Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

[hblakewolf]

Forum Readers-

The following information was puled from the recent Grey Flannel auction catalog. It is listed with the bidder information, and I have noted a very interesting line in red......

Our many years of experience have led us to choose all of the above experts. We believe they are the very best that exist. There is very little science to authenticating in this hobby, mostly opinion. If you disagree, we warmly invite you to make arrangements to have your authenticator come inspect any and all items you are interested in before the auction. Once you buy the item you own it. No returns, every lot is sold "As Is".
http://www.greyflannelauctions.com/images/RichieSig.jpg
Richard Russek President

I'm extremely curious to know the thoughts of other experienced collectors and dealers about authenticating, and if the general thought is that authenticating game worn uniforms, bats, shoes and equipment is just an "opinion"?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

[kingjammy24]

russek may have many years of experience in this hobby but based on his statement it seems he has little in any scientific endeavor. i disagree with his statement and "inviting my own authenticator to inspect their items" is non sequitur to the issue of whether it's a science or not. whether it's a science wholly depends on what qualifies as science.

i suspect that russek equates science solely to a tautology like mathematics. fortunately, the truth is that science isn't nearly so limited. without getting caught up in the debatable semantics of "science", i think it's obvious that it's inherantly impossible for authenticating to be a hard science like physics or chemistry. (perhaps that will change one day in the future when we're all able to conduct dna analysis on jerseys and conclusively date textiles to within a month of their creation).

as it stands now however, i think there's substantially more science in authenticating than alluded to by russek. at it's basic level, science is inherantly the observation of factual occurances, subjected to unbiased, rigorous, reason-based analysis, and then systematized into laws and principles. if you agree with this, then there's a good amount of "science" in authenticating. it's best illustrated with an example: having never seen a rawlings or russell logo on a jays jersey in 1989, i hypothesized that they most likely were exclusively supplied by wilson. i then collected hundreds of photographs of jays jerseys and found them all to be wilson brand. in my search, i could not find a single photograph of any other brand used. i spoke with jay's personel and they confirmed that wilson was the sole manufacturer in 1989. while acknowledging the
possibility that a jays player may have used a brand other than wilson during the 1989 season, i concluded that the jays were exclusively supplied by wilson in 1989 and use this general principle as a guide in authenticating all 1989 jays jerseys. it's not merely my "opinion" that they solely used wilson, it's as scientific a fact as is possible. (remember, science doesn't require that a law or principle be unable to be disproven.) if russek doesn't understand this to be science or doesn't authenticate in this manner, then i guess that speaks for itself.

one of the best examples i've seen of science in authenticating is the analysis of pujols bats provided by jeff scott. the guy has taped literally every single pujols at-bat and then uses this empirical evidence to drive his analysis and subsequent principles of pujol's bat usage. how is that not science? calling jeff's statement that pujols has never used cooper bats, for example, merely an "opinion with little science behind it" is a staggering display of ignorance. perhaps russek does not study hundreds of hours of videotape like jeff scott does. this doesn't indicate a lack of "science" in authenticating in general, but rather a lack of science in russek's approach.

like anything in life, you can go about authenticating the right way and the wrong way. you can be diligent and rigorous in your analysis or you can be sloppy. gfc once wrote a letter on a rangers arod jersey and wrote that it was "game worn". after contacting meigray i came to find out it was sold as game-issued. gfc could have contacted meigray as easily as i did. this is what i'd call being sloppy. after seeing the sort of authenticating gfc does, i would conclude there's very little science to it. however, simply because gfc authenticates this way is no indication that that's what authenticating is or should be.

there's a good amount of science to the collection of facts and details in this hobby. (at least there should be. receiving a 2003 rangers jersey and not calling meigray indicates you're beyond inept and woefully negligent). unlike bat authenticators, jersey authenticators have no official records to refer to. as such, they've got to gather as much factual data as possible regarding the manufacturer, style, player, etc. furthermore, the unbiased, rigorous, reason-based analysis of what these facts mean and how they relate to each other is inherantly a scientific approach.

the "opinion" that russek speaks of should only come in in tying all of the factual pieces together for a final, general conclusion. forming an opinion in this way and from those sources is hardly unscientific though. if someone doesn't think scientists use reason and logic to form an opinion and arrive at a conclusion based on their analysis then i'd offer that they're sadly misinformed.

at the end of the day, in any science, the fact is that opinions can either be informed and heavily substantiated or ill-informed and poorly devised. the difference between having the former and the latter is often due to how much "science" you've engaged in. if russek is saying that he engages in very little and his authentications are "mostly opinion", then i have little doubt as to the reason for his "as is, no return" policy.


rudy.

[trsent]

Forum Readers-

The following information was puled from the recent Grey Flannel auction catalog. It is listed with the bidder information, and I have noted a very interesting line in red......

Our many years of experience have led us to choose all of the above experts. We believe they are the very best that exist. There is very little science to authenticating in this hobby, mostly opinion. If you disagree, we warmly invite you to make arrangements to have your authenticator come inspect any and all items you are interested in before the auction. Once you buy the item you own it. No returns, every lot is sold "As Is".
http://www.greyflannelauctions.com/images/RichieSig.jpg
Richard Russek President

I'm extremely curious to know the thoughts of other experienced collectors and dealers about authenticating, and if the general thought is that authenticating game worn uniforms, bats, shoes and equipment is just an "opinion"?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

MEARS grading, Grey Flannel LOA, PSA/DNA LOA, PSA trading card grading - All just an opinion. At least Richie is opening the doors for people to inspect the merchandise before bidding.

I believe this invitation is based on larger dollar items, as who would fly in to inspect a $500.00 jersey?

At least he is being up front with their policy.

[both-teams-played-hard]

There is very little science.
The Doctor stayed in his lab way past midnite. He knew that the New York Mets didn't start using batting practice jerseys until 1981. However, he could not be denied...
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4632/madscientist3lj2.jpg
HE BLINDED ME WITH SCIENCE...

[trsent]

Poetry in Motion?

[BarryMeisel]

Hi everyone,

MeiGray believes there is a vast amount of science involved with authenticating.

Science is commonly defined as:

1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
2.Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

When facts are professionally recorded by dealers, and objectively (and completely) communicated to collectors, and when truths are told based on information from named sources (regardless of whether they are impeccable), authenticating is not that difficult.

It is only when facts are ignored or fudged, and when objectivity is not properly maintained, that authentication becomes problematic.

MeiGray believes that a dealer selling game-worn items should create a system, possess systematic knowledge, and share its observations with its clients. That's what we do at MeiGray.

Are there circumstances where facts are unknown, or where authenticating is difficult? Most definitely. At MeiGray, that's when we believe our responsibility is to say, "We don't know." Or "these are the questions we have that we cannot answer."

We believe there is nothing wrong with being unable to definitely authenticate an item. We believe it is preferable to making believe we are experts on everything, and deliberately or inadvertently misleading collectors, or creating systems that confuse, or raise more questions than they answer.

That is why we authenticate far fewer items that most authenticators, but have a much, much higher batting average for being correct.

Regards,

Barry

[hblakewolf]

Barry-
Thanks for taking a few minutes to share your view and thoughts.

What a welcome pleasure to read a well articulated post, laced with factual information.

For those of us familiar with the MeiGray system, one can conclude that your authenticating of the jerseys you offer that are purchased directly from the teams (i.e, Rangers, Mavs, etc.) is second to none. It's my understanding that you demand the various teams to maintain accurate records of the jersey inventory, record when the shirts are worn, and insist that all jerseys have the MeiGray inventory patch sewn in. When a "Meigray" jersey is purchased by a collector, they can rest easy knowing that they have a legitimate gamer. One can conclude that the jersey is genuine based on the above FACTUAL INFORMATION, as opposed to just receiving a standard LOA such as those from Grey Flannel that conclude with a boiler plate line about the "impeccable source".

On a side note, if a collector attends a Phillies game that happens to have a "Shirt Off My Back Promotion", and is aware they have won Ryan Howard's jersey, is the following "Opinion" or "Fact"? This collector video tapes Howard coming off the field at the conclusion of the game in the 9th inning. The collector keeps the camera rolling while his son makes his way to the field to meet Howard and get the shirt. The son meets Howard and then removes the jersey off his back, signs it, and a MLB hologram is added to the tail. There is little doubt that the young man has a legit, game worn Howard jersey, and it can be proven through the hologram and video. As such, let's re-examing Richie Russek's statement, "There is very little science to authenticating in this hobby, mostly opinion". Based upon the Howard example, and the Meigray system, it appears there is a bit more to authenticating than just an "opinion".

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net


Hi everyone,

MeiGray believes there is a vast amount of science involved with authenticating.

Science is commonly defined as:

1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.
2.Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

When facts are professionally recorded by dealers, and objectively (and completely) communicated to collectors, and when truths are told based on information from named sources (regardless of whether they are impeccable), authenticating is not that difficult.

It is only when facts are ignored or fudged, and when objectivity is not properly maintained, that authentication becomes problematic.

MeiGray believes that a dealer selling game-worn items should create a system, possess systematic knowledge, and share its observations with its clients. That's what we do at MeiGray.

Are there circumstances where facts are unknown, or where authenticating is difficult? Most definitely. At MeiGray, that's when we believe our responsibility is to say, "We don't know." Or "these are the questions we have that we cannot answer."

We believe there is nothing wrong with being unable to definitely authenticate an item. We believe it is preferable to making believe we are experts on everything, and deliberately or inadvertently misleading collectors, or creating systems that confuse, or raise more questions than they answer.

That is why we authenticate far fewer items that most authenticators, but have a much, much higher batting average for being correct.

Regards,

Barry[/quote]

[trsent]

***CONTENT REMOVED***

Really, Howard, what is your point?

Barry has a great system, but he has contracts with the teams. Does that mean every jersey he has is genuine? I'd assume so, but unless you get the jersey off the player's back after a game before they jump in the shower, how do you really ever know that your Phillies jerseys are all good or Mark's O's jerseys are all really good?

You have an opinion that they are good (which they probably are) that they are genuine, but that is all it will ever be - An opinion. You may have used your own "science" to determine that they are game used, but it all comes to being an opinion.

Anything else?

[ChrisCavalier]

***Joel's comment removed***
Joel,

This comment seems to be completely unnecessary (not to mention a personal attack). Howard has asked a legitimate question which has been validated by thoughtful responses by knowledgeable people in the industry. Personally, I don't see why you feel the need to disrupt thoughtful dialogue in an attempt to discredit the original poster and turn it into something personal.

Eric, please let me know if you feel differently but I would ask that this thread not be allowed to denigrate into a personal debate and that it stay focused on the original question that has the potential to help the collecting community.

Sincerely,
Chris

[Eric]

Chris

I totally agree. I am tired of threads going from thoughtful discourse to the same personal issues.

Too many threads become negative slugfests. Let's remember why we're here- to share information and to discuss the hobby we enjoy.

Eric

[trsent]

Chris

I totally agree. I am tired of threads going from thoughtful discourse to the same personal issues.

Too many threads become negative slugfests. Let's remember why we're here- to share information and to discuss the hobby we enjoy.

Eric

Eric, I'll email you privatley about this if you do not wish me to publish this on the forum.

[trsent]

Joel,

This comment seems to be completely unnecessary (not to mention a personal attack). Howard has asked a legitimate question which has been validated by thoughtful responses by knowledgeable people in the industry. Personally, I don't see why you feel the need to disrupt thoughtful dialogue in an attempt to discredit the original poster and turn it into something personal.

Eric, please let me know if you feel differently but I would ask that this thread not be allowed to denigrate into a personal debate and that it stay focused on the original question that has the potential to help the collecting community.

Sincerely,
Chris

Chris, to help this debate from another prespective, I would like to ask you personally to ask Ritchie at Grey Flannel to give you a reply that you can post. As the owner of the forum, hopefully he'll give you his views since it is known that Ritchie will not post on this forum because of personal reasons.

You can reach him at: gfcsports@aol.com

[hblakewolf]

Chris/Eric-
Please reference my original post. As you note, it was a "legitimate" question that had some very well articulated responses. Hearing from Barry Meisel is always informative, and in this case (from the feedback I receive), further demonstrates why the hobby would love to have an outfit like MeiGray take control of selling EVERY MLB/NHL/NFL's equipment. I can't remember the last time there was a post here on the Forum that referenced an item as being "suspect" or completely "fake" that was associated with MeiGray. The same simply can't be said for the other outfits.

If you continue to allow fellow Forum readers to attack those of us who try to post informative informaiton, you can rest assured that the new information and posts will be limited or cease from those who have posted here in the past.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net


Joel,

This comment seems to be completely unnecessary (not to mention a personal attack). Howard has asked a legitimate question which has been validated by thoughtful responses by knowledgeable people in the industry. Personally, I don't see why you feel the need to disrupt thoughtful dialogue in an attempt to discredit the original poster and turn it into something personal.

Eric, please let me know if you feel differently but I would ask that this thread not be allowed to denigrate into a personal debate and that it stay focused on the original question that has the potential to help the collecting community.

Sincerely,
Chris

[trsent]

If you continue to allow fellow Forum readers to attack those of us who try to post informative informaiton, you can rest assured that the new information and posts will be limited or cease from those who have posted here in the past.

Howard, are you asking that the forum be run like a dictatorship where comments that are not always the way you or the forum owner/moderator sees the world to be should be edited?

That wouldn't be a forum, it would be an advertisement, a one-way street.

Debate is good, it makes the world go around.

[Eric]

If you continue to allow fellow Forum readers to attack those of us who try to post informative informaiton, you can rest assured that the new information and posts will be limited or cease from those who have posted here in the past.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

Howard-

I'm confused here. Chris and I are constantly fighting the fight to keep people from attacking others and keep the threads informational. If you're suggesting otherwise, the fact that Joel's comment was edited out quickly proves my point.

I completely agree with you on your overall concept. Every forum member- including vets like you, administrators like chris and I- or anyone should refrain from the personal attacks the make informative threads like this one take the wrong path. You did nothing wrong by bringing up this topic. It's a great question "Is authentication science or opinion?" It's one we should be debating.

I'm glad you have voiced your opinion on keeping fighitng on the board to a minimum. I'll hope to count on you to assist us to keep threads on topic and informational.
Eric

[hblakewolf]

Eric-
Sorry for the confusion. You do a great job-I'm just tired of ***PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED***

A previous post asked you to contact Richie Russek at Grey Flannel to make a post here. I think this is a great idea, and should be taken one step further.

How about a Q & A session with some of the various "Industry Leaders" or auction houses? We could arrange for the subject to log on at a certain time, and we could have a live Q & A. In this case, for example, Richie could possibly address questions about previous items that Forum readers have questioned. I know I would love to learn how he identified and listed a recent Phillies hat on his site that dated from 1990 as being worn by Mike Schmidt in 1980, when in fact the brand and style was not worn until 1990!

Maybe even Lou Lampson could spare a few minutes and call from his remote dwelling. We could possibly gain some amazing insight as to his method(s) of researching equipment.

Please consider taking this to the next level and arranging for a live weekly Q & A session.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net


Howard-

I'm confused here. Chris and I are constantly fighting the fight to keep people from attacking others and keep the threads informational. If you're suggesting otherwise, the fact that Joel's comment was edited out quickly proves my point.

I completely agree with you on your overall concept. Every forum member- including vets like you, administrators like chris and I- or anyone should refrain from the personal attacks the make informative threads like this one take the wrong path. You did nothing wrong by bringing up this topic. It's a great question "Is authentication science or opinion?" It's one we should be debating.

I'm glad you have voiced your opinion on keeping fighitng on the board to a minimum. I'll hope to count on you to assist us to keep threads on topic and informational.
Eric[/quote]

[Eric]

Howard-

I had to remove a personal attack from your last post. I thought we just agreed not to do that and to keep the threads informational and not make things personal?

You just did what you complained about.

Eric

[hblakewolf]

Eric-
I am sorry if I made an error, however, I made no mention of any Forum reader(s) by name. :(

What are your thoughts on my suggestion for a live Q & A?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

Howard-

I had to remove a personal attack from your last post. I thought we just agreed not to do that and to keep the threads informational and not make things personal?

You just did what you complained about.

Eric[/quote]

[Eric]

I think it's a fantastic idea. Chris and I were talking about an idea like that when we formed our alliance.

A first step might be to get someone willing to do it. We collect questions from everyone, then submit it to the guest and get the response.

I would like to get a few of those under our belt first. What do you think?

Perhaps we should start a thread where we talk about who we as a forum would like to interview.

Thanks
Eric

[ChrisCavalier]

Howard, are you asking that the forum be run like a dictatorship where comments that are not always the way you or the forum owner/moderator sees the world to be should be edited?

That wouldn't be a forum, it would be an advertisement, a one-way street.

Debate is good, it makes the world go around.
Just for the record, and to bring some closure to the side-issue here, there is nothing wrong with differing opinions. In fact, I think we do a very good job allowing them. The point here is that this forum will not allow personal attacks in an attempt to persuade others to reject the opinion of any poster.

Here is rule #17 in our forum rules:

It is expected that all posts are to be created with a sincere attempt to benefit the hobby. Any posts which the Administrator deems as a personal attack or an attempt to unnecessarily discredit others will be subject to the administrative rules of the forum.

This rule is intended to let everyone know the spirit in which we share information on this forum. Contrary to the opinion of some, this is not a site predominated by negativity. In fact, I don't know of many other sites that are helping the game used collecting community the way we are. I also find it interesting that the ones making those claims often, in the next breath, produce comments about the forum that are, in themselves, loaded with unjustified negativity. It kind of reminds me of the proverbial person who says "I dislike people who dislike people."

As for this forum, if you care to know its intentions simply re-read the first part of rule #17 above.

Sincerely,
Chris

[trsent]

Dave Grob posted a long post over this topic on the MEARS forum...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1158684101/The+%26quot%3BScience%26quot%3B+of+Authenticating

Phillie’s Collector Howard Wolf raised an interesting issue recently with respect to an assertion that was made (not by him) that “there is very little science to authenticating in this hobby, mostly opinion.” I would tend to agree with this statement but not in the manner that you might think. My take is that, by and large, this has been a true statement and lies at the heart of many of the problems facing this segment of the hobby/industry.

From where I sit, science should be at the heart of evaluations when you consider the steps in the Scientific Method that we all had to memorize back in school and walk our way through during any number of painful “science fairs.”

To help illustrate my point, consider applying the five steps with a hobby/industry context.

1. State or Identify the Issue or the Problem. At face value, this means is the item I have been asked to offer an opinion on what it is being represented to be.

2. Form an educated guess (hypothesis) of the cause of the problem and make predictions based upon the hypothesis. Here you begin by stating that if the jersey, bat, glove,etc…is what it is being represented to be, I should expect to find the following aspects present and in a certain manner. As I have stated before, the questions you establish should be as likely to prove as they do disprove what ever your going in position is.

3. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment or study. The word to focus is on is study. This means taking the time to go back through references and known exemplars that should serve as the basis of comparison. Here is where imagery analysis also comes into play. In the case of the Ruth bat I recently looked at, this involved using mensuration to obtain the location of where key pieces of data should appear on the bat in question. For the Clemente jersey, it involved seeing a number of things I should not have expected to see. The other thing that is scientific in nature, is that you can’t discard that information that seems to counter what you thought in your initial hypothesis.

4. Check and interpret your results. Think about this step as being a review of your notes, or in the case of MEARS, the information contained on the work-sheet.

5. Report your results to the scientific community. Substitute the word “scientific” for “collecting” and consider the report to be a Letter of Opinion.


There is a great deal of science involved as the better work done in this area is objective in nature and results are based on something tangible that can be evaluated by others. There are “real properties” involved such as size, material composition, manner of construction, the effects of outside forces (use, wear, aging), etc.

Experience is not a factor to be dismissed out of hand, but it has to be supported by something, especially when looking to explain anomalies and irregularities as they clearly exist.

I for one would like to see the industry become a bit more consistent and “scientific” if you will. The problem is there is no industry wide “forcing function” to even create a standardized vocabulary let alone standards in application. It is rather interesting that all this comes up at this time. My current article lists what I think would be valuable skills or classes that should be part of any “authenticators” school or certification program. Some of them include:

Computer Applications
Research Methods
Critical Thinking, and Reasoning
Imagery Analysis
Building a Research Library

Another thing I pointed out in the article, is that we at MEARS should take a look at the suggested classes and continue individually and collectively with our own education and professional development in these areas as well.

A bit longer than a usual Board Post, but for me… I vote for science.

Dave Grob

------------------------

As an FYI to my family on the Game Used Forum, not everything supports my comments that I reprint. I do believe there is some confusion, I believe the debate has gone from if authentication is an opinion or a science.

There is some acts of science in everything we do every day in our lives. Research doesn't mean that an opinion make the item 100% legitimate without question. We all do our homework, but certifications and letters of authenticity and even professional coin and card grading is all, in the end, an opinion.

[ChrisCavalier]

I think it's a fantastic idea. Chris and I were talking about an idea like that when we formed our alliance.

A first step might be to get someone willing to do it. We collect questions from everyone, then submit it to the guest and get the response.

I would like to get a few of those under our belt first. What do you think?

Perhaps we should start a thread where we talk about who we as a forum would like to interview.
I think this is a fantastic idea and agree with Eric that we will need to find someone willing to be "interviewed". Under the format Eric suggests, I don't see why someone wouldn't mind answering questions we posed to them in advance. Maybe we can start with that format and see where it can go from there.

In fact, maybe we can start a separate thread so this one can continue the question that was initially posed. To that extent, I apologize if my posts contributed to temporarily "hijacking" the thread. Ironically, I made my initial post in the hopes that I would prevent the thread from deviating from the initial question. Once again, my apologizes.

Sincerely,
Chris

[kingjammy24]

"I believe the debate has gone from if authentication is an opinion or a science"

why is there this implication that the two are mutually exclusive? they're not. much of science is an opinion as it recognizes that it's rarely 100% certain. (why do you think doctor's often refer patients for a second opinion?) many even feel that an inherant part of science is the acknowledgment that results may be disproven. science is not a euphemism for "irrefutable".

the real issue is russek's original statement that there's "little science" in this hobby. both barry meisel and dave grob made excellent cases showing there is indeed a good deal of science.

"We all do our homework.."

if homework equates to "science", then it seems some of us do more than others. apparently, according to his own words, richie does little.

"certifications and letters of authenticity and even professional coin and card grading is all, in the end, an opinion."

again, much of science IS an opinion. when a doctor tells informs someone they have cancer, you're aware that that's an opinion? it's an opinion based heavily on science but an opinion nonetheless because at the end of the day the doctor's interpretation of all of the data may be incorrect and the person may actually not have cancer.

again, you can base your opinion on "very little science" or you can base it on a lot of science, as barry and dave grob have

[trsent]

"I believe the debate has gone from if authentication is an opinion or a science"

why is there this implication that the two are mutually exclusive? they're not. much of science is an opinion as it recognizes that it's rarely 100% certain. (why do you think doctor's often refer patients for a second opinion?) many even feel that an inherant part of science is the acknowledgment that results may be disproven. science is not a euphemism for "irrefutable".

the real issue is russek's original statement that there's "little science" in this hobby. both barry meisel and dave grob made excellent cases showing there is indeed a good deal of science.

"We all do our homework.."

if homework equates to "science", then it seems some of us do more than others. apparently, according to his own words, richie does little.

"certifications and letters of authenticity and even professional coin and card grading is all, in the end, an opinion."

again, much of science IS an opinion. when a doctor tells informs someone they have cancer, you're aware that that's an opinion? it's an opinion based heavily on science but an opinion nonetheless because at the end of the day the doctor's interpretation of all of the data may be incorrect and the person may actually not have cancer.

again, you can base your opinion on "very little science" or you can base it on a lot of science, as barry and dave grob have

So, we can end this debate right here.

Ritchie's statement in his auction catalog makes it appear that he doesn't research his merchandise. I know he does, but I also know like all authenticators, he can miss something in the process.

Sure, MEARS has an amazing system and from my understanding Ritchie does not have such a system in place.

In the end, they both authenticate and they generally are correct. I guess the issue here is how Ritchie will address an issue when a genuine error is found after the fact. If this is the case, it is too bad Ritchie does not participate in the forum, because I bet he will stand behind his merchandise in the rare situation that an error is found after the fact.

The other point: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

Yes, but some opinions use more scientific work to make their opinion.