ethical issues

[zonker]

wondering what you guy's think of these question's about a certain scenerio? the scenario is: 1) i have a jersey that was handed to me by a player after a game while leaving the court. the jersey has no letter,but i know it was game used and proper in every way, but want it authenticated anyway's as i need it in case of resale as they seem to sale faster and for more with authentication. 2) my friend see's the same exact jersey at a retail store with same tagging, but the lettering is in the wrong spot/size etc. and buy's it. 3) we want to send both jersey into an authentication service to try and see if we can get a letter on them? 4) the player is a high profile player and authentication fee is $450. my question's are: do you think that it's right for the service to accept and write letter's on both jersey's and they receive the same grade? Q2: do you think it's right for the service to do this "knowing" 1) that 1 is definately a store bought/retail model and they know "for sure" it was never even close to seeing the team or player? Q3: do you think that both item's because of the letter hold the same value? Q4: do you think it's unethical that the service takes the money and write's letter's on both item's "knowing" the above, befor hand. would love to hear your thought's on this!

[skipcarayislegend]

do you think that it's right for the service to accept and write letter's on both jersey's and they receive the same grade? Q2: do you think it's right for the service to do this "knowing" 1) that 1 is definately a store bought/retail model and they know "for sure" it was never even close to seeing the team or player? Q3: do you think that both item's because of the letter hold the same value?

So your "friend" bought a shirt he knows is retail and wants to get a COA stating it's game used? If so, how is that not unethical? Why even bother entertaining such an idea? It's totally dishonest if I'm understanding everything correctly, and completely baffling why anyone would ponder such an idea in public. Further, it sounds like you're already trying to blame the authenticator for willingly playing along. That's like stealing a box of candy and blaming the store for not keeping a closer eye on you.


Q4: do you think it's unethical that the service takes the money and write's letter's on both item's "knowing" the above, befor hand. would love to hear your thought's on this!

So you're planning on letting the authenticator in on the scheme, I'm guessing. In case you're not, it's highly unethical for a person to knowingly send in a retail shirt hoping to get an LOA out of it. If your "friend" is seriously considering dropping $450 in exchange for a COA, how does he expect to recoup his cost for this harmless experiment? I wonder.

So who's the player in question? How about sharing photos of your jersey? Don't you think it would be fair to let everyone else in on the plan? It's not like your "friend" is out to rip anyone off. It's all about teaching authenticators a lesson or two about ethics, right?

[zonker]

1st it's not a scheme,but a scenario that has happened many times in the past. that's the point. what's the differance in somebody doing this and trying to sell it for big money? and the authenticator writing a letter on something like this for big money? i personnaly think it is very dishonest! i'm not trying to blame the authenticator of playing along, but starting this practice in the 1st place. my question was basicly if the authenticator knew what he was looking at and admitted that he knew for certain that the jersey was never issued to the team or player and was properly tagged on the lower hem,but lacked proper letter placement, size,arch and lacked additional interior tagging etc. yet he writes a letter and give's the same grade as an authentic post 1987 gamer without provenance. yes it's all about teaching authenticator's a lesson or 2 in ethic's. for discussion sake. let's say it's a jordan. he moves very easy and command's alot of money. should these authenticator's be allowed to continue to write letter's on these jersey? many people will shell out big money, just because of these letter's on there own!

[CollectGU]

Answer to question #2 and #4, It's not right for the service to do this knowingly...Did this scenario already happen?

[zonker]

i have also seen jersey's that passed authentication from this service that recieved an A5. that was bought at auction, but when it arrived and they could actually read the letter. they admitted right on the L.O.O. that they have never seen another jersey from that player or any other player from that team ever tagged in that manner, but claimed other team's were tagged that way so it passed? so where it say's tagged properly: yes and states compared to other knowm examples: yes no deduction's at all. who would by a game used with a A1 rating? no-one! this being the case. this person called the authenticator to complaind and get an explaination or use the buy-back program for there loss. instead they double talked and re-issued another letter and changed there whole data base to include this jersey, instead of honoring there program. there just seem's to be a double standard within this service.

[joelsabi]

wondering what you guy's think of these question's about a certain scenerio? the scenario is: 1) i have a jersey that was handed to me by a player after a game while leaving the court. the jersey has no letter,but i know it was game used and proper in every way, but want it authenticated anyway's as i need it in case of resale as they seem to sale faster and for more with authentication. 2) my friend see's the same exact jersey at a retail store with same tagging, but the lettering is in the wrong spot/size etc. and buy's it. 3) we want to send both jersey into an authentication service to try and see if we can get a letter on them? 4) the player is a high profile player and authentication fee is $450. my question's are: do you think that it's right for the service to accept and write letter's on both jersey's and they receive the same grade? Q2: do you think it's right for the service to do this "knowing" 1) that 1 is definately a store bought/retail model and they know "for sure" it was never even close to seeing the team or player? Q3: do you think that both item's because of the letter hold the same value? Q4: do you think it's unethical that the service takes the money and write's letter's on both item's "knowing" the above, befor hand. would love to hear your thought's on this!

i would never use a authentication service that grades any retail jersey period. any service that cannot differentiate a retail from a team issue should seriously look over their business practices and quality standards.

[zonker]

i agree , but they know the differance and still do it! it's the jersey's that already have these letter's that go to auction and sell for a bundle more because of the letter's. i think it's an abuse of trust more than anything. the original sender of these jerseys sent them in knowing/not knowing? for there expert opinions for a whopping fee and i feel they were taken advantage of and now the trail of bogus jersey's with these letter's have been jumping from auction house to auction hose. scooping up new victim's everytime. you can see them in nearly every auction now. i personnally think they should have been returned as "unable to authenticate" and marked so they couldn't be re-sent in the future for authentication. the fee's also should have been reversed. they leave the buyer of these jersey's when they find out that there jersey's aren't game used, much less issued to the player or team. the reality of being victimized by the L.O.O. it's hard to swallow a fee loss. even worse the loss of a much greater amount, by purchasing in an auction.

[zonker]

oh my! just reading some of my scribble. can someone please explain to me where the spell-check option is on here. my pecking is terrible. sorry about that guy's

[joelsabi]

i agree , but they know the differance and still do it! it's the jersey's that already have these letter's that go to auction and sell for a bundle more because of the letter's. i think it's an abuse of trust more than anything. the original sender of these jerseys sent them in knowing/not knowing? for there expert opinions for a whopping fee and i feel they were taken advantage of and now the trail of bogus jersey's with these letter's have been jumping from auction house to auction hose. scooping up new victim's everytime. you can see them in nearly every auction now. i personnally think they should have been returned as "unable to authenticate" and marked so they couldn't be re-sent in the future for authentication. the fee's also should have been reversed. they leave the buyer of these jersey's when they find out that there jersey's aren't game used, much less issued to the player or team. the reality of being victimized by the L.O.O. it's hard to swallow a fee loss. even worse the loss of a much greater amount, by purchasing in an auction.



my opinion is that retail jersey will not hold value over time, but then again the lowest end mercedes benz does hold some value just because because people who cannot afford the midlevel and high end mercedes benz still wants one. a certified pre-owned mercedez benz will always have buyers.

[zonker]

i agree. but you cant make something into what it's not unless your an authenticator! that's like you bidding in a barrett-jackson car auction online for what is represented as a "high-end mercedes" with all paperwork and work sheet's from the expert's in the field. if you buy it based on what it was represented as, even if you bought it at an incredible price or paid close to market value for the mercedes. you would be very happy. you pay for the item and it arrives and you can't wait to take her for a ride. well you get out there and there's a "yugo" sitting in the driveway with a mercedes emblem drawn on the hood. is that paperwork worth the differance in value you paid? or would you be pissed and feel like your trust was abused by some experts opinion on what the car was?

[David]

It depends what the letter actually states. It's hard to judge a letter you have not read. I remember a guy complaining loudly that JSA would write a LOA for a team signed baseball that clearly had clubhouse signatures, but when he actually read the contents of the letter it stated the ball had clubhouse signatures.

If the letter calls a retail jersey game used, it's wrong.

If the letter writer knows it's retail and says it's game used, that's not only unethical it may be illegal.

Sending in a retail jersey with the intention of getting a game used LOA is at least unethical-- unless its a genuine quality control test.

[David]

I should change my last line to-- "sending in a retail jersey you just bought as retail at the retail store..." There's nothing unethical or illegal about innocently sending in a retail jersey you don't know is a retail jersey.

[zonker]

i think some are missing the point? it shouldn't matter where, when or who sent these jersey's in. the point to the thread was once the jersey reached the authenticators. "the expert's" ethicly should they have refused to authenticate it when they admitted knowing these jersey's was sold at a retail level and the #'s letter's etc. were incorrectly placed, but a letter was issued for the jersey anyway. with the same rating as a legit jersey with the highest possible grade for a post 1987 without provenance. no deduction's were given.

[David]

Clearly a retail jersey from a store hanger and with distinct retail tagging/lettering/whatever should not be given the same authentication rating as a jersey that matches exactly what a MLB player would wear in game.

[zonker]

david, see thats the "unclear part" to these jersey's. that's where people are wrong. some of these properly tagged jersey's were sent to foot locker and ordered directly by U.D.A for signings by the athelete. the only differance to tell them from each other was the placement of the name on back,arch and interior tag. just so you know.

[David]

A UDA signing is something different.

Some MLB players have on occasion have worn jerseys with retail tags-- David Oriz, or example--, so there is some retail/pro overlapping.

Your original question was about a guy buying a jersey from a retail store and sending it in for a game used LOA. As the second poster commented, there is a clear ethics breach there.

[David]

A MEARS 5 for a modern jersey usually means there is no documentation or other solid evidence supporting that the player ever wore the jersey in a game or even ever wore it. If someone is buying MEARS 5s left and right because they're more affordable 'gamers' than those 10s (w/ accomanying team LOAs), I hope he understands what a 5 means. I'm assuming your scenario is about a Foot Locker jersey that got a 5 and not one that got a 10.

[zonker]

no, ok i guess the scenario has thrown some off. let's just forget that all together. it was fiction! i was more interested in how other's felt about this service issueing A5 rating's on jersey's they knew were never team issued or player issued. which is the same grade given to legit gamer's with no provenance. this seem's dishonest to me for them to receive that grade, because of the issue of the letter placement,arch was wromg etc.. no point's were deducted at all on these jersey's. they still received the a5 rating for game use and characteristic's.

[David]

I'm sure most board members understand and appreciate your point. I agree that giving an A5 grade to a jersey that is clearly only retail (bought directly from Foot Locker) could be deceiving to many collectors and bidders.