trsent
04-24-2006, 08:34 PM
Dave Grob made an interesting post over on the MEARS forum...
http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1145818151/I+Agree+with+Michael+O%27Keefe+on+This+One
------Copied Message------
I Agree with Michael O'Keefe on This One....
April 23 2006 at 1:49 PM Dave Grob (davegrob1@aol.com) Dave Grob (Login davegrob1 (http://www.network54.com/Profile/davegrob1))
Recently there was an article in the NY Daily News written by Mr. Michael O’Keefe dealing with a complaint filled by a Mr. Bill Daniels against Mastro’s and PSA/DNA. Issues in the case involve complaints about the condition of the product that was advertised versus what was actually delivered. Also at issue in this case, and I believe the greater concern to the hobby, is when the same person who has been retained to evaluate the item is the same person who consigned it and this is not made known.
While I have long held my belief that a person can do both, it must be done under strict set of conditions. Those being:
1. The bidder is afforded this information before hand that the lot was consigned by a person or organization involved in the evaluation process.
2. That if there are problems with the accuracy of the evaluation, that the person or organization rendering that opinion accept the financial responsibility for making things right.
As we all know, there are no industry wide standards or rules that address this. It does not have to be this way. Collectors are afforded both a passive and active means to address this.
The passive way is to forgo bidding in those auctions where this set of circumstances exists. My sensing is that this is not likely to happen for any number of reasons. Since you are reading this on MEARS On Line, then you know our position and are more likely to patronize the auction houses we work as this eleaveates this problem at least for the game used items we look at. Remember, in many cases, an auction house might only choose to send us the higher end item as a retail submission, but what about the rest of the work and the person doing it for them? In addition, what about those auction houses that do this work themselves and then consign “in house lots?”
The more active approach requires some effort beyond complaining about it to each other or in various on line forums. Beating the key board and beating your chest will accomplish very little in my opinion. If collectors are willing to spend less than 40 cents and 40 minutes as a collective body, then there is some hope.
What I am talking about and asking is that you take the time to write your Congressional Representative and ask them to consider sponsoring legislation to this effect. I am well aware of the level of cynicism that many have with this approach…all you have to do is consider that we as a nation are willing go around the world to fight wars in support of democracy, but in many cases are not willing to go a few blocks to vote.
To get this started and to keep you at under 40 minutes, first go to one of these links. Here you will be able to find out how to contact either your Representatives in either the House or the Senate. The House site is especially easy to use as you just need to type in your zip code.
www.house.gov (http://www.house.gov)
www.senate.gov (http://www.senate.gov)
Next, I would ask that you consider cutting and pasting this text into a Word Document, addressing it to the appropriate Member, affixing a 39 cent stamp to it and put it in the mail. (If this seems like it falls into the “too hard to do box, consider sending an e-mail to this effect as well.
Below is a suggested text for such a request.
Dave Grob
---------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable XXXX
Washington, DC
Dear XXX
The Sports Memorabilia Industry in America is a largely unregulated multi-million dollar a year business and is clearly part of interstate commerce. As it stands today, there are well over three dozen major auction houses operating in over sixteen states as well as in Canada.
One of the most pressing issues involves the concept of conflicts of interest as it relates to those occasions when a person offering an opinion on the item or “authenticating” it is also the same person who is consigning it to auction. There is nothing outside of the internal business practices of these organizations that compels them from making this relationship known prior to the sale or auction. With the exception of those very few organizations who now do this on a voluntary basis, this becomes very problematic for the potential bidder or buyer when there are problems after the fact, when it is determined that the item was incorrectly evaluated.
This same set of rules for disclosure should also be applied to those lots that are consigned by the same auction house that is running the auction. Many of these auctions feature automated on-line bidding that permits a bidder to set a “ceiling or maximize bid.” There is nothing that prohibits an auction house from bidding on their own items in an attempt to drive the price up in the end to the high bidder. What makes this worse, is that this is compounded by the fact the winning bidder must also a pay a “hammer fee” based on a percentage of the final sale price. In this case, the auction house is permitted to financially benefit twice from the same unethical business practice. While the bidder in all likelihood will never know for sure if this is going on, they should be afforded the opportunity to know if it is an “In House Lot.”
I would ask that you consider either sponsoring legislation or supporting it if it is introduced that would require this relationship to be made known to any potential bidder prior to the auction. Enacting such legislation would still enable individuals to conduct business in this medium, but with the public scrutiny and accountability that is sorely needed and critical to this form of public and interstate commerce.
Respectfully Yours,
Your Name and Contact Information
http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1145818151/I+Agree+with+Michael+O%27Keefe+on+This+One
------Copied Message------
I Agree with Michael O'Keefe on This One....
April 23 2006 at 1:49 PM Dave Grob (davegrob1@aol.com) Dave Grob (Login davegrob1 (http://www.network54.com/Profile/davegrob1))
Recently there was an article in the NY Daily News written by Mr. Michael O’Keefe dealing with a complaint filled by a Mr. Bill Daniels against Mastro’s and PSA/DNA. Issues in the case involve complaints about the condition of the product that was advertised versus what was actually delivered. Also at issue in this case, and I believe the greater concern to the hobby, is when the same person who has been retained to evaluate the item is the same person who consigned it and this is not made known.
While I have long held my belief that a person can do both, it must be done under strict set of conditions. Those being:
1. The bidder is afforded this information before hand that the lot was consigned by a person or organization involved in the evaluation process.
2. That if there are problems with the accuracy of the evaluation, that the person or organization rendering that opinion accept the financial responsibility for making things right.
As we all know, there are no industry wide standards or rules that address this. It does not have to be this way. Collectors are afforded both a passive and active means to address this.
The passive way is to forgo bidding in those auctions where this set of circumstances exists. My sensing is that this is not likely to happen for any number of reasons. Since you are reading this on MEARS On Line, then you know our position and are more likely to patronize the auction houses we work as this eleaveates this problem at least for the game used items we look at. Remember, in many cases, an auction house might only choose to send us the higher end item as a retail submission, but what about the rest of the work and the person doing it for them? In addition, what about those auction houses that do this work themselves and then consign “in house lots?”
The more active approach requires some effort beyond complaining about it to each other or in various on line forums. Beating the key board and beating your chest will accomplish very little in my opinion. If collectors are willing to spend less than 40 cents and 40 minutes as a collective body, then there is some hope.
What I am talking about and asking is that you take the time to write your Congressional Representative and ask them to consider sponsoring legislation to this effect. I am well aware of the level of cynicism that many have with this approach…all you have to do is consider that we as a nation are willing go around the world to fight wars in support of democracy, but in many cases are not willing to go a few blocks to vote.
To get this started and to keep you at under 40 minutes, first go to one of these links. Here you will be able to find out how to contact either your Representatives in either the House or the Senate. The House site is especially easy to use as you just need to type in your zip code.
www.house.gov (http://www.house.gov)
www.senate.gov (http://www.senate.gov)
Next, I would ask that you consider cutting and pasting this text into a Word Document, addressing it to the appropriate Member, affixing a 39 cent stamp to it and put it in the mail. (If this seems like it falls into the “too hard to do box, consider sending an e-mail to this effect as well.
Below is a suggested text for such a request.
Dave Grob
---------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable XXXX
Washington, DC
Dear XXX
The Sports Memorabilia Industry in America is a largely unregulated multi-million dollar a year business and is clearly part of interstate commerce. As it stands today, there are well over three dozen major auction houses operating in over sixteen states as well as in Canada.
One of the most pressing issues involves the concept of conflicts of interest as it relates to those occasions when a person offering an opinion on the item or “authenticating” it is also the same person who is consigning it to auction. There is nothing outside of the internal business practices of these organizations that compels them from making this relationship known prior to the sale or auction. With the exception of those very few organizations who now do this on a voluntary basis, this becomes very problematic for the potential bidder or buyer when there are problems after the fact, when it is determined that the item was incorrectly evaluated.
This same set of rules for disclosure should also be applied to those lots that are consigned by the same auction house that is running the auction. Many of these auctions feature automated on-line bidding that permits a bidder to set a “ceiling or maximize bid.” There is nothing that prohibits an auction house from bidding on their own items in an attempt to drive the price up in the end to the high bidder. What makes this worse, is that this is compounded by the fact the winning bidder must also a pay a “hammer fee” based on a percentage of the final sale price. In this case, the auction house is permitted to financially benefit twice from the same unethical business practice. While the bidder in all likelihood will never know for sure if this is going on, they should be afforded the opportunity to know if it is an “In House Lot.”
I would ask that you consider either sponsoring legislation or supporting it if it is introduced that would require this relationship to be made known to any potential bidder prior to the auction. Enacting such legislation would still enable individuals to conduct business in this medium, but with the public scrutiny and accountability that is sorely needed and critical to this form of public and interstate commerce.
Respectfully Yours,
Your Name and Contact Information