REA Ruth autographed snapshot

[Snapolit1]

Is an autographed snapshot of Ruth in the new REA auction (Lot 1535) where it is disclosed that "Please Note: PSA/DNA and JSA each declined to provide an LOA for this piece." I mean the disclosure is nice, but on the other hand why even include it in such an auction if neither of the authorities in the field can authenticate it?

[RedsFan1941]

maybe because not all collectors let an authentication service dictate what is and isn't authentic?

[Exhibitman]

I'm sure Drew Max or Donald Frangipani would oblige...

[Republicaninmass]

maybe because not all collectors let an authentication service dictate what is and isn't authentic?


Say it ain't so!

[Snapolit1]

I don't think I know more about authenticating autographs than the guys at PSA or JSA. Never mind both of them together. Maybe you guys do.

[Snapolit1]

I am not an art buyer, but I would think Christie's would pull a painting from an auction if the third party experts in the field could not confirm it was genuine. But maybe that's not the case.

[philliesphan]

Steve-

Although I agree with you, generally, it is your opinion that PSA/DNA and JSA are the "authorities" in the field. Beckett is a third-party authenticator, and they have asserted the autograph is genuine.

Understand also that the autograph authentication field is quite incestuous. If I told you that this Ruth autograph was personally reviewed by Steve Grad, does that change your opinion? What if it was Steve when he worked for PSA/DNA? What if it was Steve when he worked for Beckett?

I'm happy that REA is making disclosures on this particular piece. You ought to be assured that there are many (hundreds?) of key autographs out there that were rejected by JSA, but passed PSA/DNA and vice-versa.

Marc

[Snapolit1]

Thanks Marc. I have to confess that I missed that Beckett authenticated it. I though no one did. Error on my part.


Steve-

Although I agree with you, generally, it is your opinion that PSA/DNA and JSA are the "authorities" in the field. Beckett is a third-party authenticator, and they have asserted the autograph is genuine.

Understand also that the autograph authentication field is quite incestuous. If I told you that this Ruth autograph was personally reviewed by Steve Grad, does that change your opinion? What if it was Steve when he worked for PSA/DNA? What if it was Steve when he worked for Beckett?

I'm happy that REA is making disclosures on this particular piece. You ought to be assured that there are many (hundreds?) of key autographs out there that were rejected by JSA, but passed PSA/DNA and vice-versa.

Marc

[glchen]

As other have said, the main auto authenticators are PSA/DNA and JSA. However, Beckett and SGC also authenticate autographs, and the actual authenticators sometimes move among the four. In addition, there are many examples of autos that one service has rejected, which another one has passed. Saying all of that, PSA/DNA or JSA are the services that most regular collectors want authenticating their autos, so if an auto is known to have failed both of these services, the price it sells for will likely be less than if one of those two had passed it. Again, the caveat, of course is, there are many examples of autos that both PSA/DNA and JSA are believed to have incorrectly passed, if you go to the Autograph section of N54.

[drcy]

I'm no autograph expert, and would be interested in the opinion on the signature from the Ruth experts on the autograph side of this boards.

[Bpm0014]

I'd like to think that I'm really good at Ruth's autograph. His and his only; no others. But this one puzzles me. Some letters are on, some are kinda on, some are way off. I don't like the "abe R" but it could be just that the autograph was rushed or he didnt sign it on a flat surface. I wouldn't be surprised if it went either way. Usually it takes me less than 5 seconds to know whether it's legit or not. But with this I'm a little stumped. Gun to my head I say it's good. Just a little abnormal/different.