ethical issues

[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.