O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

[lund6771]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

Roger-
You were questioning the intent of Grob's column. I am taking it at it's word. You seem to be suggesting that it's to justify Mears' mistakes.

Grob is saying the opposite. People should HAVE to own up to mistakes. And there should be regulations to force them to because people in the hobby can't seem to do it on their own.

Eric...the A5 thing is the biggest joke in this hobby...there are TONS of A5 pieces of shit floating around that people actually believe are real because it is a post 1987 something or other

like Roger said...it's all about the money....would Mears make any $ if they rejected all the A5 crap out there?...of course not, so let's give it an A5 so we can get paid

grading the Jim Brown an A10 proved to me that it's all about the money

what people say and do can be completely different

[RKGIBSON]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

Fair enough, I read it slightly different. At the end of the day with any business, you have your reputation and integrity for customers to make the decision to do business with you. When it comes to football, I do not trust their opinion from their past work. Not just MEARS but all the authenication companies have big problems when it comes to credibility in my opinion. None of their COA's mean anything to me. Authentication companies have been created as a tool to lend credibility to items that can not be done any other way. This is my final post on this subject, and my opinion.

Roger

[Eric]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

Roger-
You were questioning the intent of Grob's column. I am taking it at it's word. You seem to be suggesting that it's to justify Mears' mistakes.

Grob is saying the opposite. People should HAVE to own up to mistakes. And there should be regulations to force them to because people in the hobby can't seem to do it on their own.

[RKGIBSON]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

Eric, your making me laugh. They sure need some checks and balances within in their company. You make it sound like one hand at MEARS does not know what the other is doing. Their grade system is a joke. It would not be hard to make a system that is easy to understand what they are saying. Its not about doing it right, its about making money. The other thing that is evident is the lack of knowledge in somethings they evaluate. I would not be a part of MEARS if I did not want to be associated with all the mistakes. I will say I have not seen anything that Grob himself has done that has come in question here. There is an old saying, "If you lie with dogs you get fleas".

Roger

[Lokee]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT,I THINK YOU ARE FRIGGIN NUTS!!!!!

OH my god LMAO

Unfortunately all those are well documented kid.

Maybe you need to stop and do a little research or reading.

Take 10 mins out of the day instead of combing auction sites. Learn about your country and the "freedom" you have and are about to lose.

Why do you think people are gathering at these town hall meetings ? For sure not because of the free coffee.

It doesn't matter Republican or Democrat they are one in the same.

[Eric]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

I disagree with you. The article was not about justifying anyone's mistakes. It was about the hobby being held liable for selling bad items and for authenticators to have to live up to how they are representing themselves.

For years and years- going back to the old days of the game used forum, Dave Grob has been a proponent of regulation for the industry- that translates to holding people accountable.

He's the first guy to stand up and say the rules that are currently in place have cost people money on bad items.

[RKGIBSON]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

Grob's column is another attempt to justify his companys mistakes. My hope is that by next years nationals, companies like his have to be accountable for their ignorance on items that they present their selfs as experts on. When you write a expert opinion, make statements that are not true, and people spend money because of your opinion, you become lible. This grading thing they do is a joke, but that is part of the game they play.

Roger

[dirtyla2000]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

If the collectors have enough of a problem spotting fakes and forgeries how are these FBI agents going to do that. Are they going to listen to the collectors ? and go on the "Honesty Policy" ?

If we are going to worry about fake jersey's and bogus bats and what not...There are so many other things to worry about in this world. Iam not saying it isn't important but we need to look deeper..

Obama is trying to take our right to bear arms away. What can we do about that ?

Our food and water supplys are tainted with mass amounts of Flouride, Radon ect. What can we do about that?

The Government is forcing Swine Flu shots on us that are filly with mercury, disodium phosphate, squalene, chicken embryos, and various virus cultures.

We need to take a stand kids and it aint all about counterfeit sports items !!!

You all might think iam crazy but i speak the truth.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT,I THINK YOU ARE FRIGGIN NUTS!!!!!

[jppopma]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

Hopefully they will be able to build some good cases out of their investigation. The intent part should be one of the easier things to prove, it's simply MONEY. All of these frauds are selling fake items, altering them, or misrepressenting them with the intent to make more money than the item is worth. It does not require them to double their money or even break even; merely trying to pull it off covers the intent.

The auction houses and authenticators are very muddy waters. If this were my investigation, I would be looking into those who doctor the jerseys or flip them with a new story. It is at this point where the crime is committed and the case is the strongest. Once a bad jersey changes hands even once, the owner can plead ignorence and go strictly on the sellers word. (I'd hate to be the subject of an investigation after being duped....who knows how many of us have bought and still have bogus items).

Back to the investigation, my thoughts would be to introduce some bait jerseys into the hobby with the specific details that they are not game used (hell, make them really bad knock offs even). Anyway, prep them with an UV or DNA pen so that you can identify the jersey at a later time. Then sit back and wait for the jersey to surface once again. When someone tries to flip this bait jersey, you can contact the buyer and then backtrack who the seller was. Ideally it will not have changed hands too many times and you can trace it back to the "suspect" dealer who it was planted with. For all of the CSI fans, I would simply install a GPS tracking device made to look like a Prova chip.

In a recent case I encountered, the jersey was purchased by the seller only months prior as a signed jersey. In that short of a time period, the jersey was up on Ebay as game worn. It was only after the jersey was received and documentation reviewed that the case began to open up. Sadly,I have too much on my own desk to have the time to get it presented to the prosecutor's office. Oh well, maybe in time I will have to pass the story on to the FBI.

[Eric]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

Over on the mears site, Dave Grob wrote a column about this topic. I think his point is valid. How do you prove intent? If the auction houses said, "oh well, we trusted the authenticator" and the authenticator said "i was just giving my opinion," how can you prove that the auction house knew the authenticator would approve just about anything, if that was indeed the case?
Sounds like you need to have the place that was doctoring the items, the proof that the person who was having them made was consigning them to an auction house and the proof that the auction house knew what was happening.
Anyway, Dave Grob's piece is reprinted here with his permission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Investigations and the National by Dave Grob

I fully expected to see some coverage by Michael O’Keeffe of the National and on the ongoing FBI investigation into the sports memorabilia industry. You can read his article in the on line version of the Sunday 2 August New York Daily News. What began as a look into shill bidding has now extended into other problems that have plagued this industry for years and this is a good thing. It appears that investigation has now begun to focus on how product comes into the industry as well as possibile linkages between auction houses and those who offer opinions for them. It will be very interesting to see where these latest two issues take us.

Have individuals and organizations been working in collusion to knowingly move bad product to consumers? Bad product in my mind is defined as either stolen property or items that were knowingly not what they were represented to be. The stolen property issues will in all likelihood be easier to make a case on than the other portion.

As I have said and written about for years, there are no formal training or certification standards for individuals offering opinions on items that are then marketed and offered by an auction house. Can the authenticator simply say I was doing the best I could and it was the final decision of the auction house to evaluate my work and then decide to offer the item or not? Can the auction house simply say that we are not experts and can only rely on the opinions of those we retain in this capacity? This is where the whole thing gets tough for the authenticator, auction house, and those looking to build a case against them.

For the authenticator, can they on one hand claim to be an expert when it justifies their pay, but on the other hand claim they are not when it comes to their responsibility and liability in this matter? Almost three years ago I wrote a column titled “Authenticating the Authenticators” and I looked at this issue along the lines of how the Federal Rules of Evidence defines and expert, specifically Rule # 702. A portion of that article is show below.

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

For this to have any applicability and to make any sense, let’s pick this apart and see what makes sense for the hobby. To begin with, I think that we may all want to agree that anyone who has a question about an item can be considered a “trier of fact” to some degree. All I am saying here is if everyone all had the same level of understanding, experience, reference data/material, and techniques, then it would not be an issue. The plan fact of the matter is that somebody out there knows more about something than you do, hence the desire for an “experts” opinion.

Understanding and Applying the Definition

Like most things in life, application requires an understanding of the context in which they are used or evaluated. I would offer this framework for using the language in Rule #702.

(1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data. For the hobby, I think we are all agreeable that the “because I said so” is a rather weak argument. We did not like hearing this as kids, and certainly like it even less when we are being asked to buy something based on that as a rational. We should expect that any opinion that is based on any number of facts or data points:

a. How does this compare with other know examples and what those examples are? For instance when someone states “All Correct Tagging,” what is the basis for stating this?

b. If photographic references are made, are the photographs included? If not, where I do reasonably go to see this for myself?

Other reasonable questions or issues that should be addressed when considering whether the facts and data are sufficient may include:

a. How long has the person been involved in this particular aspect of the hobby?

b. An approximate number of like items the person has seen.

c. Do they have any special or formalized training or experience in related fields such as imagery analysis, manufacturer of the item, or as a researcher?

d. Have they published any works in the associated field that have held up to the public scrutiny of the hobby?

While this is not meant to be the all-inclusive list of qualifications, I would think it would begin to address the basics.

(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods. For me, this means the person has and uses an established process that makes sense given what they are being asked to look at. This process should be expected to be made public in the form of “this is what I look for and this is how I do it.” I am not advocating that all of the reference data be made available since much of this has been accumulated at both the time and personal expense of the person offering the opinion. Once again, this goes back to the point I made earlier, if you are a potential buyer or the owner of the item that you have paid for to have authenticated, then you are entitled to it.

The concept I would like to emphasize centers on the word reliable. This should mean that if you do the same things in the same manner with the same information, you should get the same results, or in this case, opinion.

(3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. In this case, the witness is the person offering the opinion. All this is saying that the process, principles, and methods used served as the basis for the opinion, not the other way around. By this I mean, if the person’s methods or procedures call for use of photographs for comparison, they cannot simply choose not to do this because some of the photographs contradict their opinion. In addition if they evidence that supports more than one possibility, they should state what both are and then clarify why they believe it to be on case over another.

This then takes us to the auction house and their roles and responsibilities. What was the basis for them selecting the authenticators they employed? If it can not seem to be substantiated based a demonstrated level of expertise on the part of the authenticator as show above, then was there another nefarious reason for their employment? Was the authenticator a source of undisclosed consignment material? Did the auction house knowingly employee the authenticator because they knew the authenticator would agree to certify just about anything offered to them, thus providing a steady stream of product for offering? In my opinion the auction house has both responsibility for the product they offer and those agents they engage or employee.

This leads us to the issues or problems faced by those looking to make a case. Has sloppy work on the part of authenticators and poor judgment on the part of auction the houses who retain them cost folks money? I would suggest it has. The seminal point being, was all of this just poor management which might appear to be more of a civil issue than a criminal one. Or was there an actual conspiracy to defraud the collecting public by knowingly allowing suspect or bad product to continue to move throughout the industry? I guess that is what we will have to wait to see.

In my mind, all of these problems have existed for far too long. Although we get news reports and “hobby/industry” talk about what is happening or not happening, we are no closer to an industry wide solution of or formal sense of accountability than we were six years ago when I began publicly commenting on these issues.

There are still things I would still like to MEARS improve upon, but I am very happy about the issues we have addressed internally and on a voluntary basis as they relate to disclosure and accountability as these two issues seem to be the nexus of the unsavory relationship between authenticators and auction houses.

My hope is that by next years National, we are not simply left to read about the status of a still on going investigation.

As always, collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect.

Dave Grob

For questions or comments on this article, please feel to contact me at DaveGrob1@aol.com.

http://www.mearsonline.com/news/newsDetail.asp?id=669

[Fnazxc0114]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

so this isnt the place for rev wright left wing g/u speeches? i must be on the wrong forum. for a second there i thought we were all tallking about giving our stuff away to the free loaders.

[jobathenut]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

That was just what i was thinking.Thanks for saying it for me.

Well, here, it is. The rest of that rant is better suited for the "Rush Limbaugh/right wing memorabilia collectors forum".

[Eric]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

People sometimes get a conscience when they're about to get caught. If there was no investigation, I would agree with you. But if the noose is tightening, I could see some tough nights thinking about how long until you have to fill out a change of address card for prison.

[frikativ54]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

is this a reference to anyone in particular? Seems like a familiar topic.

Mark

I have stated my cases against individual con artists in the past; I am now only talking of general concerns with the hobby. The point is that quite a few dealers fit some of my criteria, and of those, many have no moral conscience. The FBI can make up their mind as to whom to prosecute, and for what grievances. I, however, have been quite happy with my hobby dealings for the past six months.

[markize]

Re: O'Keeffe: More Hobby Subpoenas

This is where your mistake lies, Eric. You are assuming that the people who sold bad items have a moral conscience. A number of con men - whether they doctor jerseys and bats, grossly overcharge, and lie about their products - don't have scruples at all.

The point is, Eric, that these people don't lose sleep at night. They go about their business, duping collector after collector, and amassing not paltry fortunes. The bottom line is that these people think they are above the FBI, above the Better Business Bureau, and above any code of ethics.

These frauds need to be investigated because not only do they deceive us, but also because they are narcissistic sociopaths.

is this a reference to anyone in particular? Seems like a familiar topic.

Mark