VA's 2006 Dodgers Garciaparra NOB?

[TNTtoys]

however, I bet a bag of game used baseballs that he has some sort of goobly gop safe guard language in his LOA/COA's that in his opinion or such that safeguards him from lawsuits.

Funny you should mention language. I have noticed a growing trend in this hobby of "certificates of authenticity" morphing into "letters of opinion." Hence the authenticator is no longer willing to categorically state that an item is authentic any longer, but instead only wants to offer their "opinion."

I figure that if these folks are only go as far as provide an opinion rather to go the whole nine yards, then they should be paid for their services accordingly.

Trouble is, the average Joe who does not know any better finds the "COA" and the "LOO" one in the same.

My question would be... does a lowered level of expecatation or lowered level of responsibility regarding the authentication of items absolve the authenticator in full in the event that they get it wrong?

[bigjimsguitars]

I deal primarily in vintage and used guitar (as my moniker would suggest) and in my line of business there are appraisals and the language is "to the best of my knowledge", "if real", etc. that are the prophylactic safeguards that one employs.

However, it gets more interesting when a guitar is said to be owned by a well known rock star and people have been sued successfully when it has turned out not to be.

Me think that with the prices that the A list Game Used is commanding that it gets scary to authenticate as there now is so much to lose if wrong.

I agree that if it is only going to be an opinion that the fee should reflect that for the services rendered as there is no risk at that point for the person providing the service other than some time and hopefully years of experience (and all experience is not created equal)...

The good thing is that we are coming into an age where technology as allowed for expansion of shared knowledge and resources to draw from and that will result in better informed decisions by buyers.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the primary reasons for this forum was to provide collectors with a broader paintbrush of knowledge at a flick of the mouse from a array of experts. Frankly it has done just that and that will level that playing field.

[kingjammy24]

nick,

the change from "coa" to "loo" is purely semantic. coa's were always loos because they never could've been anything more. they just purported to be more and now they're being downgraded to reflect the truth that everyone always knew. it seems to me that the only entity that could offer a true coa would be a player or the team or someone who was literally handed a jersey off the player's back after a game.

"..does a lowered level of expecatation or lowered level of responsibility regarding the authentication of items absolve the authenticator in full in the event that they get it wrong?"

in reality, it's no lower than it ever was. all they ever really did was offer an opinion because that's all they ever could do. anyway, i've discussed this previously but the notion that simply "giving an opinion" absolves a professional of the responsibility to do their due diligence is a fallacy. these "professionals" are being paid for their opinions and are being retained in a professional capacity for their expertise. there is the responsibility for them to do their due diligence. the fact that lampson didn't even bother looking at photos of the dodgers road jerseys in 2006 before proclaiming the VA garciaparra to be from 2006 means he's negligent. changing the semantics of it from "coa" to "loo" is irrelevant. call them whatever you like, the responsibilities haven't changed. the onus to perform due diligence existed when they called it a coa, it exists when they call it a loo, and it'll exist as long as they're issuing these opinions, as (self-proclaimed) "experts", in a paid, professional capacity.

i'd like someone to tell me what the difference is between an authenticator issuing an opinion and a doctor issuing an opinion because the doctor would be the first to tell you he can most definitely be held legally responsible for a failure to perform due diligence in issuing his opinions.

anyway, i think it's a serious reflection on an auction house when they choose to hire lampson and i imagine thats why REA and GUU don't use him. leland's doesn't use him and neither does GFC. mastro is the only major auction house that suffers the embarassment of using lampson. i guess being the cheapest in the industry still has its appeal to those who value cost over quality. the odd thing is that when mears rejected a ted williams jersey at mastro, mastro chose to run it away and justified it by saying that their own in-house staff had decades of expertise blah blah blah. if their in-house staff are such genuises, then why even bother hiring lampson at all?

rudy.