been crazy, but come on, these guys are just out for blood. Although I understand what the likes of Aaron and Vikes are saying, but I think we all learn. 20/20 hindsight is beautiful. I'm pretty sure you would do things differently. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for posting on the board. I would hope you would make regular visits here and offer your opinions to the various threads.
I would like to talk to you about my experiences with authenticsports and steve misturini. as noted here, i worked with nfl auctions to determine he was buying game issued jerseys, adding grass and dirt stains and then selling them as game used. i confronted steve with this information and we confirmed that, according to him- someone on his staff was doing exactly that. he refunded my money- and it was a lot of money, but he is still trying to pass bad items to people under the guise that he's getting them directly from the teams.
A couple of thoughts on an issue mentioned by Andrew.
Regarding dealers using third-party authenticators, if a dealer makes a bulk buy from a team, it doesn't really make a lot of sense for the dealer to pay for a third-party authenticator. First, it probably is not economically feasible, especially under the assumption that most of the jerseys are "commons." Second, who would know more about a particular team's uniforms at that point than the dealer who just purchased 100's of jerseys from that team? And the way that MeiGray operates their business, it only makes sense that they authenticate their own jerseys, and is probably the most ideal way to do it.
As stated in a previous post, some dealers have owned and seen thousands and thousands of uniforms, perhaps more than some authenticators. I will use Hartel Sports as a great example. A long-time, very reputable and trustworthy dealer that has made many bulk buys through the years. They normally do not issue COAs. Why - because there is really no need because of the obvious. I think that we need to keep that in mind and not overlook the expertise of dealers such as this.
Good post (although completely self-serving) and I'm glad to see you here attempting to defend yourself.
As far as your statement: "The critics have been... unknown anonymous posters (spineless) and a number of collectors who to my knowledge have never purchased a piece of game used memorabilia."
I would like to note that:
1. I own several game-used jerseys that you authenticated and have the LOA's to prove it (and I even purchased a game-used cap directly from you on E-Bay).
2. I am certainly not "anonymous". Troy called me at work this week and told me, among other things to "Fuck off, you cocksucker."
3. I offered to meet with you and Troy in Chicago at Mastro's offices while I attend the National (I live in Los Angeles). Troy turned down my offer.
So, to that, among other things, you are wrong.
Rather, I am a run-of-the-mill, ordinary game-used collector who was extremely disappointed to learn that you secretly owned and consigned items that you yourself authenticated. Hence, my criticism of you and SCDA. My feelings have been mirrored by other run-of-the-mill, ordinary game-used collectors who were similarly disappointed. Hence, their criticism of you.
As to my criticism of you in specific, my chief complaint has been your regular practice of undisclosed conflict of interest.
While you maintain that you have a policy of "full disclosure," in reality, the "new" policy (even when followed) falls well short.
While your "check box" system is a step in the right direction, you cannot maintain that you have a "full disclosure" policy until potential bidders and buyers are made aware of SCDA's conflict of interest prior to bidding. To that end a simple note in your item's description would suffice.
As an alternative, instead of laying the blame at the feet of auction houses (like MastroNet) who refuse to disclose that a conflict of interest exists in the item description, why not simply refuse to consign items to those houses?
These seem like two simple solutions: Note the conflict of interest in the item description or decline to consign to those auction houses that refuse.
Does all of this mean that buying autographed items from Mike Gutierrez or Richard Simon is bad because they authenticate? They sure as hell don't mention on their LOAs that they were the owners. Nobody is safe in this hobby, damn
Rob - I do sell and I do authenticate.
When I sell I issue a receipt upon which the words "Certificate of Authenticity. All Autographs Are Guaranteed Authentic For The Life of the Item" are printed. The law in NY states that a written guarantee must be issued with autographs. Whether it has a fancy format or is printed on a receipt, as long as it is in writing that is what is required.
When I authenticate, for individuals, dealers or auction houses, I issue a COA on my 8x10 letterhead which states I have examined the autograph(s) and in my opinion it (they) are authentic.
I use two totally different formats, one when I sell and one when I examine and authenticate an item for someone else.
Richard Simon
--
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Maybe I am the minority here but it is my opinion that your continual disclosure of an alleged private phone conversation between yourself and Troy is without class. Aren't you the same guy who considered it an invasion of privacy when MastroNet looked up your phone number in their database? You seem to have a bent defininition of what is appropriate and not.
In answer to your question, no I will not refuse to consign materials to auction houses that choose not to disclose my financial interest. You used as an example MastroNet. They stand by the authenticity of their items, I stand behind the authenticity of their items.
I thought my message was very clear. Let me restate....with a full guarantee on any SCDA full letter hand signed by me and with the recently implemented policy of full disclosure, we feel we are meeting the increased scrutiny and collector demands head on and we strongly feel that our competition should be held to the same standards. If you want to bid on an item with an SCDA letter but feel we are not qualified to make such a judgment, and then feel free to use another service as that is your right.
After reading your posts for the last few weeks it is my opinion that if you want to buy game used memorabilia you need to find someone you trust. We are clearly not your guys.
Thanks for posting and stating your side of the story. I am surprised that my computer didn't burst into flames as I thought that you were Satan himself having read so much evil about you in this forum!!!
Being serious for a moment, I don't think that Aaron is alone in his feelings about the conflict-of-interest issue. My thought is that there should be full separation. In other words, if an SCDA employee puts an item they own into an auction, the auction house should use a separate entity to perform the authentication. It's not an issue of anyone being a "bad guy" or dishonest, it's just a matter of removing yourself from any posssible appearance of impropriety.
It appears that sometimes authenticators underestimate their audience - the collectors. The line Aaron pointed out in his second paragraph also caught my eye as having the appearance of being somewhat condescending. Humbleness is a great trait to have, especially in this hobby. There are a lot of guys out there in the hobby who specialize in certain "niche" areas, and in some cases, know as much or more than anyone else. They should be listened to and never sold short.
There are a lot of frustrated folks in the hobby at the moment, and as you have seen, a lot of resentment has been pointed at SCDA. Everyone has their own theories - mine is a simple one. A lack of good communications flowing in each direction. Improve communications, be more forthcoming in disclosing information on various issues, and many of the ills will disappear.
I truly believe that most collectors out there want to see SCDA succeed. And as much as I am "old school" and believe that collectors should do their own authenticating, I am pulling for you to succeed because if you get it right and earn everyone's trust, we all win!
My thoughts and suggestions have, for the most part, been shared with Rocky Landsvark at Sports Collectors Digest in several emails and a telephone conversation. I hope that the correspondence has been shared with SCDA, and, along with this post, is taken in the helpful manner for which it is intended.
Dave wrote: "Maybe I am the minority here but it is my opinion that your continual disclosure of an alleged private phone conversation between yourself and Troy is without class."
Troy calls me at work and tells me to "fuck off, cocksucker", and I am the one without class?
Classic.
Dave also wrote: "Aren't you the same guy who considered it an invasion of privacy when MastroNet looked up your phone number in their database?"
Yeah, and I also considered it an invasion of privacy that Troy obtained my private contact information without my permission from an auction house that didn't not have my permission to disclose it and then wouldn't tell me how he got it.
I'll tell you what, you or Troy tell me how you obtained my phone number and I won't mention the conversation again.
Deal?
Dave also wrote: "You seem to have a bent defininition of what is appropriate and not."
No, judging by the above, I think that's your own reflection.
Dave also wrote: "In answer to your question, no I will not refuse to consign materials to auction houses that choose not to disclose my financial interest."
OK, so you do not really have a policy of "full disclosure."
"Full disclosure" is not waiting until after the auction is over and the winning bidder has received his item to inform him of a financial conflict of interest on the part of SCDA, and then placing the cost and burden to disprove on the buyer, whose third-party authentication you may or may not accept, all with a 30-day limit.
I appreciate the straight answer though.
Dave further wrote: "I thought my message was very clear. Let me restate....with a full guarantee on any SCDA full letter hand signed by me and with the recently implemented policy of full disclosure, we feel we are meeting the increased scrutiny and collector demands head on and we strongly feel that our competition should be held to the same standards."
Aside from the fact that you don't have a policy of "full disclosure" as you state, how is your "guarantee" a "full guarantee" if it expires 30 days after receipt?
I understand no longer consigning to MastroNet may be a financial sacrifice for you and SCDA, but is that really meeting "collector demands head on"?
Mark wrote: "I truly believe that most collectors out there want to see SCDA succeed. And as much as I am "old school" and believe that collectors should do their own authenticating, I am pulling for you to succeed because if you get it right and earn everyone's trust, we all win!"
I actually share this sentiment, hence my earlier "Open Letter to SCDA" post.
Wanting SCDA to clean up its act, is not wanting to tear it down.
From a purely selfish perspective, I have thousands of dollars worth of game-used flannels and caps, whose financial value is largely dependent on LOA from Dave and SCDA.
From an enthusiastic collector's perspective, I realize the need for voices of credibility and integrity in this field to help keep vintage game-used equipment from becoming another sports collectible market that is so overwrought with fraud and "scams" that it is no longer a fun and safe passion to pursue.
To both these ends, I would like to see SCDA succeed.
In an ideal world, this would mean that all of SCDA's authenticators would follow Dave Grob's lead and refrain from selling game-used equipment while they also serve as authenticators.
Like PSA or SGC, SCDA would be strictly an independent, third-party grading and authenticating service.
I understand, however, that this might be a financial impossibility for the individual SCDA collectors, and they need to continue dealing as well as authenticating.
So, if the conflict of interest has to exist, then the next best solution is full disclosure.
That means a simple choice: Follow the lead of Robert Edward Auctions and note the conflict of interest in the item description, or (as in the case of Mastro) if the auction house refuses to do so, simply refrain from consigning to them (there are obviously, plenty of alternative auction houses for SCDA authenticators to choose from).
When SCDA is truly ready to meet collector demands head-on and face the scrutiny they are under with transparency, then I believe they will adopt these simple measures and put this whole matter behind them.
First of all, stories of Invasions of privacy by getting Forum members phone #'s and Troy's cursing should not be tolerated. SCD should seriously investigate this. I am all for freedom of speech, but there are consequences.
Second, good to hear from Dave Bushing. I do want a further explanation of "your guarantee" when there is an authentication mistake. I agree on Lelands. Don't agree on conflict of interest---need full disclosure. Would like to know what your percentage of items you turn away.
Third, I have purchased from MEIGray and they always give detailed COAs and almost always team letters. The dealers that buy jerseys in bulk from teams should follow the lead of MEI. MEI also gets MLB holograms on their baseball items. Yes, in MEIs case you dont need 3rd party authentication.
Fourth, I have learned from this forum to do your own homework, but I do `like a 2nd opinion from Dave Bushing when I can't get a team letter or MLB hologram. That seems prudent. I agree 2nd opinion is expensive but its a personal decision that every collector needs to decide on their own.
What follows is an email Troy sent me on January 30, 05:
"How dare you question my love for the sport at the expense of money. I had no financial interest in that bat what so ever. SCDA as a start up company was far from making me a rich man. I also worked long hours and take all of the criticism. What have you contributed to this site other than constant negativaty? I decided to write this to you personally. Take me up on my offer and come to town. Lets see how big your mouth is when you have to look a man in the eye and not a computer screen."
Yes, we're all impressed with Troy's level of diplomacy. My response:
"Troy,
Perhaps you should bother to learn a little bit about me before opening up your big, ignorant mouth. I suspect with a modicum of effort you’d learn that I look men in the eye and face them down on a daily basis. And I assure you that the men I deal with are even bigger scumbags than you.
I’m not a negative influence on this board except in the area that matters to you – the Bushing issue. Because you chose to take an incredibly low moral ground, you are getting waxed in the court of public opinion. Face it: you decided that love of money and covering your ass was more important than the love of the sport.
Your laughable excuses on the board were treated just like that: laughable. You’ve attempted to rationalize away a huge conflict of interest simply because it helps your bottom line.
If you’d like to discuss this civilly, I’m all ears. But I assure you that if you want to take a more aggressive tone with me, you will get waxed again. It’s your decision."
Mark...thank you for your thoughtful response. It is taken in the helpful manner in which it is intended.
MinnesotaT...I understand for administrative purposes auction houses and maybe even SCDA puts a time limit on our guarantee. The reality is the guarantee for undisputed authenticity is a lifetime guarantee. Case in point the DiMaggio glove that originated from the Halper sale. I worked with Doug Allen from MastroNet when it was determined there was a problem with the dating of the glove and a full refund was issued two years later. You have my word LIFETIME GUARANTEE
Aaron...I don't appreciate the condescending tone of your posts so I am not going to continue to answer your questions. On the other hand as a collector if you have legitimate questions about items I have authenticated and are currently being offered for sale my door is always open.
To the moderator of this Board is it really appropriate to continually allow individuals to post hearsay conversations that have foul language and the like? It sure seems to take away from the legitimacy of this forum.
Let me state up front that I am not a memorabilia collector (I collect cards). My interest in these ongoing issues stems from a general love of the game but also from an interest, as a lawyer, in the ethical questions presented.
My general view, be it cards, memorabilia, stocks, or houses, is that sellers should disclose all material facts. That has been a fundamental principle of the law forever. Generally speaking, a material fact is one a reasonable buyer would want to know BEFORE purchasing. So applying that standard to memorabilia, and I am not persuaded that memorabilia is different from anything else, it seems to me that if an authenticator has a financial interest in an item, that should be disclosed, up front. Let people make their own judgments as to whether it matters, or how if at all it affects their bidding.
I do not understand the continued reluctance (with the apparent exception of Robert Edwards) of auction houses, and presumably authenticators (who even if they don't set policies are surely in a position to exert influence), simply to adopt a full, up-front, disclosure policy. I have yet to hear a justification for it. Perhaps there is one, but I have yet to hear it. One would like to think the purpose is NOT to sell items at a higher price than they would sell for absent disclosure, but until the real reason is revealed it is reasonable to draw that inference. I could speculate that there may be other less sinister reasons -- for example, auction houses are reluctant to make changes unless others follow step for fear of losing authenticator business -- but again, unless I have missed it, noone has EXPLAINED the reasons for not disclosing.
As far as SCDA's new policy goes, while I agree it is a step in the right direction, I don't think it constitutes full disclosure and I agree with Aaron. First, it is after-the-fact. Second, it puts an unfair onus on the buyer to disprove authenticity within a short time frame. With due respect, knowing up front an item I am bidding on is both owned and authenticated by (for example) Dave Bushing is just not the same as learning that fact when the item shows up on my doorstep, and the paperwork tells me that if I don't like it, I have 30 days to find an expert (and how many are there, truly) to prove Mr. Bushing was wrong about the item. I am sure that if I picked 12 people at random off the street, they would agree that the disclosure I suggest is fuller than the one offered by SCDA.
I have no reason to doubt Mr. Bushing's expertise, or that of other members of SCDA or anyone else for that matter, in authenticating memorabilia. And I am on record as saying that I thought Mr. Bushing's degree or lack thereof was much ado about nothing. But the continued reluctance to disclose authenticator interest before-the-fact puzzles me.
It's an exchange of information and view-points. Everyone on this board knows the difference between bidders knowing that the seller (or consignor) of an item is also the authenticator, and not knowing. We go to Mike Gutierrez to buy autographs BECAUSE he is an expert in that field.
For items where the consignor is also the authenticator, that should be stated in the auction description...period.
The SCDA policy is to disclose my financial intererst in items I authenticate. To my knowledge other than Rob Lifson o auction houses that use our service post on these Boards so I can't respond to what their disclosure policies will be. Feel free to contact them directly.
...simply go elsewhere to consign your items. If enough honest consignors did so, the auction houses would ALL have to change their policies. This is obvious.
I think a more likely scenario is that if an auction house changed their policies, self-authenticating consignors would take their wares elsewhere.
"NOTE: for this item the consignor is also the authenticator and will provide an LOA"...now how hard was that? whoops, my cofferes are depleting
There is a saying that success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan..Let me pull this basket floating down the Nile out of the water. I suggested the language that included the 30 time frame.
SCDA has show itself to be ammeniable to policy changes for the betterment of the hobby and to work toward customer satisfaction..to that end, I would ask the folks considering offering what they feel like an acceptable time frame be.
As I see it, the problem with the SCDA policy is not only the short time frame but the burden of proof placed on the buyer. Let's be realistic, how likely is it a buyer will ever be able to meet the conditions of return/refund, namely getting an opinion as to lack of authenticity from a recognized authority? There aren't that many experts to begin with, any with affiliations with SCDA are taken out of the loop by that language, and I would guess that any others would be reluctant to become involved. A much fairer policy would be simply to give the buyer a no questions asked right of return if the authenticator interest bothered him/her. An even better policy would be for SCDA to work with the auction houses to ensure up front disclosure of authenticator interest. That way, there would be no issue at all.
Dave wrote: "Aaron...I don't appreciate the condescending tone of your posts so I am not going to continue to answer your questions. On the other hand as a collector if you have legitimate questions about items I have authenticated and are currently being offered for sale my door is always open."
My posts were condescending?
My questions were direct and fair. If you feel you don't have the ability to respond to them in a satisfactory manner (e.g., Troy's invasion of my privacy, and your unwillingness to withhold consignments from auction houses that refuse to disclose conflict of interest, etc.), please just say so and don't try to shift blame.
This is not a one-sided, unchallenged demonstration as you presented to your visitors last month.
This is an even, open dialogue.
Dave also wrote: "To the moderator of this Board is it really appropriate to continually allow individuals to post hearsay conversations that have foul language and the like? It sure seems to take away from the legitimacy of this forum."
I should point out, Dave, that the moderator asked me for a quote "blow by blow" of my conversation with Troy, and in deference to Troy and my desire to not be accused of giving a one-sided account of the conversation, I told him (and others) to contact Troy directly about the conversation.
My only comments were that he stated his position that he did not believe he violated SCDA policy, I stated why I believed he did, and we discussed the broader issues of conflict of interest and what SCDA was doing to address them.
The only details I pointed out was that Troy obtained my phone number without my permission and refused to state where he received it, and that Troy began firing expletives at me ("Fuck you, cocksucker") when I would not agree with him on the violation.
I did so because I felt this crossed the line from a cordial, civil conversation (following his invasion of my privacy) and was verbally abusive.
The fact is, we tend to overlook the faults in the items we are selling
March 11 2005, 11:25 AM
that belong to us. I almost forgot to tell the buyer of a M101-4 Ruth I was selling him that four little pieces of tape had been removed from it. I FORGOT, till he was alomst on his way to pick it up. I didn't do it on purpose.
Money counting mistakes are almost always in the counter's favor (when counter is dealiong with his own money).
Perhaps this narureal selfishness can be overcome by years of experience. I don't know.
I have never minded any association with Dave Bushing, but it might be a good thing for readers of posts that have a long string, especially one that both Dave Bushing and I have commented on, that references might include a last initial or just use last names..Grob or Bushing.
The way the sequencing of posts are done, Arron's response to Dave is a follow up (only by sequence and not by person or topic) to one I wrote.
1. In the event of an undisclosed conflict of interest (e.g., the buyer only learns of the conflict when he receives the item and the accompanying SCDA LOA), the buyer may return the item for any reason within 30 days.
This way if the buyer is uncomfortable over the undisclosed conflict of interest, he can return the item no questions asked.
2. Whether or not the conflict of interest is disclosed, if a mistake has occurred or the buyer has obtained third-party authentication contrary to SCDA findings, the buyer has one-year to return the item.
While it would be nice to have the lifetime guarantee Dave B. suggests, if the auction houses require a finite limit, then one-year gives the buyer ample time to obtain a second, third or even fourth opinion, without worry of authenticator or shipping delays.
Please know that anything I write here is just an opinion. I think the best policy would be:
1. As part of the service agreement to retain SCDA for auction support, the auction house must state in the item description that the item was authenticated and consigned by SCDA.
2. That upon receipt of this item, the winning bidder, has for the period of three years to ask for a refund of the final auction price if he can demonstrate that the objectivity of the evaluation was effected by the fact that the item was consigned by SCDA or that the item was improperly identified or represented. Any such claim can not be based on conjecture.
A bit about my reasoning..First, to place some of the responsibility on the auction house. Second, knowing what the consignment relationship was prior to bidding, will keep the buyer from having a "free out" in the event that his only justification is "buyers remorse." This protects the consigner.
The time standard I throw out is based off what I believe LeLand's offers. I think three years is fair and resonable for a couple of reasons. It gives the person ample time to do additional research and meets the longest time standard offered to date in the hobby.
The only note I would add is to part two: the buyer should be able to return the item by offering a contrary finding from another qualified authenticator, whether or not the SCDA authenticator was financially motivated in making the mistake.
Basically, it would be motive free. If the SCDA authenticator made a mistake, then the buyer has three years from receipt of the item to return it.
Mr. Bushing.
Why didnt you just sell the jersey on your own??? Why did you need an auction house??? Wouldnt a jersey owned and sold by you be sufficient proof of legitimacy??? Im just curious why you needed an auction house, your name has always been considered good enuff for me, sincerely, Jeff
Dave G., I like your policy a great deal, particular the first proviso. Disclosure, to me, is the crux of the matter. I am still waiting to hear someone articulate a LEGITIMATE reason why authenticator interest cannot be disclosed IN THE AUCTION DESCRIPTION.
Up front, this post is not about any one auction house or group of authenticators or individual. It is a general observation based on my personal opinions and is provided to faciliate discussion.
I think most would agree that the price realized on any item is determined by three factors:
1. The quality of the item.
2. Number of bidders who actually want or can afford the item.
3. Faith in the process or organization.
For #1: Since disclosure of the consigner really has nothing to do with the material quality of the item, I don't see that as being an issue. By that I mean it is either what it is or it isn't. This is much the same for provinance, it can only make something better, it can't make it something it is not on a stand alone basis.
For #2: This is not likely to be an issue, especially when it comes to high end items and affordability
For #3. I can only assume that a policy designed to restore faith in the process would only help prices realized.
Please know I am not offering any justification for why an auction house should not want to implement this policy, I think they should. Rather simply provide somthing that may be part of their larger thought process. The issue for an auction house may revolve around the concept that if they are compelled to disclosue one type of consigner, does this open the door for their having to disclose all others? For them to do this, this would include in house lots. In addition, what about consigners with no affliation to the auction house or process. There are any number of reasons why someone would wish this remain private:
1. Personal Preference
2. Items forced to go to auction because of situation they would not want to draw attention to (death, divorce, illness or some other personal tragedy).
3. Not wanting the general public to know the holding(s) of their collections.
I don't think anyone cares as a general matter about who a consignor is. If an item was independently authenticated, then it is irrelevant. They only care if that consignor is also the authenticator of the item because then it becomes a material factor in the decision whether the item is trustworthy. I don't see any broader implications of a policy that says, if you are consigning an item to us and the auction is based on your authentication, we are going to disclose that in the auction description, not when you get the paperwork with your item after you have paid for it. Robert Edwards Auctions has agreed to do it. Maybe I am missing a legitimate reason still, but I stated in my earlier post that it was a fair inference that the reason it isn't done is it would bring lower prices and I continue to think that is a fair inference until proven otherwise.
