Instead of ebay offering an authentication program what they should offer is a card value tracking program based on the last 5 years of sales data.

It's always surprised me that ebay has never monetized their incredible database of price histories. If they had archived their data (like Worthpoint, only to include everything), it would be worth a hefty annual subscription.

We used to be able to see sales going back 180 days but now it's 90. Years ago, I heard a rumor that an Ebay member can access much older listings but you had to pay. It was said to be something available to the bigger sellers but I never heard anything definite about it. Yeah, sellers and collectors would love to be able to look back twenty years. Is it possible that Ebay didn't think it needed to store its listings for the future? It has increased seller fees over the years but didn't see the value of the automatic market research?

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
It's always surprised me that ebay has never monetized their incredible database of price histories. If they had archived their data (like Worthpoint, only to include everything), it would be worth a hefty annual subscription.

Anyone can see 1 years worth of sales on eBay for free:

https://www.ebay.com/sh/research

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
Anyone can see 1 years worth of sales on eBay for free:

https://www.ebay.com/sh/research

That's not enough but I was thinking more like a service you could post your collection in and see the last 5 or 10 years. Last time I checked my own personal buy history goes back 3 years but sell history went past 10 so the information is there.

Got my first ebay authenticated card today. I've already destroyed the seal and set the card free.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Got my first ebay authenticated card today. I've already destroyed the seal and set the card free.

How come? I generally break cards out of the sealed top loaders too, but I wouldn't on something of significant value. Isn't there some greater benefit in being able to show an eBay pass, since you already had it anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
How come? I generally break cards out of the sealed top loaders too, but I wouldn't on something of significant value. Isn't there some greater benefit in being able to show an eBay pass, since you already had it anyway?

First problem is the blue (nice) protective/display folder is non standard to any other current size. Actually bigger than a slab which means a new storage method.

Card itself is not in a rigid protection sleeve. Basically it is a penny sleeve in a flimsy card saver sealed with a QR code that links to the authentication info. Fraudulent QR codes are already being routinely used by hacker types.

There is no label describing the card. If this program were to ever go by the wayside links to the card could be in jeopardy.

I will keep the QR code and the card is numbered so it is not like I am completely throwing it away.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
First problem is the blue (nice) protective/display folder is non standard to any other current size. Actually bigger than a slab which means a new storage method.

Card itself is not in a rigid protection sleeve. Basically it is a penny sleeve in a flimsy card saver sealed with a QR code that links to the authentication info. Fraudulent QR codes are already being routinely used by hacker types.

There is no label describing the card. If this program were to ever go by the wayside links to the card could be in jeopardy.

I will keep the QR code and the card is numbered so it is not like I am completely throwing it away.

Seriously? Fake QR codes are already comprising the authentication system? eBay has to do something to stop that, otherwise they have only created another method to fake document pricy counterfeit merchandise that's no better than the old attached COA scam.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:


Seriously? Fake QR codes are already comprising the authentication system? eBay has to do something to stop that, otherwise they have only created another method to fake document pricy counterfeit merchandise that's no better than the old attached COA scam.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply it was happening with ebay but with QR codes in general. If ebay authentication ever proves to be of any real value it is just a major flaw in the system that can be exploited.

I freely admit I'm too lazy to read the rules of this program.
Is there a certain dollar amount you can list an autograph card for that automatically puts it into this category?
Say for instance, is any card listed under $1000 'safe' from being sent first to their so-called authenticators and not directly to the buyer?

There have been running changes to the program, but I think the trigger number currently is $250. If a card is sold to a non-US address and sent through the Ebay Global shipping, it might bypass the authenticity program, but I'm not totally sure.

Yikes!
I just pulled an auction because I listed a card for a goodly amount. I immediately cancelled the auction. I don't want anybody's hands on the card except mine and the potential buyer's.

Alternative route(s), here I come!

In general I am for programs like this. . . but someone was posting on another site -- I think blowout that they had an Alien dual autograph of Sigourney Weaver and Ian Holm that was rejected/returned by the authenticators presumably because there are questions about if Holm actually signed the card.

The card seems to have been returned to the seller as they were told not to relist it. . .

So effectively eBay won't allow this card (or others with Holm's signature from this release --- assuming that was the reason for the rejection) to be sold on eBay.

This seems odd to me. . . Is eBay now basically authenticating all autographs from all card companies that exceed $250? What if eBay is wrong?

This card is exactly how it was released from the factory is it really eBay's place to get in the way of that -- what if the buyer still wants it -- obviously Weaver is the driver behind the value of this card. It would make sense to me if eBay is looking for cards that were altered, or forged. . . but eBay questioning what companies are producing seems like an overstep.

Now that you got me looking at it there are certainly signature flow differences between the ALIEN and Lord of the Rings Holm autograph.

Still not a fan of the program but nice to see an authenticator side against the manufacturer. Especially with all the ridiculous claims they make about all signatures being witnessed by a company representative.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Still not a fan of the program but nice to see an authenticator side against the manufacturer. Especially with all the ridiculous claims they make about all signatures being witnessed by a company representative.

Interesting story, if it is correct that eBay has decided the UD Holm stickers are not genuine and is basically voiding all those autograph cards. I'm not sure if that is the case, or if it's right if it is the case.

"Witnessed by a company representative" went by the wayside a long time ago. It may still be done for certain big signing events, but most autograph cards and autograph stickers now are not witnessed by the card maker or anyone else. The signer is guaranteeing the authenticity of the signature by virtue of his/her contract. Of course, the maker looks bad if they pack out a "ghost" or autopen, but technically it's on the head of whoever gets the responsibility in the wording on the back. Usually that will be the signer himself.

For the later day Holm's stickers, there have been questions from collectors, but as far as I know neither UD or anyone associated with Holm's himself has acknowledged anything. Holm's was sick for several years before his death and it is very difficult to confirm authenticity when you may have a deteriorating signature due to age or infirmity. It can look drastically different than previous examples.

I have one of his UD cards. It's not a good-looking signature, but is it by someone else's hand? I can't say that. Has anyone else in authority proved it? I haven't heard, if they have. Can eBay decide it without a solid admission from someone? I don't know. But if they decided it, they had better be right, especially if they are setting a precedent for how they look at any and all certified autograph cards.

And the money signature on that particular card would be Sigourney Weaver, so voiding the sale because of the secondary signer is another real issue, if we are to assume that is the reason. I would like the story of the rejection and its reason to be confirmed because it sounds like it may be on shaky ground to me.

This puts eBay in an odd spot. . .

There are many other Upper Deck Ian Holm autographs that are for sale or have sold for under the $250 limit for the authentication program.

If they are determining that the Holm is problematic -- how is it ok that they allow some of the Holm autos to be sold, but not others. . .

1. We have had conversations about authentication companies being in bed with the card manufacturers. Seeing Ebay not give these items a pass just because it says Upper Deck on it might actually be something this hobby needs. I agree that most of what comes from the manufacturer is good but I have seen enough not to have blind faith. It is interesting that UD's response in this particular case is to submit it to PSA or Beckett.

2. Looking at the cards even more I think Ebay is making a good call. Could I be wrong? Sure, but these are not deteriorating signatures...in fact they are pretty clean. There are no stylistic similarities between LOTR/Hobbit and ALIEN, this is what authentication is. I have seen many sigs that pass authentication and I can't figure out how. Saying it can't be authenticated is not necessarily saying it is fake. For the most part the Alien Holm cards are cheap, people generally aren't going to spend more money for authentication.

3. Witnessed by representative is on the back of my Alien Holm card, granted there are other options as well. My overall point was that claims of authenticity have often been overstated, claims of guarantee even more so. In the end it is still up to the buyer to pay attention. Myself included, many of us buy a card in good faith with the manufacturer and not necessarily the signature we are looking at. With that said I still wonder about my Ellen Page

4. True, the money in this particular card is the Weaver however; if the Holm can't be authenticated it does effect the value of the whole. I think ebay blocking the re-sell (there is another one up right now) as long as the listing is honest isn't right. Is ebay really shaking much ground with this? I don't think so as I believe that nearly all of the submitted cards pass authentication. For ebay to cancel out all Alien Holm listings they would have to authenticate them. The seller certainly has other options especially if one of the slabbers should sign off on it.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Still not a fan of the program but nice to see an authenticator side against the manufacturer. Especially with all the ridiculous claims they make about all signatures being witnessed by a company representative.

Interesting story, if it is correct that eBay has decided the UD Holm stickers are not genuine and is basically voiding all those autograph cards. I'm not sure if that is the case, or if it's right if it is the case.

"Witnessed by a company representative" went by the wayside a long time ago. It may still be done for certain big signing events, but most autograph cards and autograph stickers now are not witnessed by the card maker or anyone else. The signer is guaranteeing the authenticity of the signature by virtue of his/her contract. Of course, the maker looks bad if they pack out a "ghost" or autopen, but technically it's on the head of whoever gets the responsibility in the wording on the back. Usually that will be the signer himself.

For the later day Holm's stickers, there have been questions from collectors, but as far as I know neither UD or anyone associated with Holm's himself has acknowledged anything. Holm's was sick for several years before his death and it is very difficult to confirm authenticity when you may have a deteriorating signature due to age or infirmity. It can look drastically different than previous examples.

I have one of his UD cards. It's not a good-looking signature, but is it by someone else's hand? I can't say that. Has anyone else in authority proved it? I haven't heard, if they have. Can eBay decide it without a solid admission from someone? I don't know. But if they decided it, they had better be right, especially if they are setting a precedent for how they look at any and all certified autograph cards.

And the money signature on that particular card would be Sigourney Weaver, so voiding the sale because of the secondary signer is another real issue, if we are to assume that is the reason. I would like the story of the rejection and its reason to be confirmed because it sounds like it may be on shaky ground to me.

The card was returned to the seller, with the note that they were "unable to confirm authenticity."

I agree that it is good that companies don't just take the manufacturer's word for autographs, I guess I just didn't realize the authentication program was going that far. If that is the case then they should publish a list of autographs that they are going to reject to save people time, money and frustration.

I also think it is problematic if they are allowing listings on cards they know they are going to reject, that seems like a jerk move, and I still think it is problematic that they will allow most Ian Holm Alien autographs -- even duals/triples selling for over $200 -- but once you hit $250 you can no longer sell it.

Also -- people are talking about ways to circumvent eBay's system. . . For example, apparently if you sold the Weaver/Holm in a lot -- i.e. a Weaver/Holm dual with a Holm solo autograph they won't authenticate it because it is in a lot. . . So the fact that they will only block the sale of this card in specific circumstances is bizarre to me -- either it is a good card, or it's not.

I'm also curious how good they are at what they do as there was a batch of Star Pics autographs that recently sold that I was concerned about.

What don't you like about your Ellen Page autograph? I have an Ellen Page autograph from Leaf Limited Inscriptions, never really wondered about it's authenticity, but my guess was that was signed at a random even or something given the nature of that release.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mykdude:
Witnessed by representative is on the back of my Alien Holm card, granted there are other options as well. [QUOTE]Originally posted by mykdude.

I had to pull out my copy for the full wording: "This autograph was signed in the presence of a company representative or sent from, and certified as to its authenticity by, Ian Holm". So that's just what I said, UD will throw back any question of authenticity on Ian Holm himself, who unfortunately is in no position to answer for anything.

I also have an on-card Holm's autograph from LotR Chrome and the signature doesn't match the UD sticker, especially on the capital I and H. I will agree that it isn't a shaky signature, but the last part of both names could resemble each other. They are different. The early ones are better. I'm not prepared to label them fake without evidence though. That's a dangerous judgement to make if you are wrong. Better to just say it's not a good display item, pass on it and let the experts decide.

Speaking of which, what are Beckett and PSA doing with UD Holm's autograph cards? If eBay is rejecting them, doesn't that mean that the grading services must also be rejecting them? Or has that issue not come up yet? It should.

And by the way, "unable to confirm authenticity" on a personally signed item is one thing to say, but saying it on a pack pulled certified card is a whole different thing. That's calling into question the card maker's process of guaranteeing their product and the card maker should respond one way or another. Not that UD ever responds, but it should.

So this being Ian Holm, maybe it's not such a big deal. Change that with someone more expensive and desired like maybe a Ben Affleck, who can't sign the same way twice in a row, and see if eBay does the same thing.