Warning: Disturbing Autograph "Authentication" Material!

[RickGallway]

Disturbing autograph "authentication" material after the click:

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=11043

What a f*cking fiasco!

[tcdyess]

Wow, what a gread read.. thanks for posting it...

[travrosty]

This is something else, brings it to the next level. WOW!

They need to find out who consigned it the first time around, who bought it, and who consigned it the second time around, and the relationships between these consignors, buyers and all of the people involved in this transaction from the auction house, the authenticators, everybody. It's time they got to the bottom of this because it's not just someone's "opinion" anymore", it's gone today, here tomorrow.

First red flag is how a Wagner signature could be so light ont he original consignment when all the other signatures are a bold 9 or 10, and the first day cover doesn't show signs of duress or sun fading. Then how all the signatures could be deemed a 10 just two years later without the same authenticators remembering such a remarkable item, especially with the Ty Cobb signed letter of provenance.

The first thing an authenticator would remember in my opinion is "I remember that", "didn't it have a faded Wagner signature though?" It was just 2 years prior.

And he had to issue a new cert for it since it was now James Spence-PSA, while the first time around it was just James Spence. So there can't be an excuse that it already had a coa, no need to look at it again and issue another one, just use the first cert.

It was PSA backing spence the second time around so when he said all of the signatures were now a 10, that fancy spectral comparator machine must have not been plugged in?

As I ask each time something eye opening like this shows up - Is THIS enough now to realize there is a serious problem here with these same recurring companies?

[batsballsbases]

Disturbing to say the least! Why I always say this is why I stopped collecting autographed anything many years ago. To see all these FRANKENSTEIN pieces pop up years later to be questioned really makes you wonder if many of these items were real in the first place.Sad fact of life my friends is if there is money to be made someone will always find a way to expliot it for all it is worth. Sad part to me is all this " increditable material" sitting in great collections can it all be real? We are suppose to believe that a person with such vast knowledge of autographs issues a COA,LOA, Piece of garbage A, what ever you want to call it ,then a person puts down 10,20,30,40 thousand on an item,only to find out years later that it is fake,junk,garbage. Who is held accountable? Laughable fact is all these "experts" laugh at all the other "experts" when their items are called into question and deemed fake.
Fact: no one can tell even an "expert" that an autograph is 100% good or 100% bad. Its a GUESS. Eduacated as you think you are sorry its still a guess. Until someone puts money in an account to reimburse the poor guy who got stuck with your A$$ wipe LOA,COA then my friend you have no right calling yourself an expert.

[springpin]

What is the opinion of board members on fakes/forgeries in other areas of baseball collectibles? How about gloves, bats, uniforms, pennants, trophies, etc.? I find fantasies and reproductions in pinbacks, but they are not really all that common.

[RickGallway]

http://i.imgur.com/RWolM.jpg

[slidekellyslide]

I'm not pointing any fingers here, just theorizing...what's to keep any of these so called hobby experts from pocketing huge sums of money on forgeries themselves? With what some of these items sell for their word on one or two items can be worth what I make in an entire year.

[smokelessjoe]

I have not read the article yet, so maybe I should not comment...? But the first thing I notice is the Cooperstown Postal Date Stamp. Is it my eyes or does the top pic have a date of 1929 and the bottom one 1939???

Sorry if I have just stated the obvious...

[smokelessjoe]

I just realized its probably just a blurred image... Sorry about that.

[batsballsbases]

I'm not pointing any fingers here, just theorizing...what's to keep any of these so called hobby experts from pocketing huge sums of money on forgeries themselves? With what some of these items sell for their word on one or two items can be worth what I make in an entire year.

Dan,
I agree 100% Jeez let me get my expert (of which Im one myself) to give me a COA on this worthless piece of crap for my next auction,make myself a quick 30 thousand and by the time anyone finds out I will be long gone! As Eddie Murphy would say "hay its christmas time I need to buy that GI Joe with the kung foo grip. I feel it out there there PANICKIN ,PANICKIN I tell ya"

[dog*dirt]

This whole thing makes me sick. Although autographs are not really my thing it is just bad for the hobby in general, whether it's memorabilia or cards. We just had some recent posts as why some people feel the hobby is in decline and when you constantly see articles like this it is not helping to add people to the hobby..

[19cbb]

This whole thing makes me sick. Although autographs are not really my thing it is just bad for the hobby in general, whether it's memorabilia or cards. We just had some recent posts as why some people feel the hobby is in decline and when you constantly see articles like this it is not helping to add people to the hobby..

+1

[batsballsbases]

Shawn,
I think its just the blur all the cards in the article seem to be dated June 12 1939.

[tcdyess]

I was just looking at the Huggins & Scott auction going on with all those JSA LOAs.... certainly makes me wonder...

[yanks12025]

I just looked through Huggins and noticed this. Is this Gehrig good? Have never seen a auto like this.

http://hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=41451

[packs]

Boy do I wish I was related to Robert Ballard. I'd be suing the pants off of Mr. Spence and Mastro for ruining my grandfather's name.

[GrayGhost]

Wow. what a story. Maybe the second cover had the reverse invisible ink. This is getting wayyy out of hand...wow.

[gnaz01]

I just looked through Huggins and noticed this. Is this Gehrig good? Have never seen a auto like this.

http://hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=41451

It's gotta be good, it has a JSA LOA, doesn't it??? :D

[travrosty]

http://i.imgur.com/RWolM.jpg

The video spectral comparator they claim to have that detects erasures must have been loaned out to Batman at the time.

[Scott Garner]

Yikes!! Another black eye for the hobby....... :(

[GrayGhost]

Yikes!! Another black eye for the hobby....... :(

+1:(

[Caseyatbat]

This story is incomplete and also may be misleading. This item was sold at auction, so I am assuming it most likely had an "auction letter of authenticity", rather than a full letter. It is pretty common knowledge that their "auction letters" are pretty much quick opinions. And are far from the same thing as fully authenticating the item. They do not give detailed results everytime on auction letters. Since they are just looking at the items briefly and moving on to the next, I am sure they are not getting caught up on things like: removals, enhancements, etc. Those are things that the buyer may not find out until later when they are sent in to be fully authenticated. Some people say, "why should I send it in to be fully authenticated when it already has an auction LOA? Well that is why, your "auction letter" is really just a quick opinion (which is better than nothing, but far from fully certified). Also you may be saying, "well they why would I buy an expensive item that has only an auction letter?" The answer is, it is risky. The item usually does not sell for as much because of the reasons stated above. Or if you do buy it, make sure to get it upgraded to a Full LOA immediately, just like it says to on the auction letter. So you still have the option to return it.

In the article, my assumption is further backed up when Nash mentions that Spence noted in the so called "LOA" the autographs were all 9's and 10's. This is the tall tail sign that this item carried an "auction" letter of authenticity rather than a full letter. Because Spence does not grade autographs. This most likely happened because in an auction letter, the actual "lot description" from the auction house is entered into the auction LOA as the description. So when Nash says, "Spence noted they were 9's and 10's". That was most likely the auction house noting in that in their own description and used in the auction LOA which is still common practice to this day.

Also, this "incident" occurred 11 and 13 years ago. That was literally the first few years this type of authentication was introduced. I am sure they have learned a lot since and moved on. Good Luck trying to get something like that by them now, especially if it was being fully authenticated. I am sorry, if this is the best the criticizers have, this is not good enough. In my opinion, the good they do far outweighs the few instances such as these.

[RichardSimon]

This story is incomplete and also may be misleading. This item was sold at auction, so I am assuming it most likely had an "auction letter of authenticity", rather than a full letter. It is pretty common knowledge that their "auction letters" are pretty much quick opinions. And are far from the same thing as fully authenticating the item. They do not give detailed results everytime on auction letters. Since they are just looking at the items briefly and moving on to the next, I am sure they are not getting caught up on things like: removals, enhancements, etc. Those are things that the buyer may not find out until later when they are sent in to be fully authenticated. Some people say, "why should I send it in to be fully authenticated when it already has an auction LOA? Well that is why, your "auction letter" is really just a quick opinion (which is better than nothing, but far from fully certified). Also you may be saying, "well they why would I buy an expensive item that has only an auction letter?" The answer is, it is risky. The item usually does not sell for as much because of the reasons stated above. Or if you do buy it, make sure to get it upgraded to a Full LOA immediately, just like it says to on the auction letter. So you still have the option to return it.

In the article, my assumption is further backed up when Nash mentions that Spence noted in the so called "LOA" the autographs were all 9's and 10's. This is the tall tail sign that this item carried an "auction" letter of authenticity rather than a full letter. Because Spence does not grade autographs. This most likely happened because in an auction letter, the actual "lot description" from the auction house is entered into the auction LOA as the description. So when Nash says, "Spence noted they were 9's and 10's". That was most likely the auction house noting in that in their own description and used in the auction LOA which is still common practice to this day.

Also, this "incident" occurred 11 and 13 years ago. That was literally the first few years this type of authentication was introduced. I am sure they have learned a lot since and moved on. Good Luck trying to get something like that by them now, especially if it was being fully authenticated. I am sorry, if this is the best the criticizers have, this is not good enough. In my opinion, the good they do far outweighs the few instances such as these.

Well, as a non user of TPA who proudly sells his own material without TPA, and you Casey as one who does use TPA, we have to agree to disagree. And I would vehemently disagree with your use of the words "few instances."
Travis can outline way more than a few as can Peter Nash and others. I have already given details of three instances that happened to me where PSA was DEAD WRONG. Two of the three were Babe Ruth autographs.
And Casey since you opened the door in your post to auction certs. well you yourself know what a scam that is.
And though this is OT don't get me started on the autograph registries. Why don't they just start a registry for the size of your penis? Oh damn, I just gave them an idea.
ps. If that p word is anathema to a mod then please go ahead and change it.

[vintagechris]

I had won a lot of signed football cards around 400 from an auction house that was a mix of years with over 200 signed cards from 1985. It had a JSA Auction LOA with it. When I got the lot in, it literally took me less than three minutes to realize that a large number of the 1985's were blatant forgeries. Three minutes!
But for some reason JSA wasn't able to pick them out at all.
There were forgeries of people who have been signing in the mail since their playing days. people like Harry Carson and Charlie Joiner. People who's signature literally hasn't changed at all or very little since the 70's. I am familiar with many players sigs that were in this lot but there were some I was not familiar with and there would be duplicates of several players and many with different style sigs. Knowing that players change the way they sign, I looked for many of these "variations" and a large % I never found. In this day with the internet, you can usually find examples of players variations in the way they sign.

Anyway, here is an example of what I got from that auction house.

[Scott Garner]

Well, as a non user of TPA who proudly sells his own material without TPA, and you Casey as one who does use TPA, we have to agree to disagree. And I would vehemently disagree with your use of the words "few instances."
Travis can outline way more than a few as can Peter Nash and others. I have already given details of three instances that happened to me where PSA was DEAD WRONG. Two of the three were Babe Ruth autographs.
And Casey since you opened the door in your post to auction certs. well you yourself know what a scam that is.
And though this is OT don't get me started on the autograph registries. Why don't they just start a registry for the size of your penis? Oh damn, I just gave them an idea.
ps. If that p word is anathema to a mod then please go ahead and change it.

Richard,

Would this penis registry idea of yours include a hologram sticker on the actual unit? This could get ugly.... :p

[RickGallway]

Casey, as the saying goes: In modern business it is not the crook who is to be feared most, it is the honest man who doesn't know what he is doing.

Are you the "honest man" or just playing stupid here?

[travrosty]

This story is incomplete and also may be misleading. This item was sold at auction, so I am assuming it most likely had an "auction letter of authenticity", rather than a full letter. It is pretty common knowledge that their "auction letters" are pretty much quick opinions. And are far from the same thing as fully authenticating the item. They do not give detailed results everytime on auction letters. Since they are just looking at the items briefly and moving on to the next, I am sure they are not getting caught up on things like: removals, enhancements, etc. Those are things that the buyer may not find out until later when they are sent in to be fully authenticated. Some people say, "why should I send it in to be fully authenticated when it already has an auction LOA? Well that is why, your "auction letter" is really just a quick opinion (which is better than nothing, but far from fully certified). Also you may be saying, "well they why would I buy an expensive item that has only an auction letter?" The answer is, it is risky. The item usually does not sell for as much because of the reasons stated above. Or if you do buy it, make sure to get it upgraded to a Full LOA immediately, just like it says to on the auction letter. So you still have the option to return it.

In the article, my assumption is further backed up when Nash mentions that Spence noted in the so called "LOA" the autographs were all 9's and 10's. This is the tall tail sign that this item carried an "auction" letter of authenticity rather than a full letter. Because Spence does not grade autographs. This most likely happened because in an auction letter, the actual "lot description" from the auction house is entered into the auction LOA as the description. So when Nash says, "Spence noted they were 9's and 10's". That was most likely the auction house noting in that in their own description and used in the auction LOA which is still common practice to this day.

Also, this "incident" occurred 11 and 13 years ago. That was literally the first few years this type of authentication was introduced. I am sure they have learned a lot since and moved on. Good Luck trying to get something like that by them now, especially if it was being fully authenticated. I am sorry, if this is the best the criticizers have, this is not good enough. In my opinion, the good they do far outweighs the few instances such as these.



Pathetic attempt at an excuse and to say they don't make mistakes like that today is not paying attention. If an auction LOA isn't worth a darn, then they bamboozled collectors for years. If a 1939 induction hof signed piece by all living members of the inaugural class only warrants a quick glance, then that incompetence is just as bad as if they took a hard look at it and passed it.

If anything is worth a good inspection, it is something like that. there is no such thing as quick opinions for such important pieces like this.

This piece getting by them is one thing, but you seem to miss the crux of the story, that it got by them twice, with the wagner signature darkened the second time. quick opinion auction loa or not, they would remember such an important piece as only 2 years went by. for them not to remember it, especially with a cool ty cobb provenance letter that would stick out in your mind, is too hard for me to swallow. i would remember it easily.

They wouldn't do anything like that today? Did you see them recently cert a Thomas Sayers 1860's boxing autograph and issue a FULL LOA, only for both psa and jsa to take the letters back because they admitted there are no exemplars for Sayers autograph? If they are guilty of that craziness, there is nothing, and I mean nothing I am surprised about these days. And they only retracted the Sayers certs because collectors pointed it out and embarrassed the auction house and the authenticators, prompting them to turn tail and bail on the piece.

To foist the auction LOA excuse is pretty weak. They put their name on it. spence/guttierez, they need to be held accountable. Otherwise anyone can claim "auction loa" amnesia and get away scott free? You put your name to something, you take ownership of it. Otherwise it is the best gig in the world. cert something without any responsibility for your cert? We certed it, just kidding. try again, another cert, aw, just kidding. Don't hold it against us!!!! Some of these piece are 20k, 50k, 90k. C'mon. A quick little mistake we should sweep under the rug? I think not.

I have at least 50 instances of them being DEAD WRONG, just on boxing, not just on something that could go either way, but obvious, obvious mistakes that only incompetance or not paying attention, or authenticating too fast, with people authenticating out of their expertise could bring. Not just on small names, but Sullivan, Jack Johnson, fitzsimmons, Jeffries, Dempsey, Louis, Schmeling, Ali, Liston. Were these all "quick opinion auction loa's? No! Does it matter if it is a quick opinion or not. No, not in my book. They want to opine, whether auction loa, ebay quick opinion, or full loa, they better get it right, they are affecting other peoples time and money.

Defending the indefensible like this just really winds me up. Like I said, is THIS enough now? Evidently not for some, well there's more, a lot more, just wait.

[Caseyatbat]

Yes agreed the auction letters are horrible. Especially for the reason I mentioned to you the other day. When dealing with auction letters for high end items, proceed with extreme caution. If the auction house really cared about the buyer and has nothing to hide, then they should use all Full LOA's when dealing with valuable items. I believe Huggins started using all full LOA's for this reason. Buyers don't pay as much for an auction letter. very risky

Also I understand your frustration with the disagreement over the 3 instances you experienced. I have been through similar experiences myself. But I feel those situations are a little different because they rejected the items, rather than passed them and found out they were wrong later. Even they might tell you the autographs may very well be authentic they are failing, they just did not feel confident enough in them to pass them at that particular point in time. When dealing with high end autographs that are going to be eye balled by everybody, I think that makes sense. If they have any doubt at all, they probably just fail it. Especially if they are at a "show" and are on a time-clock. They are not going to sit there at a show and think about any one item when they have all of that stuff to get through in that one day.

[Caseyatbat]

Rick,

What exactly are you referring to when you say that? That I am playing stupid? It is obvious, the story that is being talked about here is about an "auction letter of authenticity". That means the item was only briefly looked at. Maybe even possibly through an image on the computer rather than in person. And images in 1999 were far from what they are today. That means no machinery was used for this "quick opinion" such as that crazy machine he has available when items are fully authenticated. In fact, since this item was sold by the same auction house twice, this item probably never was fully authenticated. Rather, auction LOA's both times. Which would mean Spence did not take pictures of the item for his exemplars or to put in the letter. So in that case, he would not have pictures on hand from the first time he authenticated that item in 99.

What is stupid is buying an item for 20K based solely on an auction letter. An auction letter is in now way a guarantee it will pass a full authentication process. More like the 7 dollar PSA quick opinion offered on ebay, in a fancier form. So tell me Rick, what exactly is your argument here? I am not playing the "honest guy", rather I am pointing out things from this article that do not add up and people may not be aware of.

[Caseyatbat]

Travis, Yes I believe auction letters are not worth a darn. if you print out a quick opinion offered on ebay I believe it is worth the same as an auction letter. And it is not Spences fault the auction house decided not to fully authenticate the item. If someone is to blame here, I would blame the auction house. Such a valuable item should be fully authenticated to eliminate any doubt for the buyer and reduce their own responsibility. I am sure Spence would have rather fully authenticated the item and take pics for his registry, but that is up to the auction house. Is it possible they wanted auction letters for a reason? In this case, it is self explanatory why they would.

And yes I keep hearing about the same story over and over again about the Sayers autograph. Everybody knows it happened, at least they made good for it and took it off the market. That is one instance. And the 50 instances you mentioned, should not include items they turned down. Only should include the ones they did infact pass when they should not have. Which does not happen very often, but of course it does happen. Why? because if they have any doubt they usually don't pass it. Hence why so many people hate them. And I would rather keep it that way. If they start passing items they have doubt on, at what point does it stop? Next thing you know they would be passing everything and end up like the rest of terrible authenticators out there. I would rather them keep their standards strict and not forgiving.

[RickGallway]

Casey, it looks like your business (http://theautographexchange.com) is heavily invested in Spence "authenticated" items. You're free to defend him.

Btw, how old were you back in 1999? :)

[mr2686]

Scott, I wonder if you would get an un-authentic rating if it was found to be trimmed? :D

[Caseyatbat]

Rick, thanks for understanding my defense. Yes that is one of my websites. But I do not "rely" on TPA's. I "self-authenticate" any item I buy beforehand. I don't buy items unless I am 100% confident in them. And then before I sell them, I issue them my own COA with a personal life-long guarantee. And then I also provide a major TPA full letter to go along with it for a variety of different reasons.

Also does it really matter how old I was in 1999? What matters is I am heavily invested in this hobby and deal with these types of autographs for a living. My life is autographs all day, everyday. Constantly researching and learning 7 days a week. When you are using your own money to put up for these types of autographs, believe me you take a pretty high level interest in learning what you are you doing. If a detective solves a crime from 30 years ago, does the judge say "actually detective, how old were you 30 years ago when the crime happened?" Or would the judge just take into account the detective is a professional and it is his job to know and solve the case.

[RickGallway]

...But I do not "rely" on TPA's. I "self-authenticate" any item I buy beforehand. I don't buy items unless I am 100% confident in them. And then before I sell them, I issue them my own COA with a personal life-long guarantee.

Did you "self-authenticate" that Walter Johnson ball you're offering? It looks like the usual forgery that can be authenticated by JSA and the likes.

Oh, and trust me... your age DOES matter.

[vintagechris]

This story is incomplete and also may be misleading. This item was sold at auction, so I am assuming it most likely had an "auction letter of authenticity", rather than a full letter. It is pretty common knowledge that their "auction letters" are pretty much quick opinions. And are far from the same thing as fully authenticating the item. They do not give detailed results everytime on auction letters. Since they are just looking at the items briefly and moving on to the next, I am sure they are not getting caught up on things like: removals, enhancements, etc. Those are things that the buyer may not find out until later when they are sent in to be fully authenticated. Some people say, "why should I send it in to be fully authenticated when it already has an auction LOA? Well that is why, your "auction letter" is really just a quick opinion (which is better than nothing, but far from fully certified). Also you may be saying, "well they why would I buy an expensive item that has only an auction letter?" The answer is, it is risky. The item usually does not sell for as much because of the reasons stated above. Or if you do buy it, make sure to get it upgraded to a Full LOA immediately, just like it says to on the auction letter. So you still have the option to return it.

In the article, my assumption is further backed up when Nash mentions that Spence noted in the so called "LOA" the autographs were all 9's and 10's. This is the tall tail sign that this item carried an "auction" letter of authenticity rather than a full letter. Because Spence does not grade autographs. This most likely happened because in an auction letter, the actual "lot description" from the auction house is entered into the auction LOA as the description. So when Nash says, "Spence noted they were 9's and 10's". That was most likely the auction house noting in that in their own description and used in the auction LOA which is still common practice to this day.

Also, this "incident" occurred 11 and 13 years ago. That was literally the first few years this type of authentication was introduced. I am sure they have learned a lot since and moved on. Good Luck trying to get something like that by them now, especially if it was being fully authenticated. I am sorry, if this is the best the criticizers have, this is not good enough. In my opinion, the good they do far outweighs the few instances such as these.

For me personally, I think there is something wrong when an authenticator is charging for his quick opinion, then charging someone again for their "real" opinion. Step back for a minute, doesn't that just not seem right?

I mean an authenticator gets paid by the auction house to authenticate something with an auction LOA, and basically they are saying this piece of paper means nothing until whoever buys it from the auction house gets it "upgraded" to a "real" LOA. Meanwhile the auction house is marketing the item as real because it has the "approval" of the alphabet boys and the alphabet boys get paid twice!

Doesn't this almost seem like a conflict of interest? The authenticator takes money out of his pocket and the auction house's pocket if he doesn't pass stuff. If you ask me, the auction houses and the authenticators are greedy because I don't believe most auction houses are holding these authenticators responsible for this garbage. Why? because they are getting paid by people who eat this garbage up in their auctions. Meanwhile, the alphabet boys get paid twice and smile all the way to the bank!

It is my belief that if you are paid by someone to authenticate something, you take your time and do it right the first time and charge what you are going to charge. I have seen to many cases where something got an auction LOA when it was obvious it wasn't even looked at by anyone who was knowledgeable about autographs

[Scott Garner]

Scott, I wonder if you would get an un-authentic rating if it was found to be trimmed? :D

Yes, Mike and I would also imagine that the immediate necessary removal of said alphabet sticker would be bitch....;)

[travrosty]

Rick, thanks for understanding my defense. Yes that is one of my websites. But I do not "rely" on TPA's. I "self-authenticate" any item I buy beforehand. I don't buy items unless I am 100% confident in them. And then before I sell them, I issue them my own COA with a personal life-long guarantee. And then I also provide a major TPA full letter to go along with it for a variety of different reasons.

Also does it really matter how old I was in 1999? What matters is I am heavily invested in this hobby and deal with these types of autographs for a living. My life is autographs all day, everyday. Constantly researching and learning 7 days a week. When you are using your own money to put up for these types of autographs, believe me you take a pretty high level interest in learning what you are you doing. If a detective solves a crime from 30 years ago, does the judge say "actually detective, how old were you 30 years ago when the crime happened?" Or would the judge just take into account the detective is a professional and it is his job to know and solve the case.



I just love the fact that every one of casey's posts end with the phrase, "Anything worth doing, is worth doing right!"

Does that include issuing loa's for very high priced sports memorabilia?

[Caseyatbat]

Rick, what exactly is the reason you are "attacking" me? It seems it is my age for some reason? or possibly because I did not agree with everybody else about this issue. Either way, not quite sure what your problem is. I am just expressing my opinion after looking at all the evidence that was given in the story. And I gave reasoning behind it, so you either agree or you don't. We are all entitled to our own opinion. In my opinion, auction letters mean close to nothing. they can not be taken seriously. I believe TPA's only charge about 10-20 dollars to do these auction letters, so obviously they are not going to spend much time with each item. Just look at briefly for things that stick out to them, and then they move on. As compared to when they fully authenticate, they typically do a much more thorough examination (especially for higher end items). For instance, here is a yankee team ball on ebay with an auction LOA, http://www.ebay.com/itm/1957-NY-Yankees-Team-Signed-OAL-Harridge-Ball-Hi-Grade-Mantle-Berra-Stengel-JSA-/130634365281?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1e6a6a3961. In my opinion, that Mantle is a "clubhouse" autograph. But it does not say that in the auction letter description. I am not surprised to see this, it is an auction letter. These are the types of things to be careful of when buying items with auction letters.

And no, I will not "trust you". Why would I do that? That is what scam artists say to me as they are a offering a bogus Babe Ruth autograph for me to buy. I would trust somebody a lot more like Richard who has been in this hobby since the beginning and I know he has lots of experience, which is everything in this hobby.

[Caseyatbat]

Travis, I did just get a nice chuckle from that last post. I got the quote from Tom Hanks in "A League of Their Own". Love that movie.

But to answer your question, I only use TPA's because the places I sell pretty much force sellers to. And since I like doing business there, I comply with their rules and don't risk not using them. I sell higher end items, and everybody just feels more comfortable with the TPA. That includes the places I sell them, my buyers themselves, and also makes me feel better about it as well when selling them. In the end, there are much more reasons for me to continue to use them, rather than the cons not to use them.

Wow, I am getting lots of heat on this topic, I may have to back off a little bit. Its like trying to stop marbles from rolling off a slanted table.

[HRBAKER]

So basically an "auction letter" is just a money grab by the authenticators that enables auction houses to better sell merchandise. Informed buyers should give them little to no creedence. Why would an authenticating house that desires to be taken seriously even participate in such a program?

Oh, there's a dime to be made. Nevermind.

[slidekellyslide]

So who is on the hook for an auction house letter? Is it the auction house or the ABC? And if it's ABC and I have an obvious forgery that has an auction house letter from said ABC what kind of pressure does that put on them to fully authenticate an obvious forgery?

[RickGallway]

Casey, I'm not attacking you. As long as you're the "honest man", I will not.

Since you keep bumping this thread to the top with your replies more people will learn about this fiasco, so I should rather thank you for that.

I don't collect or sell autographs, in fact, I don't know shit about them, but one thing I do know is how crooks have trashed and KEEP trashing this hobby.

The only scam artist here is the one that issued a certificate for the signed envelope that is being discussed in this thread. Trust me.

[slidekellyslide]

The only scam artist here is the one that issued a certificate for the signed envelope that is being discussed in this thread. Trust me.

I disagree...there is more than one scam artist at work here.

[RickGallway]

Touché

[travrosty]

People that inspect potential Rembrandt painting don't just look at it quick for a minute then decide whether or not it is a Rembrandt. Sometimes it take years. The companies have fallen into the trap of taking a process and adapting it to a business model that stresses squeezing every last penny as quick as they can make it instead of respecting the process and trying to maximize profits only within the confines of what allows for a thorough and complete inspection with safeguards in place.

It is the memorabilia version of killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs. The goose isn't dead yet, but it's bleeding profusely.


These TPA's should slow down at least some and make sure they look for erasures on every piece, and really do a good thorough job, even if it takes awhile and the profit on that piece isn't as much as they would like. Integrity of the process to protect the collector should trump profit at ANY cost.

Just slapping a sticker on it and moving on to the next piece may have worked for the last dozen years, but that is changing. GAI is no longer around, and the other companies haven't seemed to learn anything from that story.

Of course these companies have to make money in order to stay in business, but they also have to stay in business in order to make money!

[drc]

I agree that a company charging a fee to judge the accuracy of their own LOAs-- and, not only that, but saying this should be done on the LOA-- is, well, a curious concept.

I give quick opinions often (as many of us do)-- people email me photos of their items asking for my quick 2 cents--, but I'm hardly going to allow that opinion be printed out as a LOA for an item I've never seen in person. One, I can't authenticate something from digital photos and, two, I value my reputation.

[travrosty]

I agree that a company charging a fee to judge the accuracy of their own LOAs-- and, not only that, but saying this should be done on the LOA-- is, well, a curious concept.

I give quick opinions often-- people send me photos of their items asking for my quick 2 cents--, but I'm hardly going to allow that opinion be printed out as a LOA for an item I've never seen in person.



agreed, many times i give my opinion, but i say that only seeing it in person could i be sure. not going to issue an loa because some scan looked okay.

auction loa was a pig in a poke from the beginning, pay me more to upgrade then i will say it is really real. It is all about revenue streams first and foremost with them.

[slidekellyslide]

auction loa was a pig in a poke from the beginning, pay me more to upgrade then i will say it is really real. It is all about revenue streams first and foremost with them.

So if I pay $20,000 for a signed FDC that was given an auction letter by Spence am I pretty much guaranteed I can get a full letter from Spence even if on second look it's an obvious forgery?

[drc]

The basic responsibility and work for choosing authentic autographs for the auctions should be the auction houses themselves. If, in addition, they wish to have outside people give quick opinions, that's perfectly fine if not commendable.

[travrosty]

So if I pay $20,000 for a signed FDC that was given an auction letter by Spence am I pretty much guaranteed I can get a full letter from Spence even if on second look it's an obvious forgery?

well, they said at the time that auction loa was a "preliminary review" and if the inspection for the full loa differed with the auction loa, then you would get some type of credit for another authentication in the future. i guess you would have to take it up with the auction house then, but of course the auction house employs the TPA to avoid that type of liability.

now psa has a pre-certification, which is an auction loa only under another name. but the pre-certification does guarantee that it WILL pass for the full loa, but i dont know that the process they use to issue the pre-certification is any different than what they used for the auction loa's, which in many instances was looking at scans of the items via the computer. probably why jsa issued an auction loa for a mike tyson preprint that sold at heritage auction a couple of months ago with a coveted 'JSA AUCTION LOA'

its all very confusing and i think the companies dont mind it being that way, they are impossible to pin down just as to what an auction loa and precertification really mean.

and we have tried to ask those questions multiple times with a certain auction house, and all we got was circular logic that didn't lead anywhere. we kept asking and asking just what an auction loa was and what is the difference now that they have pre-certification instead of auction loa, and what the deal was, and we got doublespeak, doubletalk and babbling that we couldn't understand.

Can't pin them down on how exactly they inspect each item for an auction loa, pre-certification or full certification for that matter. They don't seem to want to care to explain it either. They all want to push liability onto the other party, with the ultimate excuse is that it is just "their opinion".

[slidekellyslide]

Thanks for the info...it's good to know that auction letters don't mean shinola. And if you get stuck with what turns out to be a forgery nobody is going to take responsibility.

[David Atkatz]

Ain't that the truth!

[slidekellyslide]

David, I had your baseball in mind when I started this line of questions. Hopefully there is some way you will get restitution otherwise it really is just one big racket.

[Leon]

I am not an autograph collector but obviously deal with a lot of folks who are. Here are a few random thoughts I have come up with pertaining to this thread.

1. I can't help but every time I see a Nash article think of the hot water he is in and alleged fraud he has committed. If I am not mistaking there is still an outstanding (large) judgement against him and a civil bench warrant for his arrest. Kind of like Sandusky lecturing on child abuse. That being said I do applaud his work in trying to uncover fraud in the hobby...but I can't help wondering the motive.

2. The quick opinions from TPA's don't seem to be worth the paper they are written on, from what I am reading.

3. TPA's and LOA's don't guarantee anything except an invoice for TPA services.

4. Lastly, I do understand "experience" but I don't think it's right to call into question someone's age in this argument. Casey is an adult and he is putting his money where his mouth is in this hobby. Many of the people who yell the loudest have the least vested interest. Casey isn't one of those guys.

Now back to the card side....at least things are civil over there. :eek:

[RichardSimon]

(quote)(Travis)"These TPA's should slow down at least some and make sure they look for erasures on every piece, and really do a good thorough job, even if it takes awhile and the profit on that piece isn't as much as they would like. Integrity of the process to protect the collector should trump profit at ANY cost."

Some of you may know that I was on the first PSA authentication team along with Jimmy Spence, Jim Stinson and Ron Gordon.
We all flew to California for the work. (once a month when authentication first started).
At one point in time we all asked to stay over for an extra day, because we knew the amount of items we had to inspect would not get the time allotted to them that would have been necessary to make the proper decisions for the items.
Our request was denied by a higher up at the company. I don't recall who.
"Get it done by tonite" was the reply.

[johnmh71]

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

[steve B]

Pushing the schedule that hard seems like a good way to ensure mistakes. I'm not sure I'd be willing to work that way with any of the stuff I do. There are always rush jobs, but not at the expense of quality either for that job or the ones it's putting off till later.

From the APS
http://stamps.org/DisplayPage.aspx?id=197
"12.No item will be accepted if the owner insists upon a deadline date for its return. Owners should allow 90 days before expecting a certificate. Since items are submitted to expert committee members for their opinions by mail, unavoidable delays are often experienced."

Of course their guarantee is a bit better. Not much for very high end stuff, but great for most items.
http://stamps.org/APEX-Guarantee

The certs are atually meaningful, and it's only $8 if they decline to make a decision. Most items get through the system reasonably quickly, but some really special ones can take a while. And controversial ones can take years and still get what's essentially a no decision. One batch of questionable Hawaiian stamps literally took years, and involved actual experts in printing, paper, inks, and probably a few specialties I didn't hear about. The English equivalent to the APS took it on, and ended up writing a book. And they're still controversial, although most likely fake. I've seen them in person, and they're spectacular fakes -assuming they're not actually real.
If you've got time there's lots of info here. delay in certs? These have only been waiting since 1919.....
http://www.hawaiianstamps.com/mi_grinnell.html

Steve B

[Runscott]

...
Now back to the card side....at least things are civil over there. :eek:

As in 'civil war'. :p

[travrosty]

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.



1. I think its pretty clear that the items he recently uncovered are online at the auction house archives. that's not taking his word, it is using your own eyes to see that a certified wagner signature wasn't there (very light), and two years later, it was! (added dark signature).

2. I think it is made clear that the autographs that are questioned are Ron K's opinion unless you have something against him I think he is a very good source for an opinion on these autographs.

3. If the item is bad with a TPA cert, then what's the difference, other than people feel more comfortable buying the forgery with the TPA cert. Forgers use the TPA to legitimize their forgeries, that is why it is important to get them right. if the TPA's got them right, i would have nothing to complain about. But they obviously don't.

[HRBAKER]

Good points Leon, especially #1. Assuming the worst as far as a motive, it doesn't make the information any less damning IMO if true.

The reality is this, the only thing that is certain to me about a TPA LOA is that the item is likely to be more "liquid" in today's hobby.
And that my friends is a result of marketing more than anything IMO.

[RickGallway]

Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone.

edited due to identity issue...(leon)

[slidekellyslide]

I already warned this side about swearing...please stop it.

As far as Pete Nice goes, I think what he is doing now is admirable, but I can't help but think this is all about taking others down with him. As long as he's taking down the bad element I can go with that.

[Caseyatbat]

First off, Leon Thank you very much, that is very much appreciated. And now second, as for you "Rick", why are you even still talking? Your last post said it all, you said - "I don't collect autographs or know anything about them" At this point Rick, you are wasting everybody's time. And I no longer want to respond back to your foolishness. How are you going to sit there and tell me what is authentic and what is not when you do not have any experience at all to base it off? zero experience and you were the first one to admit it to us. Honestly, why are you even involving yourself in this thread? The rest of us involved in this discussion actually care about the hobby. You are just posting stupid ridiculous things hoping to piss somebody off. What is this your day off work today?

[vintagechris]

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

IMO, one of the big problems is too many people who feel the way you do. The alphabet boys mistakes keep getting dismissed as just a few mistakes and nobody is ever held responsible for them. In reality, it seems to be a lot of mistakes. Not to mention, is there really any excuse for authenticating a preprint? Absolutely not. Zero reason why that should EVER happen. But it happens over and over.

How many times do these TPA's have to authenticate a preprint, a secretarial, an autograph with no known exemplars, or outright obvious forgeries before people say enough is enough. Instead, they are dismissed as honest mistakes that could happen to anyone. WHy not hold them accountable for these mistakes and quit listening to THEM tell us all how great they are at authenticating. How many times do they have to make these same mistakes to make people realize, something isn't quite right or they just aren't as good as they claim to be.

Whether you have someone intentionally forging and putting items into the marketplace, or you have someone authenticate something without real knowledge or credentials or authenticating in a rush and doing a poor job, the end result is the same. Forgeries hit the market.

Just the face that the TPA's and auction houses don't answer questions about these issues should send up red flags. Sadly, they have done so much marketing that they have convinced the world they are the best.

IMO, it is completely unethical to charge a fee for a preliminary authentication, only to later charge another fee to do a "real" authentication. If people can't see where this is wrong.......

[HRBAKER]

Chris,

It's an uphill climb, not many collectors want to consider the possibility that some of what they have may be bogus. And many dealers have become very reliant on the TPAs as a "sales tool" and price enhancer.

[vintagechris]

BTW, I might add that I don't believe a person's age means anything in regards to their knowledge. I know a lot of young guys under 30, some well under 30, who have done their homework and have way more knowledge than some older guys.

The number of years you have been on this earth means nothing compared to the total number of hours you have studied something.

For an example, I saw a story on 60 minutes about this 12 year old math genius in college and I would venture to say there are few people in this world at any age who can match his knowledge.

[vintagechris]

Chris,

It's an uphill climb, not many collectors want to consider the possibility that some of what they have may be bogus. And many dealers have become very reliant on the TPAs as a "sales tool" and price enhancer.

You are right Jeff and it is a very unfortunate situation for collectors. I can't imagine how David Atkatz must feel. He seems to be taking it much better than I would.

[RichardSimon]

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

John- the viable alternative is to stick with the dealers who know their material and whose knowledge is not second guessed, and IMO have greater knowledge than the TPA's. I have posted names in the past Stinson, Corcoran, Albersheim, Ron Gordon, Keating, Phil Marks and Lelands who authenticates their own stuff. If you stay with them that is the best alternative that I know.

[David Atkatz]

You are right Jeff and it is a very unfortunate situation for collectors. I can't imagine how David Atkatz must feel. He seems to be taking it much better than I would.It's not the end of the world, Chris. There are far more important things in life than a signed baseball, or even the money it cost.

[Leon]

Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone.



So what you are saying is Sandusky should lecture on child abuse?

[Leon]

RickGallway is now suspended until he and I talk on the phone. It is not for anything he, whoever he is, said in this thread. It has to do with his registration, which, at a minimum, is against board rules. thanks

PS- Rick, or whoever you are, please email me at leonl@flash.net if you want to be reinstated. We will have a nice long chat on the phone before that happens. I will go out on a limb and say I won't be getting an email.

[johnmh71]

My point was that neither JSA or PSA rubber stamp anything. I've submitted numerous items to both and I have had several items rejected, but none since I've focused on purchasing from more reputable dealers as suggested before. I approach every autograph with some doubt until I study it, purchase it from someone reputable, and then have it authenticated.

I also want to clarify that I do not believe that having them eliminates forgeries from the marketplace. That will always be a problem. And for the auction houses or any dealer that does their own, why should we believe that they are any more infallible than PSA or JSA?

I believe, that for most people, autograph collecting would be reduced to getting each one in person without TPAs. And even after building a collection that way, good luck trying to sell them down the road with no certification.

[travrosty]

IMO, one of the big problems is too many people who feel the way you do. The alphabet boys mistakes keep getting dismissed as just a few mistakes and nobody is ever held responsible for them. In reality, it seems to be a lot of mistakes. Not to mention, is there really any excuse for authenticating a preprint? Absolutely not. Zero reason why that should EVER happen. But it happens over and over.

How many times do these TPA's have to authenticate a preprint, a secretarial, an autograph with no known exemplars, or outright obvious forgeries before people say enough is enough. Instead, they are dismissed as honest mistakes that could happen to anyone. WHy not hold them accountable for these mistakes and quit listening to THEM tell us all how great they are at authenticating. How many times do they have to make these same mistakes to make people realize, something isn't quite right or they just aren't as good as they claim to be.

Whether you have someone intentionally forging and putting items into the marketplace, or you have someone authenticate something without real knowledge or credentials or authenticating in a rush and doing a poor job, the end result is the same. Forgeries hit the market.

Just the face that the TPA's and auction houses don't answer questions about these issues should send up red flags. Sadly, they have done so much marketing that they have convinced the world they are the best.

IMO, it is completely unethical to charge a fee for a preliminary authentication, only to later charge another fee to do a "real" authentication. If people can't see where this is wrong.......



This is exactly right. its the advertising that has told the masses what to believe in regards to these tpa's. They don't give interviews and answer any hard questions, only softball interviews that let them crow about how great they are.

[Bilko G]

One thing i have to ask after reading the Haulsofshame.com article and this thread, is are we sure that the original auctions only contained "auction loa's" and NOT full loa's? No where in the Haulofshames article does it say that only auction loa's were given for each item. In Fact the article only says “Offered with LOAs by James Spence and Mike Gutierrez.”, it does not say that they were only auction loa's offered, yet when someone mentioned it in this thread, it seems everyone took it for fact that it was only auction loa's offered in both auctions in 1999 and 2 years later in 2001. In fact when someone mentioned that they were only "auction loa's", it seems that the thread turned focus and only centered mainly around these "auction loa's" when really the article does not even mention if it was full or just auction loa's offered for these two auctions.

Now my next question is, would JSA offer ONLY an "auction loa" on a high profile item like this? An item that has 11 signatures of the original HOF inductees? An item like this, that has some of the most forged signatures in the history of autograph collecting? Would JSA only give a "auction loa" on an item that sells for tens of thousands of dollars? It would be interesting to talk to JSA and ask them this because i can not see them offering only an "auction loa" on an item of this magnitude, that nowadays sells for $40K+++!! An auction loa just basically means "that we believe this item could be authentic, but we would have to examine it further to be sure". Now i can see JSA giving these letters for lower priced items, but would they do that on a big priced item like this? On an item that would basically be an auction "center piece" in most auctions???

[J.McMurry]

My question in regards to the article and comments on this thread center on Spence himself. Taking out the TPG aspect of the situation,what is the opinion of James Spence the person? is he considered to be a crook? incompetent? untrustworthy? unknowledgeable? I noticed Richard did not list him among the names that were reliable,but about 10 years back,Spence fell into the category of "dealer who authenticates his own material". Just curious to hear opinions.

[drc]

I'm not an autograph expert and won't comment on expertise, but I dealt with Spence a few times several years ago when he was at PSA. I thought he was a nice guy and he was very helpful to me, including when I was not a customer. Had nothing bad to say about him.

[RichardSimon]

My question in regards to the article and comments on this thread center on Spence himself. Taking out the TPG aspect of the situation,what is the opinion of James Spence the person? is he considered to be a crook? incompetent? untrustworthy? unknowledgeable? I noticed Richard did not list him among the names that were reliable,but about 10 years back,Spence fell into the category of "dealer who authenticates his own material". Just curious to hear opinions.

Jody - the people I listed are autograph dealers who buy and sell.
Spence is not a dealer.

[travrosty]

One thing i have to ask after reading the Haulsofshame.com article and this thread, is are we sure that the original auctions only contained "auction loa's" and NOT full loa's? No where in the Haulofshames article does it say that only auction loa's were given for each item. In Fact the article only says “Offered with LOAs by James Spence and Mike Gutierrez.”, it does not say that they were only auction loa's offered, yet when someone mentioned it in this thread, it seems everyone took it for fact that it was only auction loa's offered in both auctions in 1999 and 2 years later in 2001. In fact when someone mentioned that they were only "auction loa's", it seems that the thread turned focus and only centered mainly around these "auction loa's" when really the article does not even mention if it was full or just auction loa's offered for these two auctions.

Now my next question is, would JSA offer ONLY an "auction loa" on a high profile item like this? An item that has 11 signatures of the original HOF inductees? An item like this, that has some of the most forged signatures in the history of autograph collecting? Would JSA only give a "auction loa" on an item that sells for tens of thousands of dollars? It would be interesting to talk to JSA and ask them this because i can not see them offering only an "auction loa" on an item of this magnitude, that nowadays sells for $40K+++!! An auction loa just basically means "that we believe this item could be authentic, but we would have to examine it further to be sure". Now i can see JSA giving these letters for lower priced items, but would they do that on a big priced item like this? On an item that would basically be an auction "center piece" in most auctions???



Bilko,

That is exactly right. Someone threw out the 'auction loa' out there as speculation to try to lessen the blow of the story and cause a diversion from the issues at hand.

No where in the auction listings did it say 'auction loa'. It said it had Loa's by spence/guttierez. that's it. not auction loa. So I think spence/guttierez need to explain themselves, there is no hiding behind an auction loa that was only was bandied about as speculation. We have to go by the information we know like the original auction listings.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=20189

[travrosty]

My question in regards to the article and comments on this thread center on Spence himself. Taking out the TPG aspect of the situation,what is the opinion of James Spence the person? is he considered to be a crook? incompetent? untrustworthy? unknowledgeable? I noticed Richard did not list him among the names that were reliable,but about 10 years back,Spence fell into the category of "dealer who authenticates his own material". Just curious to hear opinions.



I had heard that, and didn't know for sure either way, then I saw this.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=17131

This sure looks like a Spence created display, certed by Spence, so going by this description, it looked like he certed what was or what once was his own item., He should have recused himself.



An absolutely phenomenal signed display that features the autographs of 10 of the 11 living members (at the time) of the 1939 Hall of Fame dedication ceremonies during baseball's centennial year (Ty Cobb arrived too late to be in the famous photo). The piece was crafted by the inimitable James Spence, whose signed displays are the "cream of the crop". Includes: Babe Ruth (personal check); Walter Johnson (check); J. Honus Wagner (cut); George Sisler (cut); Eddie Collins (cut); Connie Mack (cut); Tris Speaker (cut); Cy Young (cut); Grover Cleveland Alexander (index card); Larry Lajoie (index card). Every one of the vintage ink signatures rate a solid "9-10" in strength, and each of the "cuts" are large examples. Accompanying the signed items are... an 11" x 14" black & white photo of the 11 Hall of Famers; seven original black & white Hall of Fame postcards (Wagner, Ruth, Collins, Young, Johnson, Alexander & Lajoie); copies of the other three postcards (Sisler, Mack & Speaker); a reproduction of the colorful 1939 Baseball Centennial program. Majestically framed & matted to 33 x 41 inches. LOA from James Spence/PSA DNA.

[travrosty]

I think it should be mentioned that auction loa's and quick opinions are more of a recent concept.

I don't see these auction listings for 10, 12 years ago mentioning auction loa's, because I don't believe the concept didn't exist back then, the concept of giving an item a lesser, quick, preliminary, cursory review and then trying to get the buyer to send in the item for the full loa after they give in a full inspection to certifying that it is "really" real.

if it had an loa from spence/guttierez or whoever, then it had an loa from them.

[RichardSimon]

Ya gotta just laugh and cry about the balls, the gonads not the baseballs :D, of the auction COA con.
The alphabets charge an auction house thousands of dollars when they visit them, they issue an auction COA, then they stick the collector with another $100+ or whatever jab, to actually examine the item.

[yanks12025]

Did anyone notice in the next April Heritage's auction, they have 6 Ruth signed balls in mint shape.

[Caseyatbat]

I had mentioned the item in question here may have been issued an auction LOA rather than a full LOA because there is evidence in the story that suggests that. The original auction description mentions it has LOA's from so and so. It does not mention whether it is a Full LOA or an Auction LOA, so it could be either.

In the story, it mentions the LOA itself reads that all the autographs are 9's and 10's in the description. This does not happen in a Full Letter. Spence does not "grade" autographs and this service was not available until years after this by any TPA. This would only happen in a Auction LOA, because in an auction letter the entire Lot description is used as the description in the Auction letter. And that sounds like what is going on here to me.

And this should clear up a little about "Auction Letters". They are not issued by the actual TPA. The Auction Letter is actually issued by the Auction House itself. The Auction House uses their own lot description in it, and it is not signed by the TPA either. It contains a facsimile pre-printed version. An auction letter is a way for "The Auction House" to guarantee the item. They guarantee the item to pass a Full LOA from that particular TPA within a certain amount of time (45 or 90 days I believe), or you have the option to return the item to the auction house if not. So the tough part to understand here is, it is not the TPA guaranteeing it is going to pass the full authentication process. It is the Auction House saying it is guaranteed to pass the full authentication or you can return if it does not. So it is very important to get a Full LOA ASAP within the allotted time or you will not have the guarantee anymore from the auction house. Because all an auction letter really is, is a letter from the auction house itself. And of course, we all know how risky that can be when you think about it.

[travrosty]

I had mentioned the item in question here may have been issued an auction LOA rather than a full LOA because there is evidence in the story that suggests that. The original auction description mentions it has LOA's from so and so. It does not mention whether it is a Full LOA or an Auction LOA, so it could be either.

In the story, it mentions the LOA itself reads that all the autographs are 9's and 10's in the description. This does not happen in a Full Letter. Spence does not "grade" autographs and this service was not available until years after this by any TPA. This would only happen in a Auction LOA, because in an auction letter the entire Lot description is used as the description in the Auction letter. And that sounds like what is going on here to me.

And this should clear up a little about "Auction Letters". They are not issued by the actual TPA. The Auction Letter is actually issued by the Auction House itself. The Auction House uses their own lot description in it, and it is not signed by the TPA either. It contains a facsimile pre-printed version. An auction letter is a way for "The Auction House" to guarantee the item. They guarantee the item to pass a Full LOA from that particular TPA within a certain amount of time (45 or 90 days I believe), or you have the option to return the item to the auction house if not. So the tough part to understand here is, it is not the TPA guaranteeing it is going to pass the full authentication process. It is the Auction House saying it is guaranteed to pass the full authentication or you can return if it does not. So it is very important to get a Full LOA ASAP within the allotted time or you will not have the guarantee anymore from the auction house. Because all an auction letter really is, is a letter from the auction house itself. And of course, we all know how risky that can be when you think about it.



no it couldn't because there were no auction loa's yet, that concept wasn't invented yet. they were all full loa's back then. show me any auction listing from 1999 to 2001 that says auction loa anywhere. There just wasnt auction loa's back then, there was no 'upgrade service' , give us more money then we will say it is 'really' real.

[Caseyatbat]

you are right, I am not sure if they had Aution LOA's that far back either. But show me a full LOA where it states all the autographs are 9's and 10's as well.

[travrosty]

you are right, I am not sure if they had Aution LOA's that far back either. But show me a full LOA where it states all the autographs are 9's and 10's as well.

nowhere does it say that that is what the full loa says. it simply says that the sigs are graded as such in the auction listing.

Those grading terms were informal back then, not official grades like they have now, and the only one saying that the loa's say the grade on the actual loa, thus making them an auction loa, is YOU!

The listing says loa by spence and guttierez, so thats what it is, loa from spence and guttierez, you just have to live with it, that they inspected the piece, blew it big time, or certed a piece they had seen two years prior and forgot? that the wagner was barely there the first time.

I'd like to get answers too as to how they could do that. but "auction loa" is not the answer, and is not the skirt to hide behind for these authenticators.

[RichardSimon]

So basically what this post of Casey's is saying is that there is a good chance that if you buy an item from an auction house, with an alphabet auction COA, it might not have even been looked at by a TPA.
WOW!!

[D. Bergin]

nowhere does it say that that is what the full loa says. it simply says that the sigs are graded as such in the auction listing.

Those grading terms were informal back then, not official grades like they have now, and the only one saying that the loa's say the grade on the actual loa, thus making them an auction loa, is YOU!

The listing says loa by spence and guttierez, so thats what it is, loa from spence and guttierez, you just have to live with it, that they inspected the piece, blew it big time, or certed a piece they had seen two years prior and forgot? that the wagner was barely there the first time.

I'd like to get answers too as to how they could do that. but "auction loa" is not the answer, and is not the skirt to hide behind for these authenticators.



Hey Travis,

I don't have a dog in this fight but what do you think of this Ali with COA on Ebay. I just ran across this by accident and it was certed just a few days ago. Doesn't look like any Ali I've ever seen.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/MUHAMMAD-ALI-AUTOGRAPHED-8X10-PHOTO-CERTIFIED-J-SPENCE-/230733986662?_trksid=e11010.m8&_trkparms=algo%3DMW%26its%3DI%252BC%26itu%3DUCC%26 otn%3D5%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D5865993226508237477 (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?campid=5336861720&customid=NET54&toolid=10001&mpre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fitm%2FMUHAMMAD-ALI-AUTOGRAPHED-8X10-PHOTO-CERTIFIED-J-SPENCE-%2F230733986662%3F_trksid%3De11010.m8%26_trkparms% 3Dalgo%253DMW%2526its%253DI%25252BC%2526itu%253DUC C%2526otn%253D5%2526ps%253D63%2526clkid%253D586599 3226508237477)

[travrosty]

Hey Travis,

I don't have a dog in this fight but what do you think of this Ali with COA on Ebay. I just ran across this by accident and it was certed just a few days ago. Doesn't look like any Ali I've ever seen.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/MUHAMMAD-ALI-AUTOGRAPHED-8X10-PHOTO-CERTIFIED-J-SPENCE-/230733986662?_trksid=e11010.m8&_trkparms=algo%3DMW%26its%3DI%252BC%26itu%3DUCC%26 otn%3D5%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D5865993226508237477 (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?campid=5336861720&customid=NET54&toolid=10001&mpre=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fitm%2FMUHAMMAD-ALI-AUTOGRAPHED-8X10-PHOTO-CERTIFIED-J-SPENCE-%2F230733986662%3F_trksid%3De11010.m8%26_trkparms% 3Dalgo%253DMW%2526its%253DI%25252BC%2526itu%253DUC C%2526otn%253D5%2526ps%253D63%2526clkid%253D586599 3226508237477)


Dave,

I havent seen anything like that before either. i've seen messy ali signatures, but that h is muhammad is something new for me. As well as the A in Ali. I wouldn't be able to cert it with certainty, and thats what certs are for, when someone is certain. I'd have to take a lot longer look, but as it is right now, I don't particularly like it.

[perezfan]

How can you tell definitively, with the level of Parkinson's that has set-in?

[perezfan]

Did anyone notice in the next April Heritage's auction, they have 6 Ruth signed balls in mint shape.

Brock:
I cannot find that auction on-line. Can you send or post a link, if you have access?

Thanks!

[travrosty]

How can you tell definitively, with the level of Parkinson's that has set-in?

Because that is not a later signature, or if it is forged, its suppose to mimic an earlier signature, not later. a later parkinsons affected signature is very shaky, and this one is not shaky, it looks rushed, but doesnt look like other rushed ali signatures, it looks too rushed. like he was signing a photo out of the window from a moving car going 60 miles an hour. its just very weird looking.

it generally has some of the tell tales signs of his signature, but looking at it closely it looks a little different with some things that don't add up.

[vintagechris]

Ya gotta just laugh and cry about the balls, the gonads not the baseballs :D, of the auction COA con.
The alphabets charge an auction house thousands of dollars when they visit them, they issue an auction COA, then they stick the collector with another $100+ or whatever jab, to actually examine the item.


yea, and collectors put their faith in companies with these types of practices. If it isn't obvious they only care about the almighty dollar, then I don't know what will ever convince people.

[yanks12025]

Mark,

Here you go. Go to page 7

http://sports.ha.com/common/search_results.php?Ntk=SI_Titles&N=55+792+4294955086&chkNotSold=0

[Exhibitman]

Dave,

I havent seen anything like that before either. i've seen messy ali signatures, but that h is muhammad is something new for me. As well as the A in Ali. I wouldn't be able to cert it with certainty, and thats what certs are for, when someone is certain. I'd have to take a lot longer look, but as it is right now, I don't particularly like it.

I wouldn't buy one that looks like that. He was a prolific signer in his asymptomatic days so there is a ton of material out there. As for rushed versus not rushed, I've shown these before but they seem aporpos:

Lennox Lewis I obtained in person at a promotional event for the Klitschko fight. He was on the move:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneouscards/large/Lewis.jpg

Lennox Lewis a friend of mine obtained back stage at an HBO event:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneouscards/Lewis%20on%20credential_1.jpg

No way could a TPA authenticate the one I got.

[travrosty]

I wouldn't buy one that looks like that. He was a prolific signer in his asymptomatic days so there is a ton of material out there. As for rushed versus not rushed, I've shown these before but they seem aporpos:

Lennox Lewis I obtained in person at a promotional event for the Klitschko fight. He was on the move:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneouscards/large/Lewis.jpg

Lennox Lewis a friend of mine obtained back stage at an HBO event:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibitman/miscellaneouscards/Lewis%20on%20credential_1.jpg

No way could a TPA authenticate the one I got.


That's right, you know it is real, but it really can't be authenticated. but all too often you will see something like this or an autograph of muhammad ali signed M.A. authenticated and they really shouldnt be because there isnt enough to go by.

Not able to authenticate doesnt mean fake, it just means for various reasons they can't conclude positively that it was signed by the celebrity or athlete in question. One of those reasons is that it is an abbreviated really quick, short signature that doesn't leave enough of the autograph to study.

a rejection letter means fake. but a lot of collectors will take offense to get an unable to authenticate but not every autograph is able to be authenticated. A lot more autographs should receive the unable to authenticate, or no opinion than currently receive it. they like to push it one way or another and its not fair to do that in many circumstances.

[mschwade]

That's right, you know it is real, but it really can't be authenticated. but all too often you will see something like this or an autograph of muhammad ali signed M.A. authenticated and they really shouldnt be because there isnt enough to go by.

Not able to authenticate doesnt mean fake, it just means for various reasons they can't conclude positively that it was signed by the celebrity or athlete in question. One of those reasons is that it is an abbreviated really quick, short signature that doesn't leave enough of the autograph to study.

a rejection letter means fake. but a lot of collectors will take offense to get an unable to authenticate but not every autograph is able to be authenticated. A lot more autographs should receive the unable to authenticate, or no opinion than currently receive it. they like to push it one way or another and its not fair to do that in many circumstances.

I will say that I asked PSA for a Quick Opinion a few months back on a Francis Schmidt (Ohio State coach in the 1930's) auto because I wasn't comfortable saying Yes it was authentic in my opinion or no it was not because I had never seen one like the item I was viewing. He signed his initials, which wasn't unusual, but he connected his two initials, which was unusual. The S was different than he typically signed Schmidt, but the chmidt in his last name was close to the way he normally signed. When the Quick Opinion came back, it said they weren't comfortable enough to offer an opinion and I was refunded the $8 or so a QO costs.

[johnmh71]

Let's all believe everything Nash says. He would never do anything phony or fraudulent himself. I wonder how the fresh slice of humble pie tastes?:

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/judge-gives-frasers-ownership-of-1912-world-series-trophy/

[travrosty]

What was written about the Honus Wagner signature on the induction covers (disappearing and then reappearing) is not a matter of opinion, you don't have to "believe" anyone. It is a matter of record.

The auctions that are referred to are available to anyone and everyone, they are public information. Look at the 2001 auction listing online and the other auction in the catalog that is mentioned, and you will see the same pictures that haulsofshame showed.

Do you believe your own eyes?

And I would like to ask Leon to ask these posters to please post their own full name as I was recently asked to do so, and I graciously obliged.

[Vintagedegu]

-

[johnmh71]

It's been talked about many times here (and I believe in the card forum) in the past. If we reject out of hand everything someone says because they may have a dirty nose, then we'd never be able to learn much about the dirt in this hobby. Unfortunate but true. You just have to take the info you get and digest it the best you can.

This is such a dirty business, it's really depressing...

It isn't necessarily the material but the motive behind sharing it that I question. Do your own research and judge for yourself. I just happen to believe that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

John Hatcher

[gnaz01]

It isn't necessarily the material but the motive behind sharing it that I question. Do your own research and judge for yourself. I just happen to believe that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

John Hatcher

John,

Understand your point fully, but as for me, I could care less about the motive as long as it exposes the material. Just my .02 cents worth.

[thecatspajamas]

I just happen to believe that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Ah, but it can be such an amazing spectacle when they do... :p

[Mr. Zipper]

It isn't necessarily the material but the motive behind sharing it that I question. Do your own research and judge for yourself. I just happen to believe that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

John Hatcher

There is no denying the TPAs have made some mistakes and I think reasoned criticism is completely valid.

However, what I find interesting is that the two sites dedicated to dredging up every mistake made in the past decade and utterly destroying the TPAs, are run by people who are anonymous and/or would not hold up well themselves if a bright light was trained on them.

[gnaz01]

However, what I find interesting is that the two sites dedicated to dredging up every mistake made in the past decade and utterly destroying the TPAs, are run by people who are anonymous and/or would not hold up well themselves if a bright light was trained on them.

Steve,

Maybe, but does that matter with respect to the fact that TPA's get it wrong many times?

[thetruthisoutthere]

"Are run by people who are anonymous and/or would not hold up well themselves if a bright light was trained on them."

Well written, Mr. Zipper.

[David Atkatz]

"Are run by people who are anonymous and/or would not hold up well themselves if a bright light was trained on them."

Well written, Mr. Zipper.So what? If what they are writing is true, it's true.

The owner/operator of a large sports auction house, renowned for his ethics, was caught ripping off the New York Public Library.

All seems to be forgiven, there, however.

[Mr. Zipper]

Steve,

Maybe, but does that matter with respect to the fact that TPA's get it wrong many times?

Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.

I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.

But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.

[David Atkatz]

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.Would we need to say the same? I doubt it.

[Fuddjcal]

Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.

I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.

But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.

agree wholeheartedly and therein lies the PROBLEM with the autograph industry...the saga continues

[johnmh71]

Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.

I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.

But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.

Amen Steve. I couldn't have put it any better myself.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.

I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.

But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.

Again, well written, Mr. Zipper.

First there is the "forensic" authenticator who issues generic COAs and doesn't seem to reject anything.

Then there is the authenticator with the "God Complex." When you point out one of his mistakes, he will never admit to it. Instead, he will ramble on and on about "How his COA has been forged." And when you do point out one of his mistakes, he always has a story as to how he acquired that autograph; and the story itself, is also just not believable.

Then there is the authenticator who claims he gets physically ill when he reads about one of his "mistakes."

And now there is a new authentication service, whose work is showing up on a particular auction site, and yet when you go to their website, there is absolutely no way to contact them, whether it be via email or telephone. They list various prices, but no menus that allow you to print a submission form.

Wow!!!

[David Atkatz]

And then there are the authenticators who say:

“Certification and authentication involves an individual judgment that is subjective and requires the exercise of professional opinion, which can change from time to time. Therefore, JSA makes no warranty or representation and shall have no liability whatsoever to the customer for the opinion rendered by JSA on any submission.”

“Certification and authentication involves an individual judgment that is subjective and requires the exercise of professional opinion, which can change from time to time. Therefore, PSADNA makes no warranty or representation and shall have no liability whatsoever to the customer for the opinion rendered by PSADNA on any submission.”

i.e., "I might be wrong, but if I am, we'll just chalk that up as a learning experience. Thanks for paying my tuition!"

Wow. And "wow" again.

[travrosty]

Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.

I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.

But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.




How do you know its only a small percentage?

hundreds and hundreds of good ones for every goof?

i can give you cert numbers that you can check online at psa for 75 bad muhammad ali signed photos, all in a row, that they won't cert anymore. 75 goofs in a row.

So hundreds (200) of good ali's for every bad ones means they can't make a mistake the next 15,000 muhammad ali signatures in a row? do you really think that is going to happen?

Of course many, many of the people defending these companies say 1000 to 1 good to bad, so where is the 75,000 muhammad ali good signatures without a mistake?

and a prominent authenticator who is a consultant for them even says 10,000 to 1 good to bad, so where are the three quarter of a million good ali's without a mistake?

[drc]

A question is can a critique more reliable than the source? If you don't trust the author, how can you trust what is written?

Bias, misinformation and propaganda doesn't always mean that the individual information is incorrect, but that often correct information is cherry picked to meet an agenda or pre-determined outcome. In these critiques, threre is no doubt that the conclusion was picked first, then the data was gathered to support it. Don't just ask what was included in the report, but what was excluded and why.

That's why I think following critiques with predetermined conclusions written by authors with questionable ethics is at best a dubious exercise. Whether or not the individual tidbits of information are accurate, the whole exercise is unreliable, because of the authors' biases the size of Lake Michigan.

If these types of sites and essays and critiques are important for the hobby-- and they probably should--, they should be being written by entirely different people. For example, people who are not writing them to get back at companies these have vendettas against and/or as methods to subvert competition for the author's own company.

[David Atkatz]

Are you describing these websites, or auction lot descriptions?

(Perhaps both.)

[thekingofclout]

There is no denying the TPAs have made some mistakes and I think reasoned criticism is completely valid.

However, what I find interesting is that the two sites dedicated to dredging up every mistake made in the past decade and utterly destroying the TPAs, are run by people who are anonymous and/or would not hold up well themselves if a bright light was trained on them.

like

[thekingofclout]

A question is can a critique more reliable than the source? If you don't trust the author, how can you trust what is written?

Bias, misinformation and propaganda doesn't always mean that the individual information is incorrect, but that often correct information is cherry picked to meet an agenda or pre-determined outcome. In these critiques, threre is no doubt that the conclusion was picked first, then the data was gathered to support it. Don't just ask what was included in the report, but what was excluded and why.

That's why I think following critiques with predetermined conclusions written by authors with questionable ethics is at best a dubious exercise. Whether or not the individual tidbits of information are accurate, the whole exercise is unreliable, because of the authors' biases the size of Lake Michigan.

If these types of sites and essays and critiques are important for the hobby-- and they probably should--, they should be being written by entirely different people. For example, people who are not writing them to get back at companies these have vendettas against and/or as methods to subvert competition for the author's own company.

Outstanding post David!

[David Atkatz]

Of course the information is cherry-picked, David. Is there much point in discussing, say, all the August Hermann papers that weren't stolen from the Hall of Fame? After all, that Heritage auction guy left most of them behind. Or the Halper uniforms that weren't forged? (I'm sure there were a few.)

The purpose of the website is to expose fraud. It therefore showcases fraud.

[A2000]

i can give you cert numbers that you can check online at psa for 75 bad muhammad ali signed photos, all in a row, that they won't cert anymore. 75 goofs in a row.


Can you post the cert number of the fake Ali signatures? If they no longer certify these as being real, I'm sure these bad examples would be useful so collectors know at least what to stay away from.

[vintagechris]

For me, it isn't so much the ratio of times the TPA's have gotten it wrong to how many times they have gotten it right, but the number of instances that keep popping up showing them being careless and not doing their job very well or barely actually examining an item. I have personally experienced this as well as seen other stories with examples of this.

The fact is, nobody can possibly know the % they get correct or wrong, so for anyone to say they get far more right than wrong is is just a statement of opinion, we just don't know the %. What we can see and is fact, is the number of times an authenticator is negligent in doing a poor job of examining an item by giving a thumbs up to a preprint, a secretarial or a photo copy, all of which should NEVER happen if you actually examine the item properly.

IMO, there is a big difference in TPA who will not answer any uestions about their practice and are trying to authenticate as many items as possible so they can make money and the TPA who really cares about the hobby and takes their time examining an item.

I believe Richard to be one of these guys who takes his time to examine an item because he cares about the hobby and values his reputation above a dollar. He will admit he has gotten some wrong in the past but I would feel more comfortable with him believing that he took the time to examine the item properly instead of just doing the assembly line process to authenticate as many items as possible because it means more money.

Edited to say, in the end, shouldn't we doubt more the guys who show they do a poor job by not examining things properly. Since we don't really know the ratio they get right, shouldn't we judge them on the things we do know?

[Mr. Zipper]

Since we don't really know the ratio they get right, shouldn't we judge them on the things we do know?

We do know they get a lot right. Go to eBay where there are thousands of TPA Mantles, Williams, DiMaggios, Koufaxs, Cobbs, Ruths, Jeters etc etc on display at any given time and see how many fakes you find. There might be a few clunkers that slipped through, but it would be a tiny percentage of the whole.

As I stated earlier, it's not about sweeping mistakes under the rug, but about addressing issues rationally and keeping it in perspective.

[RichardSimon]

Steve - We have known each other for a long time and I believe there is a mutual trust and liking between us.
That said, I have to rehash one old story that has been mentioned here before and you should judge it on its merits and think about how such a mistake could occur.
Hunt Auctions auctioned off a handwritten letter purportedly signed by Ed Delahanty. The signature on the letter read Ed Delehanty. PSA and JSA both gave this letter a full COA, despite the obvious misspelling of his last name. It eventually was proven that Ed's manager wrote out the full letter and signed it for Delahanty. It sold for $30,000. What motivates a TPA to authenticate such an item and to NOT note in the COA that the name is misspelled. Not one TPA but both leading TPA's.
I have always found this one particular incident to be troubling.
I have discussed other incidents here on the board. The Babe Ruth autographs that I sold that were rejected by PSA, though I had bought them from someone who at the time of Ruth's life was an in person collector. He hung out at the Ansonia Hotel where Ruth had a room for personal activities :). This man became a close personal friend of mine and was the author of Freedom's Sword: The NAACP and the Struggle Against Racism in America, 1909-1969 by Gil Jonas.
But as I have stated in the past mistakes are part of the game and nobody is infallible. I would even think that, outside of boxing, their batting average is not bad in some categories.
But I still find the Delahanty letter incident to be very troubling in so many ways. And I doubt if there is anything that anyone can say that would make me change my mind about that.

[vintagechris]

We do know they get a lot right. Go to eBay where there are thousands of TPA Mantles, Williams, DiMaggios, Koufaxs, Cobbs, Ruths, Jeters etc etc on display at any given time and see how many fakes you find. There might be a few clunkers that slipped through, but it would be a tiny percentage of the whole.

As I stated earlier, it's not about sweeping mistakes under the rug, but about addressing issues rationally and keeping it in perspective.

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make. I never said they don't get a lot right. I said it is impossible to know the true ratio of good to bad. My issue is with the poor quality of work they put in at times. How do you know when you are getting their best examination? Why put so much trust in someone who does poor work? My issue is not with their % they get right or wrong, I personally don't know the %. I haven't seen all items authenticated by any company. I have seen lots of authenticated autos by TPA's that are good and bad. My big beef is their credentials and lack of quality control.

Take any of the big TPA's, you don't have a clue who is actually examining your item. How do you know the person examining an item is actually good at what they do?

And you seem to be glossing over the fact that they authenticate preprints. This should never ever happen. I mean never. It shouldn't be considered an honest mistake IMO but an outright fraud because they obviously didn't examine the item that someone paid them to examine. If you are getting paid to authenticate an item, you should be able to tell if it is a preprint by going through a thorough examination process. When these get passed, it is because they didn't do this, yet these are the people we trust to give our money to to authenticate something?

Just to emphasize, I get people will miss some forgeries, but to authenticate a preprint should absolutely never and I mean never happen. There is no excuse for it.

I'll give another example, if I'm building a house and I know one company is known to take short cuts and there is another one I believe doesn't take short cuts, I'm going with the company who doesn't take short cuts. Regardless of if the company who takes short cuts has 1 issue in a thousand.

I've seen enough to know firsthand of some companies that without question take shortcuts.

[vintagechris]

Steve - We have known each other for a long time and I believe there is a mutual trust and liking between us.
That said, I have to rehash one old story that has been mentioned here before and you should judge it on its merits and think about how such a mistake could occur.
Hunt Auctions auctioned off a handwritten letter purportedly signed by Ed Delahanty. The signature on the letter read Ed Delehanty. PSA and JSA both gave this letter a full COA, despite the obvious misspelling of his last name. It eventually was proven that Ed's manager wrote out the full letter and signed it for Delahanty. It sold for $30,000. What motivates a TPA to authenticate such an item and to NOT note in the COA that the name is misspelled. Not one TPA but both leading TPA's.
I have always found this one particular incident to be troubling.
I have discussed other incidents here on the board. The Babe Ruth autographs that I sold that were rejected by PSA, though I had bought them from someone who at the time of Ruth's life was an in person collector. He hung out at the Ansonia Hotel where Ruth had a room for personal activities :). This man became a close personal friend of mine and was the author of Freedom's Sword: The NAACP and the Struggle Against Racism in America, 1909-1969 by Gil Jonas.
But as I have stated in the past mistakes are part of the game and nobody is infallible. I would even think that, outside of boxing, their batting average is not bad in some categories.
But I still find the Delahanty letter incident to be very troubling in so many ways. And I doubt if there is anything that anyone can say that would make me change my mind about that.

Steve, this was the point I was trying to make. It's not the honest mistakes that bother me, it's the issues that should never happen, the issues that happen when they get sloppy that bother me.

[RichardSimon]

And you seem to be glossing over the fact that they authenticate preprints. This should never ever happen. I mean never. It shouldn't be considered an honest mistake IMO but an outright fraud because they obviously didn't examine the item that someone paid them to examine. If you are getting paid to authenticate an item, you should be able to tell if it is a preprint by going through a thorough examination process. When these get passed, it is because they didn't do this, yet these are the people we trust to give our money to to authenticate something?



In most cases you don't even need a thorough examination process to see a preprint. Take the autograph photo out of the plastic sheet. The ink on the photo does not "leap" off the photo. You place it under a light and bingo, you can easily see what it is. Total time elapsed: under 60 seconds.

[vintagechris]

In most cases you don't even need a thorough examination process to see a preprint. Take the autograph photo out of the plastic sheet. The ink on the photo does not "leap" off the photo. You place it under a light and bingo, you can easily see what it is. Total time elapsed: under 60 seconds.

and that's the part that bothers me Richard. I know no authenticator is perfect. Not a single one. Anybody can be fooled at a given time. It's the shoddy work and not properly examining an item and then giving your stamp of approval on something that I have an issue with. Especially when it is from someone who is supposedly one of the best and is making lots of money to do the job properly.

[Mr. Zipper]

Steve - We have known each other for a long time and I believe there is a mutual trust and liking between us.

Absolutely!!

:)

[travrosty]

Steve, this was the point I was trying to make. It's not the honest mistakes that bother me, it's the issues that should never happen, the issues that happen when they get sloppy that bother me.



that is what burns me too, the shortcuts, calling a james jeffries autograph a james jeffers just because it was submitted on a sunday show and they had to get it authenticated by the end of the show. it was not even in jeffries hand, and the tom sharkey and james corbett werent either and they called them all good and called jeffries "jeffers"

it's what really bothers me, the slipshod work, that they call authentication, and it is commonplace, not an abberation or 1 out of 1000.

A few of us in boxing have had enough, but if there were basketball, football guys who had enough also, you would see more of their errors in those disciplines.

they arent particularly good in boxing, but not a lot can be said for the other sports either.


If it was just once in a blue moon, no one would care, at all.

but its not and the cheerleaders for these companies love the status quo, no reforms necessary.


but in my opinion, major reforms are necessary, and if not implemented, will be implemented for them as far as a market correction. just like mutual funds and their managers. people eventually will have enough. the market will correct and the guys who promised but couldn't deliver won't last. we saw it with gai.

[murphusa]

We are a funny bunch. Think about it, why should we worry about a few errors on an autograph opinion when we enshrine those we collect and they only succeed .277% of the time

[DinoPro]

I have collected sport memorabilia for 30 years.
This article is quite the eye-opener !!

[egbeachley]

We are a funny bunch. Think about it, why should we worry about a few errors on an autograph opinion when we enshrine those we collect and they only succeed .277% of the time

You know what they say.....statistics are made up 58.5% of the time.