Authenticate4U.com experiences?

[Lindsay2367]

At the end of the day, authenticating is an inexact science at best. Human beings are working off of photographs that aren't always optimal to do the job. The only real assurance anyone can get that they have an authentic designer items is to pony up the cash and buy it at the designer's boutique. Anyone looking for a bargain is looking for trouble. Period.

Very true regarding it being an inexact science.

However, even purchasing at the boutique isn't always a guarantee of authenticity. My BFF buys lots of LVs, and she was looking to purchase several from a woman who had bought all of her bags at an LV boutique around here. When my BFF looked at it closely, it turned out that the bags were superfakes. She told the lady about it and figured she was just trying to pass of fakes as authentic bags. But the lady was livid and went back to the boutique where she bought all the bags, Turns out, her SA there had been selling her fake bags for years and she had no idea. I know the SA didn't work there anymore, and I don't know if he got fired because LV found out or they found out after the fact, but I know the boutique was seeking legal action against him. And this was an SA she worked with for a long time.

I mean, that's the only time that I've ever heard of that happening to someone I know, but that's just crazy. I really thought the lady was just a scammer and she would disappear once my BFF told her the bag was fake, but my BFF was in contact with LV regarding the issue (since she was helping the lady to let her know which ones were fake), so I don't think the story was BS. Super scary though.

 

[jellyv]

However, even purchasing at the boutique isn't always a guarantee of authenticity. My BFF buys lots of LVs, and she was looking to purchase several from a woman who had bought all of her bags at an LV boutique around here. When my BFF looked at it closely, it turned out that the bags were superfakes. I really thought the lady was just a scammer and she would disappear once my BFF told her the bag was fake, but my BFF was in contact with LV regarding the issue (since she was helping the lady to let her know which ones were fake), so I don't think the story was BS. Super scary though.

^Third-hand stories like this one are not persuasive--"I know someone who says they knows someone who says she got sold fakes at LV." When someone can state this at first hand, personal experience, and it's verifiable, then maybe this could rise to credible.
--
To topic, it's important to go with whomever is accepted in a Paypal/eBay dispute. Not everyone is.

 

[BeenBurned]

Not only that, but I had a Chloe bag authenticated at both A4u and FakeSpotters. I only had FS re-authenticate it because that was right when Lesley's health problems came up and I couldn't get back in touch with her. Lesley told me that it was authentic, while FakeSpotters told me that it was a superfake. I told them that Lesley had previously authenticated it, and asked if they could provide details regarding why they deemed it fake (even to Lesley, if they didn't want to share with me), but they refused. No offense to FS, but I really trust Lesley's opinion, and for $45, I thought they could have been a bit more forthcoming on why their opinion differed from Lesley's.

While I understand that some authenticators don't want to post details on public sites as to why an item is fake, as their client, you deserved to know why your item was fake. You paid for the service and although they didn't know that you aren't a "fake maker," knowing why it's fake (should you want to know) should be disclosed IMO.

Personally, I don't think disclosing details will help the counterfeiters because for small change in comparison to what they'll sell for, they can purchase an authentic item and copy it themselves. (And many do just that.)

At the time, I remember your saying that FS wouldn't tell you why it was fake and being bothered by that.

 

[Lindsay2367]

While I understand that some authenticators don't want to post details on public sites as to why an item is fake, as their client, you deserved to know why your item was fake. You paid for the service and although they didn't know that you aren't a "fake maker," knowing why it's fake (should you want to know) should be disclosed IMO.

Personally, I don't think disclosing details will help the counterfeiters because for small change in comparison to what they'll sell for, they can purchase an authentic item and copy it themselves. (And many do just that.)

At the time, I remember your saying that FS wouldn't tell you why it was fake and being bothered by that.

I totally agree with what you're saying. It would have been a completely different scenario if Lesley had been on the fence, and then they said it was fake. That would be completely understandable to me. But when you have one person who is an expert in Chloe authentication saying that it is authentic, and then someone else deems it's fake without offering any difference in the explanation, it makes me a little uneasy.

Not saying that FS is wrong in their opinion, because it's possible Lesley could have made a mistake, since she is human, but I would have expected more information so I could make a decision on the two differing opinions. Especially given that I was then going to have to raise the issue of potentially selling a fake bag to the seller, when it had already been deemed authentic.

 

[poopsie]

So, what are we talking here-----best two out of three?

 

[Lindsay2367]

So, what are we talking here-----best two out of three?

Haha, in reference to me? If so, all I was hoping for was some sort of an explanation, so that I could raise the issue with Lesley, and ask that she perhaps double check the areas that FS had concern about. Perhaps my photos weren't clear enough and that would have solved the discrepancy. But there was no opportunity to discern the reasoning behind the difference in opinion.

And I just want to reiterate, I am not saying that FS is incorrect in their assessments. From what everyone has said here, they do have brand experts that make their authentication assessments. I just was a little irked at the lack of cooperation when their opinion differed from another well-respected expert.

 

[Lindsay2367]

^Third-hand stories like this one are not persuasive--"I know someone who says they knows someone who says she got sold fakes at LV." When someone can state this at first hand, personal experience, and it's verifiable, then maybe this could rise to credible.
--
To topic, it's important to go with whomever is accepted in a Paypal/eBay dispute. Not everyone is.

Aaaaaand I'll eat crow on this one. I just talked to my BFF, and she said she never actually talked to LV. They were supposed to contact her but they never did. So the lady could have been lying (meaning, she was most likely lying!)

Yet again, proves why it's entirely reasonable for everyone (including myself) to be skeptical about this!

<hangs head in shame and remembers why it's important to verify facts before making statements...and this coming from a lawyer!>

 

[uadjit]

While I understand that some authenticators don't want to post details on public sites as to why an item is fake, as their client, you deserved to know why your item was fake. You paid for the service and although they didn't know that you aren't a "fake maker," knowing why it's fake (should you want to know) should be disclosed IMO.

Personally, I don't think disclosing details will help the counterfeiters because for small change in comparison to what they'll sell for, they can purchase an authentic item and copy it themselves. (And many do just that.)

At the time, I remember your saying that FS wouldn't tell you why it was fake and being bothered by that.

I was bothered, too because I am the one who suggested Fakespotters as an alternative and I felt bad that they charged Lindsay so much and wouldn't even give her any details.

I only recommended them because A4U was out of commission and Fakespotters was recommended to me directly by Chloe Customer Service. I wonder if they have some kind of working relationship with the brand and aren't allowed to give out particulars or something? I really don't know but I definitely won't recommend them again.

 

[Lindsay2367]

I was bothered, too because I am the one who suggested Fakespotters as an alternative and I felt bad that they charged Lindsay so much and wouldn't even give her any details.

I only recommended them because A4U was out of commission and Fakespotters was recommended to me directly by Chloe Customer Service. I wonder if they have some kind of working relationship with the brand and aren't allowed to give out particulars or something? I really don't know but I definitely won't recommend them again.

I hope you aren't feeling any guilt about recommending them! You certainly are not responsible for their actions, and I assume, had I contacted Chloe myself, they would have made the same recommendation!

 

[jellyv]

just talked to my BFF, and she said she never actually talked to LV.
yet again, proves why it's entirely reasonable for everyone (including myself) to be skeptical about this!

Very sweet of you. No need for crow.

Sorry you've had mystifying service from another authenticator (not A4U).

 

[uadjit]

I hope you aren't feeling any guilt about recommending them! You certainly are not responsible for their actions, and I assume, had I contacted Chloe myself, they would have made the same recommendation!

Aw, that's kind of you. I do feel bad that you had to go through the extra hassle but hey, at least we all learned something, right?

 

[Jpwins]

I got an email yesterday and she refunded me back my $$, said that she has been ill for the last 2 weeks.

 

[Prada Psycho]

It's been my observation that clients are only given the "why" of what makes a bag fake when the client purchases a statement for a dispute. Then the details are outlined. No one seems ask for particulars when the verdict "authentic" comes back. I don't see that it's necessary to have details when it's counterfeit. It's no secret that counterfeiters use authentication services to see if their garbage will pass muster.

 

[BeenBurned]

It's been my observation that clients are only given the "why" of what makes a bag fake when the client purchases a statement for a dispute. Then the details are outlined. No one seems ask for particulars when the verdict "authentic" comes back. I don't see that it's necessary to have details when it's counterfeit. It's no secret that counterfeiters use authentication services to see if their garbage will pass muster.

But don't you think it's reasonable for a client who has received 2 contradictory findings from reputable experts to know what one of them might have seen that the other might have missed?

 

[Prada Psycho]

But don't you think it's reasonable for a client who has received 2 contradictory findings from reputable experts to know what one of them might have seen that the other might have missed?

I think it all depends on the policies of the particular service. If one service is OK with giving out that information, fine. If the second has a hard fast rule against it, that's fine also. It's the company's prerogative to set their own policy. If customers like or dislike those policies, they have the option to go elsewhere.