Question For Everyone On Here.........

[kingjammy24]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

If I buy an item from GF and I am not comfortable with it because I can't find ANY supporting evidence that it's real (in other words, it being what they represented it to be), I am fairly confident 'ol Rick Russek will tell me to pound sand, citing the "ALL SALES ARE FINAL" print on every one of their catalogs.

no he wouldn't. just tell them about the time jason got a refund. that's just as solid as the lemon law! something you can take to court with you. "your honor, i know GFC's published policy clearly states "all items sold as is, all sales final, no returns" but awhile back suave1477 got a refund so that's what i'd like to base my case on". if they want evidence, just print out this thread! who needs a legal, published, formal policy when you've got an anecdote of a rare experience some guy once had with GFC?

rudy.

[suave1477]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

no he wouldn't. just tell them about the time jason got a refund. that's just as solid as the lemon law! something you can take to court with you. "your honor, i know GFC's published policy clearly states "all items sold as is, all sales final, no returns" but awhile back suave1477 got a refund so that's what i'd like to base my case on". if they want evidence, just print out this thread! who needs a legal, published, formal policy when you've got an anecdote of a rare experience some guy once had with GFC?

rudy.

KingJammy, ok this was unfair and uncalled for.....

First of all I thought we are supposed to give our own opinions and experieinces???

So again that was my experieience with them I cannot speak for how they have treated others.

KingJammy & Suicide just out of curiousity have either of you won or purchased an item from them and when you received it and thought it was questionable asked for a refund? Did they tell you too bad its yours???

All in all no matter what the responsibility is still left in our hands to do the homework?????

[cohibasmoker]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

Terrific thread and I'd like to add the following; would you buy stock before researching its performance? Would you get a mortgage on a new home before having a home inspection done? Would you work for a company before researching their mission statement? Would you buy a car from Obama motors before checking the warranty? Would you buy a set of golf clubs before researching them?

I can go on and on with the analogies but when you get down to it, whether the item is on eBay or being offered through a auction house - it all rests on one person and one person alone. As a for example, a few weeks ago, I bought a Seahawks helmet. I looked at it and it looked OK so I bought it. No one told me to use the Buy It Now - I did it and it didn't work out. Whose fault was it? It was mine. No-one forced me to buy it - Period.

Would I like to see a cleaner hobby? Absolutely but what hobby isn't shady? Coins? Stamps? Record memorabilia? Art? They all have their issues. By the way, I'd like to see a better and truthful Congress, President and media. Maybe a few CEO's getting thrown into jail - if they broke the law. At the end of the day – it all comes down to - personal responsibility.

Jim

[kingjammy24]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

Terrific thread and I'd like to add the following..

hi jim

i've heard your sentiments echoed by others before; that most of the onus is on collectors. i wonder if this is really how it should be or if this is simply how it's ended up due to a wildly negligent industry. obviously with things the way they are currently, the onus is on collectors, for better or worse. i wonder if the idea seems to absolve dealers, auction houses, and authenticators. ultimately doesn't everyone equally share in the responsibility to perform their due diligence? why does most of it get offloaded onto collectors when its the industry side of things that's getting paid to get this stuff right? all businesses have responsibilities to their customers. i think auction houses have a responsibility to do their due diligence and i think this thread is about that specific failure.

failure by collectors to do their homework doesn't absolve the auction house of the failure to do theirs. shouldn't collectors be able to buy an item from an auction house and have the reasonable expectation that the auction house did their due diligence on the item? is it really unfair for someone who knows nothing about this stuff to be able to buy from GFC or mastro and expect the item is very likely legit?

i've never seen another industry where customers place so much of the responsibility and blame on themselves. sometimes it seems like a war between auction houses and collectors with the former finding new and inventive ways to decieve the latter and collectors fighting tooth and nail simply to avoid getting fleeced. as it stands now you've practically got to be an expert in this stuff and so help you god if you didn't see something in their photos.

i've always been one for doing homework and i think anyone who buys without doing research is an idiot but at the same time don't these businesses have some responsibility in return for the payments they accept? all of us depend on some sort of expertise regularly because we can't all be experts in the things we need so why is this hobby any different?

anyway, as for GFC, richie has said that "authenticating is mostly opinion". if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about GFC, then i don't know what else to say.

i came across something interesting today. i was perusing the fine assortment of goods at robert edwards auction and stumbled upon this: http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=12689
note the addendum at top. REA is calling attention to the recent discussions of mcauliffe retail offerings to potential bidders on this mcauliffe yaz. i don't know why they're doing that except that they must want any potential bidders to be as informed as possible on the item even if the information could potentially result in a lower hammer price. GFC currently has two borderless 1975+ mcauliffe jerseys on their site. anyone want to ask GFC if they'll follow REA's lead and post a similar addendum on their lots? i think you'll see "minimal effort".

rudy.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

hi jim

i've heard your sentiments echoed by others before; that most of the onus is on collectors. i wonder if this is really how it should be or if this is simply how it's ended up due to a wildly negligent industry. obviously with things the way they are currently, the onus is on collectors, for better or worse. i wonder if the idea seems to absolve dealers, auction houses, and authenticators. ultimately doesn't everyone equally share in the responsibility to perform their due diligence? why does most of it get offloaded onto collectors when its the industry side of things that's getting paid to get this stuff right? all businesses have responsibilities to their customers. i think auction houses have a responsibility to do their due diligence and i think this thread is about that specific failure.

failure by collectors to do their homework doesn't absolve the auction house of the failure to do theirs. shouldn't collectors be able to buy an item from an auction house and have the reasonable expectation that the auction house did their due diligence on the item? is it really unfair for someone who knows nothing about this stuff to be able to buy from GFC or mastro and expect the item is very likely legit?

i've never seen another industry where customers place so much of the responsibility and blame on themselves. sometimes it seems like a war between auction houses and collectors with the former finding new and inventive ways to decieve the latter and collectors fighting tooth and nail simply to avoid getting fleeced. as it stands now you've practically got to be an expert in this stuff and so help you god if you didn't see something in their photos.

i've always been one for doing homework and i think anyone who buys without doing research is an idiot but at the same time don't these businesses have some responsibility in return for the payments they accept? all of us depend on some sort of expertise regularly because we can't all be experts in the things we need so why is this hobby any different?

anyway, as for GFC, richie has said that "authenticating is mostly opinion". if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about GFC, then i don't know what else to say.

i came across something interesting today. i was perusing the fine assortment of goods at robert edwards auction and stumbled upon this: http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=12689
note the addendum at top. REA is calling attention to the recent discussions of mcauliffe retail offerings to potential bidders on this mcauliffe yaz. i don't know why they're doing that except that they must want any potential bidders to be as informed as possible on the item even if the information could potentially result in a lower hammer price. GFC currently has two borderless 1975+ mcauliffe jerseys on their site. anyone want to ask GFC if they'll follow REA's lead and post a similar addendum on their lots? i think you'll see "minimal effort".

rudy.

Rudy,

As usual, great comments. I highlighted my favorites, and have the following comments.

You exposed the "fly in the ointment" about Richard Russek's "philosophy" on authenticating.

I'll take it one step further and flat out say the guy doesn't give a s#!t about collectors and what they actually end up with in their collections.... as long as it's bringing in profits and lining his pockets. "Cash in, garbage out" should be their mantra...


REA is a class outfit. They CARE. Robert Lifson cares. Even if they don't totally agree with an "opinion", they do their best to bring about the FULL PICTURE for collectors to arm themselves with as much knowledge as possible before having to make a decision whether to bid on an item. I have the utmost respect for them for their efforts, and they should be commended in the industry for trying to do it "right".

I also have knowledge that they (REA) have sold a few, and I mean just a small few, items that, through law enforcement investigations, turned out to be fraudulent.

How do you think they handled it?


They contacted the winning bidder(s) of the items (LONG after the auction was done and gone, paid for and settled, item shipped and received by the winning bidder, and consigner paid) and asked them to return the item for a full refund.

You would no doubt get the same treatment from Hunt Auctions, most likely Lelands, probably Mastro of old and Heritage Auctions.......but highly doubtful from AMI or GF Auctions.

Hopefully threads like these will change that by placing direct pressure on the open wounds in this industry....thereby forcing them to "heal"....

We'll see.

But "accepting" a percentage of garbage being sold through their auctions should never be downplayed or viewed as "part of the deal" by the collecting public. They would LOVE us all to be more complacent about the fact they pass off baddies.....I for one will never accept it. They should be held responsible in every single case.

Steve

[cohibasmoker]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

So why would GFC spend time and money researching these pieces, when GUF members have proven, once again, that they will do the work for free?

You might want to publicly present your findings after the auction ends, rather than before it begins. That might make things a little more interesting, down the road.

Bingo - Why help any auction house out? Post the findings AFTER the auction ends and let the auction house(s) be responsible for making it right.

Jim

[kingjammy24]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

Take a look at all of the undeniable evidence that has been posted in the last 48 hrs concerning bad jerseys in the next GF auction. The auction hasnt even started yet and several jerseys have been PROVEN to be no good! Question is.......why would anyone on here buy anything from GF? Why? I would appreciate some honest feedback..........

anyway, to answer the original question, it's my experience that, for most collectors, if they spot a piece they want they really don't care who they're buying from. they take things on a piece-by-piece case. i once asked the very same question of ASI/ESM. why would anyone in their right mind buy from someone like brad wells or scot monette? same answer. collectors simply wade through all the garbage to get the piece they want. they figure anyone, even broadway rick, can occasionally get 1 legit piece and they figure they'll be able to suss it out. if you look at GFC's auction, there've got to be at least 3 legit pieces somewhere in there right?

rudy.

[ironmanfan]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

anyway, to answer the original question, it's my experience that, for most collectors, if they spot a piece they want they really don't care who they're buying from. they take things on a piece-by-piece case. i once asked the very same question of ASI/ESM. why would anyone in their right mind buy from someone like brad wells or scot monette? same answer. collectors simply wade through all the garbage to get the piece they want. they figure anyone, even broadway rick, can occasionally get 1 legit piece and they figure they'll be able to suss it out. if you look at GFC's auction, there've got to be at least 3 legit pieces somewhere in there right?

rudy.

I have to agree with Rudy. I have to admit that I've even gotten some good things from Coaches Corner.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

Of course Rudy's right.

You can't become one of the major auction houses by offering nothing but fakes out of the shoot?

But as time goes on, and you have that good reputation to fall back on, hey, slipping in a few fakes here and there ain't that bad of an idea, right?
That equates to solid profit from unsuspecting collectors who trust these scumbags......er.....highly respected caring individuals.

The bad news for these auction houses is......there weren't enough superstars in all of the sports world over the years who wore enough of these "holy grails" to have an endless supply available to support 3-4 auctions a year for all of them and line all of their pockets. So how do they fill the void? Enter "baddies". Let the know-nothing fans/collectors figure out what's real and what isn't.

It's been working for them for years......why change now?

[aeneas01]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

Take a look at all of the undeniable evidence that has been posted in the last 48 hrs concerning bad jerseys in the next GF auction. The auction hasnt even started yet and several jerseys have been PROVEN to be no good! Question is.......why would anyone on here buy anything from GF? Why? I would appreciate some honest feedback..........

why would anyone buy from gfc?

because imo many collectors know that some auction houses, including gfc, have spent years and years developing relationships with private collectors that own extraordinary items. and because imo many collectors know that some auction houses, including gfc, jump on planes to personally meet with these type of collectors in order to talk them into consigning with them, in order to bring top shelf quality items to auction.

if i wanted an ironclad photo-matched game worn super bowl helmet i would buy from gfc given that's what they had in the len dawson gamer they had which fetched $40,000 last year. if i wanted a no-doubt-about-it heisman trophy i would buy from gfc given that's what they had in the charles white trophy which fetched $300,000. if i wanted a willis reed jersey or a dr. j aba jersey with what appeared to be solid provenance i would buy from gfc as well...

and i would buy from heritage even though they were prepared to offer a "namath sb game used helmet" with a starting bid of $50,000 which didn't even belong to namath. why? because heritage also gets their hands on some tremendous items. i would also buy from american memorabilia, despite their problems, because they have offered some truly incredible vintage game used football helmets in the past. the same goes for hunt even though they sold two unitas "gamers" totaling close to $100,000 which i'm convinced were never worn by unitas.

alas...

anyway i think it's pretty interesting (disturbing?) how this grey flannel auction has played out so far given that gfc has taken an absolute beating depsite what appears to be (at least to me) an effort on their part to get in step with what collectors want - a chance to preview items and ask questions...

btw i really don't know why any auction house would continue to bother with authentication nonsense, or imply/claim that lots have been thoroughly examined and/or photo/style matched. i mean the jig is up. collectors know how much time is required to authenticate huge lots, they know what's involved, they know auction houses have expanded beyond their areas of expertise, they know that "rock solid" provenance isn't always rock solid and they know what to look for or know who to ask. and those collectors that are still in the dark, well they're becoming more and more aware after each passing auction.

as such, why would auction houses keep up the pretense? why would they continue to make wild claims? it only hurts auction houses in the long run imo. auction houses should simply say that the lot was presented to them as once worn my x player (if applicable), that supporting documentation/provenance has been furnished by the seller (if applicable), inform the buyer that given the inherent difficulty of authenticating such items it is strongly recommend that interested parties research what has been presented to ensure satisfaction, and add that links to research tools can be found in the customer protection section (links to image sites, forums, etc.).

too ebay? perhaps. but imo it wouldn't look at all like ebay once it took hold, once it became clear that quality items were offered which would be reflected in the hammer prices. this would happen because collectors know what they're looking for and will bid accordingly - and those still in the dark would catch on quickly.

.....

[nyjetsfan14]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

why would anyone buy from gfc?

because imo many collectors know that some auction houses, including gfc, have spent years and years developing relationships with private collectors that own extraordinary items. and because imo many collectors know that some auction houses, including gfc, jump on planes to personally meet with these type of collectors in order to talk them into consigning with them, in order to bring top shelf quality items to auction.

if i wanted an ironclad photo-matched game worn super bowl helmet i would buy from gfc given that's what they had in the len dawson gamer they had which fetched $40,000 last year. if i wanted a no-doubt-about-it heisman trophy i would buy from gfc given that's what they had in the charles white trophy which fetched $300,000. if i wanted a willis reed jersey or a dr. j aba jersey with what appeared to be solid provenance i would buy from gfc as well...

and i would buy from heritage even though they were prepared to offer a "namath sb game used helmet" with a starting bid of $50,000 which didn't even belong to namath. why? because heritage also gets their hands on some tremendous items. i would also buy from american memorabilia, despite their problems, because they have offered some truly incredible vintage game used football helmets in the past. the same goes for hunt even though they sold two unitas "gamers" totaling close to $100,000 which i'm convinced were never worn by unitas.

People often do what is best/pleasing for the self rather than the whole (me included). It would take organization, sacrifice, and a "set" to truly change the hobby's current state of affairs but you are correct in that when most see an item they think they just have to have they'll buy from nearly anyone.

alas...

anyway i think it's pretty interesting (disturbing?) how this grey flannel auction has played out so far given that gfc has taken an absolute beating depsite what appears to be (at least to me) an effort on their part to get in step with what collectors want - a chance to preview items and ask questions...

If you read Mr. Cavalier's recent post it might seem as if the forum members are the ones who actually are taking the beating in the end. I guess money always talks. Did somebody get leaned on? Are forum members (who, according to the post, possibly need babysitting) being too inquisitive/revealing and thus disturbing the traditional standards (good or bad - you decide) by which items are authenticated, marketed, sold, and profited from? Shhhhh, we shouldn't speak of such things as it could result in a ban.

btw i really don't know why any auction house would continue to bother with authentication nonsense, or imply/claim that lots have been thoroughly examined and/or photo/style matched. i mean the jig is up. collectors know how much time is required to authenticate huge lots, they know what's involved, they know auction houses have expanded beyond their areas of expertise, they know that "rock solid" provenance isn't always rock solid and they know what to look for or know who to ask. and those collectors that are still in the dark, well they're becoming more and more aware after each passing auction.

as such, why would auction houses keep up the pretense? why would they continue to make wild claims? it only hurts auction houses in the long run imo. auction houses should simply say that the lot was presented to them as once worn my x player (if applicable), that supporting documentation/provenance has been furnished by the seller (if applicable), inform the buyer that given the inherent difficulty of authenticating such items it is strongly recommend that interested parties research what has been presented to ensure satisfaction, and add that links to research tools can be found in the customer protection section (links to image sites, forums, etc.).

too ebay? perhaps. but imo it wouldn't look at all like ebay once it took hold, once it became clear that quality items were offered which would be reflected in the hammer prices. this would happen because collectors know what they're looking for and will bid accordingly - and those still in the dark would catch on quickly.

This would insinuate that e-Bay doesn't offer quality and legitimate items which just isn't the case (I have personally, and I know I am not alone, picked up many a great authentic item using e-Bay. As a matter of fact MANY of the legit items seen in auction houses were scored on e-Bay than flipped!)). If I choose to sell an item from my collection on my own (possibly via e-Bay or some other method i.e. the forum for sale section) - not wishing to pay a third party hammer fee or not feeling I need their supposed "expert" authentication - that doesn't make the item any less quality or legitimate. The reason these institutions generate so much revenue is because some collectors are under the impression they are offering and, by means of authentication, garaunteeing legitimate and authentic items (they advertise as much). After what we read here recently that might not necessarily be the case... What seperates current auctions from e-Bay?

It will become more and more irrelevant for modern items...there will be little to no need for a third party to sell an item with a League, Team, or Player COA because the authentication is already done and one can sell the item on his/her own based on the items own merits. I still don't understand investing big $ in a recent/modern item without that type of league, team, or player provenance.

.....

.

[kingjammy24]

Re: Question For Everyone On Here.........

i really don't know why any auction house would continue to bother with authentication nonsense....why would auction houses keep up the pretense? why would they continue to make wild claims? it only hurts auction houses in the long run imo. auction houses should simply say that the lot was presented to them as once worn my x player (if applicable), that supporting documentation/provenance has been furnished by the seller (if applicable), inform the buyer that given the inherent difficulty of authenticating such items it is strongly recommend that interested parties research what has been presented to ensure satisfaction, and add that links to research tools can be found in the customer protection section (links to image sites, forums, etc.).
　
too ebay? perhaps. but imo it wouldn't look at all like ebay once it took hold, once it became clear that quality items were offered which would be reflected in the hammer prices. this would happen because collectors know what they're looking for and will bid accordingly - and those still in the dark would catch on quickly.
.....

without authentication, buyers wouldn't pay as much. i guarantee you that dawson gamer would've gone for less on ebay. why is that? because of the perception amongst buyers that the auction house has authenticated the item. similar or identical items consistently fetch more at auction houses than their counterparts do on ebay. premier lots make for nice press releases but the majority of an auction are items you can often find elsewhere minus the hefty premiums. perception drives the premiums. remove the authentication and you remove the perception. hammer prices fall. once hammer prices fall, consigments fall. after all, if your dawson gamer won't fetch much more at an auction house than on ebay, why pay the 20% sellers premium? you're better off on ebay. prices fall, consigments fall, profits fall, the auction house falls.

how is it that the houses manage to procure premier lots? by telling the consigners they'll get a higher price for their item. well if you remove the authentication, you won't get a higher price (after the 40% house slice is removed) which means you won't get the premier consignment. they'd be operating on razor-thin margins. ebay can operate on 2% fees because they do volume. how's an auction house going to survive on 2% fees?
without the authentication layer, what could an auction house offer over ebay? 1/1000th of the potential audience?

authentication also helps deflect or absolve guilt/blame. eg: it's not the auction house who screwed up, it's lou. we're not liable, lou is. where's lou? noone knows, sorry. beautiful. it's a black of hole of accountability. a perfect way to deal with an irate buyer who's demanding answers. lou's there when you need a facemask changed or a whimsical story concocted but when it comes to standing behind his work, he disappears. the funny part? i bet if someone ever confronted him about one of his pieces, he'd say "talk to the auction house. they're in charge of refunds". it's a deliberate maze set up to exhaust and infuriate angry buyers. each side points to the other and says "it's his fault". if you get rid of lou, they have noone else to point the finger at. he's a perfect and much-needed scapegoat.

lastly, ebay doesn't really provide much of a laundering opportunity for those pumping out crap. on ebay, sellers sell direct. there's a paper trail. ebay has mechanisms to fight fraud. sellers have public ratings and feedback. you try to dump a shirt on ebay and GUF is on it like white on rice broadcasting it to thousands of collectors. it's hard out there for a pimp! an auction house, on the other hand, is the perfect place to dump your garbage because they'll keep your identity a complete secret. noone will know you're the one dumping that short-sleeved manning. look at GFC's current football debacle. they may as well just close the entire football section down. what do you think the odds are that most of those bad shirts came from a single entity just dumping their garbage anonymously? i've seen ebay sellers shut down, suspended, etc. i've seen ebay cooperate in law enforcement investigations against sellers. if the auction houses get rid of authentication, what similar claim can they make that they're protecting consumers? have you ever heard of a consigner banned for consigning crap?

rudy.