I'm new to this forum so pardon me if this was already discussed. Lately, I've been seeing many questionable COAs/LOAs issued by formerly respected authenticators, namely Lou Lampson and Dave Bushing (and PSA/DNA for autographs). My question is, at what point does a COA/LOA from a respected industry source become obsolete? I've noticed in the latest American Memorabilia auction that there are a few questionable Cal Ripken gamers with LOAs from Lou Lampson/100% Authentic. It's my firm opinion that in many cases, the Lou Lampsons of the world do not actually look over the material that comes in themselves (not all of it, at least). Rather, they have associates and others who may not be skilled in the art of detecting game worn forgeries. They then put it on an LOA seemingly issued by Lou but not actually looked at by him. This is just my opinion and I have no clue if this actually happens or not, but it's what I think. I have been skeptical of the COA for awhile which is one of the main reasons I have begun to start dealing with the likes of Rob Steinmetz, Jim Yackel and SCGaynors of the world. It's not that I don't trust other sources, but I feel safer taking the alternate route, especially when it seems these people have the collector's interest at heart. Let me know what you think, I've very interested to hear about the pratices regarding COAs/LOAs and why many questionable items are automatically being authenticated as real.
Do your own research. Ask your own questions. Count your own losses. Never spend outside of your budget. "Letters of Authenticity" sell for two and a half cents at Kinko's...
First and formost, welcome to the site..Second, you are off to a great start in that you question the process...This is healthy for the collector, the authenticator and the hobby at large.
I don't think that anyone who is serious about athenticating game used memorbillia (or any other commodity) would just "hack off on someone's say so if they expected to be around very long. First, they would be accepting great risk in letting the other guy being wrong at their expense; second, there is no defensable position for this since the "coin of the realm" is credibility. The authenticator would be left with two choices, neither is good:
1. Taking the error as his own..It does happen (I mean errors, not proxy work) but how many times would he be willing to under write someone elses error.
2. Saying he just signs the letters.
This has been one of the most dicussed topics in any number of threads and positions..If you have not done so, take some time to go back and read some of the other posts..
The only thing I would offer, is that if you do not have reasonably verifiable information that any one individual(s) practices what you suggest, it may not be fair to tie their name(s) to an example simply for the purposes of illustration.
Dave,
Thanks a lot. I have been reading over the older posts the past few days. Sorry about using Lou's name in connection with the example, I doubt he practices this, and should have used a fake name in the example. You seem to be one of the foremost authorities on here about authenticating gamers so I'd like to ask you: Why does it seem many items, particularly those in the American Memorabilia auction (the Ripken gamers come to mind) are being authenticated as real when people are having many doubts about them? Thanks a lot for your help!
I would like to say I think you are wise for asking questions and the fact that you have come across this site is a blessing most of us wish we had when we first started collecting.
As far as the coa/loa, I will tell you what I believe I heard from Jim Yackel at one point. You aren't buying the coa/loa you are buying the item. So many collectors go wrong at this point, and wind up buying the coa/loa. I know I have, in fact, in one or two cases gone wrong and purchased an item(s) people (in fact one was mentioned) that I think were errors in judgement. My mistakes mainly come from getting too excited about an item and not having the necessary time to do the research. I need to plan ahead, more often.
Amazing, when we were in school, we hated doing our homework and tried everything to get out of it. The success students tried to do their homework to the best of their ability. I guess the more things change the more they stay the same.
Thanks for kind words..I would like to address your question in broader context that just any one auction house or one authenticator. Your comment about why are there so many problems or questions with items comes from a combination of factors, some actually good. Let's start with the good news first.
Collectors are becoming more educated, developing a healthy sense of skepticism (I am poor speller and we have no spell check on this site). In addition, there is more information avaiable by volume and source. Think about the value of internet photo archives for one. This enables more folks to ask questions. Venues such as this forum allow for the exchange of ideas or discussion as well. 5 years ago much of the same process took place, only it was restricted to looking at a paper auction cataloge and calling or talking with a buddy. This leveraging of technology only makes the process easier.
Now for some of the bad reasons. If you notice, most of the items people have questions on are post 1987 items. I point to this time as a watermark in the hobby. There was a true realization that player worn uniforms had value. This value was recognized by players, uniform manufacturers and a whole new generation of collectors. What this has led to is a surge in product on the market. Fans have always wanted jerseys they could wear to show support for their team or favorite player..now those shirts are almost indistinguishable from what the player is wearing.
Next a bit about authenticators. This influx of product has created the need to work from established data bases that can be searched and referenced. Long gone are the days when you could work from memory. New aspects of customization are now the norm. I have built one over the years for baseball uniforms. SCDA has since adopted this practice as they recognized the value. I think that anyone else working in this line, has to do the same, especially since their work is subject to a new level of scruntiy that did not exsist 5 years ago.
I hope this answers some of your question, if not at least gives you some things to think about..
