MEARS 100% Buyer Protection No Longer Honored?

[aeneas01]

according to the mears bulletin board it appears that mears will no longer honor their 100% buyer protection program effective in a few days, 05/01/11. if i read the statement correctly, it looks like mears is saying that this change in policy is retroactive and that only the evaluation fee, not the buyer's out of pocket loss per mears' promise, will be covered should it be discovered that their evaluation was incorrect. in other words, if someone purchased an item based largely on a mears letter and mears' promise to back the purchase, well it looks like they're now out of luck.

if this is true, if i am reading mears' statement correctly, it strikes me as quite a precarious maneuver on mears' part - i mean how can all of those guarantees, those promises, all of a sudden be null and void just like that, simply because mears has decided to go in a different direction? further, does mears really believe that their change in policy could possibly hold up if challenged by a holder of one of their guarantees?

here is what mears had promised buyers, those that purchased an item with a mears letter:

MEARS 100% Purchase Protection Guarantee

The Buyer Protection Program is one of the fundamental guiding principles upon which MEARS was founded. We realize that collectors are looking for quality, certainty, and security when it comes to buying and selling memorabilia for their collections. Since our inception, MEARS has operated under the guidelines that if you purchased an item that MEARS evaluated and it was later proven to be something other than what MEARS claimed, MEARS would guarantee that you, as the purchaser, were not out of pocket for the expense of that purchase. This principle has become even more important now that MEARS members are selling items through our website.

In the past, this Buyer Protection Program has protected the collector and will continue to protect the collector through a wide range of remedies, which include:

MEARS purchasing the item outright thereby removing all financial responsibility from the collector.

Refunding a portion of the purchase price. This occurs in the instance when MEARS has made a minor error in the evaluation, which does not affect the overall authenticity of the piece itself.

MEARS will work with an auction house to assist the purchaser in returning the item for a full refund.

Locating a similar or comparable item to replace the original one evaluated.
The key to our ability to offer this guarantee and these services is the use of our worksheets and grading concepts. MEARS goes to great lengths to evaluate and grade all items with consistent accuracy. The Buyers Protection Program is designed to allow the purchaser to review all the details of our evaluation so that an informed purchasing decision can be made.

here is mears' change in policy statement, recently posted at the mears board:

With all that being said, I want to address changes in the MEARS Buyers Protection Program (MBPP). Effective 1 May 2011, claims against this policy will be limited to a refund of fees paid for evaluation. The MPPP was revolutionary and something I feel was the right concept of for the time. However, the number/value of items we have evaluated to this point have a direct and material effect on the price of insurance premiums required to safeguard this policy. Shareholders in MEARS Authentications (a separate business entity from MEARS Auctions) have made the decision to change the policy with respect to revenues and operating expenses. To date, the MBPP has refunded over $25,000 to collectors and there is another $6,000-$9,000 in claims pending. In the cases of where refunds were provided in accordance with the MBPP, the fees refunded far exceed (by an approximate factor of 10 times) the actual revenues generated by the evaluations. It should be noted that with respect to those pending claims, if found to be warranted, claims under the pre- 1 May 2011 will be honored.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/42624...ection+Program

the last line, highlighted in red, seems to indicate that mears will make good on any pending claims (if warranted) currently in the pipeline and any other claim that's submitted to mears prior to the 05/01/11 deadline. but beyond that, once the 05/01/11 deadline has come and gone, it appears the most one can hope for is the cost of the evaluation regardless of past promises...

another interesting change in the mears policy is that it appears they will no longer require that auction houses make available to them information which would ensure honest bidding. in the past robert edwards auctions was willing to abide by these rules but it now looks like mears will forgo these requirements and is receptive to all auction houses that might be interested in mears' services.

frankly, i never really understood how mears ever concluded that offering a "no loss" guarantee was a viable business approach, i mean their exposure was obviously tremendous. for example, if someone purchased an item for $100,000 based on mears' letter and guarantee, the only thing mears had to offset this exposure with was their evaluation fee, not much leverage there. anyway, i thought this was interesting news. i think what mears has stated on their board is pretty clear, but if i misunderstood i will be happy to change my post....

[zonker]

how and where do you go to file a claim? any link or does someone know how to get to the link on the mears site.

[kprst6]

Auction/memorabilia companies are getting worse by the second.

They don't want to guarantee anything because it allows them to sell, promote, and "certify" high end questionable items without any fear that someone will return a $100,000 item that the proved was fake.

I sure would sleep better at night if I knew I wouldn't have to refund $100,000 to someone while the COA still existed. It helps auctions companies and certification companies become lazier as the responsibility is completely eliminated from the company certifying and selling an item.

[1929tudor]

Auction companies are yes getting worse. Most of the you see that have PSA look at something have PSA Pre-Certify. So you win the item at that cost. Pay a buyers preminim for another cost. Pay for shipping. A third cost and then if you want to get a PSA certificate you have to pay PSA to certify the item which to me they already did in the first place to get it pre certified. So your hit with 4 fees. What a joke.

[aeneas01]

how and where do you go to file a claim? any link or does someone know how to get to the link on the mears site.

i imagine the best thing to do would be to just go to mears' website and submit a claim using mears' contact page, perhaps do a screen capture for one's records. once sent, the claim is in the pipeline and would have to be considered pending. but, really, i don't think this is even necessary - if someone has a problem with letter dated before 05/01/11 i would think the best thing to do would be to just hold mears to their promise despite the 05/01/11 deadline - i mean mears guaranteed to make good on any out of pocket loss when the letter was written, right?

fwiw i don't envy the spot mears is in - they've created a potentially disastrous situation for their business by guaranteeing to make good on out of pocket losses due to problems with their letters. the barry bonds russell jerseys mears stamped as authentic and game used alone would be a killer if the buyers returned them. then there's the mcauliffe shirts. and some of the post career babe ruth bats. etc., etc. - so much potential exposure.

in fact there's a 1938 gehrig jersey currently listed at rea right now that the buyer purchased years ago for $250,000 plus juice based largely on a mears a9 grade. prior to listing it at rea mears took another look at it and gave it an a5. needless to say the owner of the shirt probably wasn't too thrilled about this. mears eventually settled on an "average grade" of a7 or so by combining the old and new grades. if the shirt sells for much less than what the seller purchased it for based on the a9 grade, i'm sure he would want to have a chat about mears' buy back guarantee. could be a big number. and that's just one item. for those interested this is all public information that can be found at rea's blog.

i really don't know how mears can get out from under their potentially crippling buy back obligations. but announcing an arbitrary deadline doesn't seem to be a realistic solution. would shutting down and re-opening under a new name, a la mastro/legendary, offer a legal out? maybe.

[zonker]

thank you, robert

[schubert1970]

Too bad people place so much emphasis on a Mears letter. heck my Rose jersey on REA has several photomatches and Mears won't authenticate it. They basically killed the value of my uniform. I thought photomatches were the best, apparently not.

[schubert1970]

Too bad people place so much emphasis on a Mears letter. heck my Rose jersey on REA has several photomatches and Mears won't authenticate it. They basically killed the value of my uniform. I thought photomatches were the best, apparently not.

Also, I received A10 on the uniform then was told undable to authenticate, what a joke.

[trsent]

I understand MEARS change in policy and I was always amazed they offered such as great policy with a lot of risk for a very small price realized.

Now, I have not yet talked to Troy, but I will assume MEARS will 100% stand behind items they sell in their retail division and in the auctions but other items they authenticate and do not sell themselves they would only honor refunding the authentication fees.

I'd like to hear more from Troy about it.

[DeacDoug]

I think that Mears would lose any suit over a jersey authenticated before May 1. You can't institute this new policy retroactively. Mears' choice, IMO, is either to go out of business or to honor the pre-May 1 guarantees. That said, it is probably harder to prove in court that a specific jersey is not authentic than it is to show its authenticity. I know because I lost such a case in White Plains, NY involving the late George Martin Lyons, a hobby hall of famer, as the defendant.