jim spence

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>Take a look at this baseball on ebay <br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5162979189&fromMakeTrack=true" target="_new">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5162979189&fromMakeTrack=true</a><br /><br />Then read what spence said about a ball that he authenticated:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.psacard.com/articles/article3224.chtml" target="_new">http://www.psacard.com/articles/article3224.chtml</a><br /><br />This is why psa is a joke.Look at the ball in the middel of the top pictures. look anything like the ball he authenticated.<br /><br /><br />[edited to fix link]

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Uh-oh, looks like we've got us a match. Still, $2300 isn't so bad when you consider it was signed by one of the most famous batboys of all time.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>What does the LOA say, how does it describe the signatures? I don't know how one can criticize an LOA when you don't know what it says.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>Unreal. I would love to hear Spence's explanation. Actually, I will withhold my criticism in light of David's post--Let's see what the LOA says.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>The link to the article on the psa website does not appear to be working. What did it say?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>try this one:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.psacard.com/articles/article3224.chtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.psacard.com/articles/article3224.chtml</a><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Thanks for the link. I apologize for being slow here, but is the issue that Mr. Spence authenticated an item he elsewhere acknowledged not to be authentic, or that the seller is offering a letter from Mr. Spence that does not match the item sold, or something else?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>The first sentence of the post says "Circa 1955-1956 Brooklyn Dodger Authentic Team Signed Baseball, clubhouse version." The first thing I thought of when I read that is that this baseball has "clubhouse" signatures, which means a batboy or someone else signed them. My guess is that the LOA mentions that there are clubhouse signatures on the ball and that the seller misinterpreted the meaning. Some authenticators also use the term "secretarial" which is a little more clear in defining the signature as being signed by someone else.<br /><br />Rob L

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>"misinterpreted"? If so, it's a suspiciously convenient misinterpretation. One has to wonder why the seller would post a photo of the LOA in such a way that the letter can be identitified but not actually read.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>totally agree with rob--i'll bet in the LOA it's stated this is a forged item---why wouldn't christies sell it???---i'd bet the seller is being deceptive--thats a high opening too.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>This is being sold as a real ball. I was told by the seller that the loa states authentic signitures no club house. I have asked him to send me a copy of loa untill that time I can only go by what the seller told me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i would bet its a copy of the LOA and not an original.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>If it is a copy are you saying that someone found a copy then bought a forged ball so they could sell it as authentic. If it is a club house version I will be more than happy to say I was wrong. I also belive if you are authenticateing a ball and it is a forgery you should say it not authentic and leave it at that. If someone belives that clubhouse meant the ball was signed in the club house they could buy it thinking it is real. I dont think that if a ball is signed and there are numerous forged signitures that any loa sould be given.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>WP</b><p>If you check the Yahoo boards under CLCT you will find an interesting post about spence. It sounds as if he might have been fired or resigned.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p> -The “clubhouse” or “ghost signed” balls are not completely worthless. As vintage pieces of memorabilia, I regularly notice that they are still selling in auctions for hundreds of dollars despite being recognized as invalid autographs. <br /><br /> Maybe this would explain why a loa was issued? Ghost signed and secretarials are not forgeries,at least in the sense that they were intentionally created to scam someone out of their money. spence probably indicated that it was a legit "clubhouse" baseball from the 1940's or 50's, not something created yesterday in spanky's basement. It seems here that the seller is trying to dupe someone who doest have a clue as to what their doing. All that "legalese" at the bottom in red throws up a red flag for me too. jmho

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>You can say what ever you want. If a ball is not authentic its not authentic. Guys who represent Global Psa and other big companys wont authenticate certain balls because of club house sigs. When it come to there items or houses that need it authenticated it becomes all right. There should be one standard if the signitures are not real the ball isn't. I know they didnt forge the ball to make money in the 50"s but if it is a forgery it shouldnt be sold now.<br />sorry for the spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>been written by the same person..reminds my of an autographed photo seller in SCD--the autographs all looked the same, but the photos were great! Since they were cheap, I bought them for the photos...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>WP - How do I get to the Yahoo boards to read the story you mentioned. Can you give me a link?<br><br>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Foster S. Jeter</b><p>you are referring to.<br /><br /><a href="http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600465545&tid=clct&mid=3027&sid=1600465545" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600465545&tid=clct&mid=3027&sid=1600465545</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p>Shelly does have a point. I can understand where these clubhouse balls can<br />"muddy up the waters" in the marketplace. I can also see the thought behind authenticating them, although this probably has more to do with PSA, etc. making more money. Whats the fee for writing a letter on a clubhouse ball?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>I recived a copy of the letter where jimmey does state that it is a club house ball along with 7 other balls that where not. The catch is that at the bottom of the LOA he then says that all the signitures are authentic. The seller emailed me a note say that the signitures are authentic because Jim said so. That is the problem if you dont know what club house means and the letter says all signitures are authentic you have a problem. Im trying to find out how i can show the letter. I have no down load page. If one of you can do it for me please email me at shellyj@cox.net and i will email it to you.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>Sounds like an auction house style cert. <br /><br />"Clubhouse" baseball's are collectible. Vintage Brooklyn Dodger Clubhouse baseball's are still worth $200-400, whereas a malicious forgery is worthless. "Clubhouse" baseballs are legit souvenir items, they just don't have authentic signatures. <br /><br />As far as people not knowing what "clubhouse" or "Secretarial" means, that is their problem. This is similar to not knowing what "Tobacco Card" means in vintage Baseball Card collecting. It is up to the buyer to know common terminology in thier field of collecting interest. <br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>I dont care if its club house or not. When you see the cert you will see how deceptive the wording is. I also feel that instead of calling club house it should say. SIGNED BY SOME ONE OTHER THAN THE PLAYER.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Authentic simply means that an item's true identity is accurately communicated. If the ball is a clubhouse ball and is described as a clubhouse ball, that is an example of authenticity.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>Here is the letter. The line regarding that the signatures are authentic should have been included in the paragraph regarding the other baseballs. The comment on the clubhouse Dodger ball should have been a stand alone sentence at the end of the letter. That would have created less confusion.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1107903732.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>He said the signitures where authentic. That is not true. When you see the LOA he say the dodger ball is a club house ball. Then he says all the signitures are authentic. Authentic what? He should have done a seperate cert for the club house ball. That would have made it easy for everyone. I still say you dont call it a club house ball you call it what it is. A ball signed by someone other than the player himself.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Rob thanks for posting the letter. Will you show them the reply from the seller.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>As far as PSA/DNA goes, all this thread shows is that James Spence accurately identified a signed Dodgers ball as a clubhouse ball. I'm sorry, but it looks as if Spence won this thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>Shelly, can you send the response again. It didn't come over as an attachment.<br /><br />Rob L

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>I beg to differ on the outcome of this thread. The wording on the letter is so ambiguous that it can easily be misinterpreted.<br />The current seller of the ball is an ebay "drop store." These stores are springing up now, you drop off items you want to sell on ebay and the store (not connected to ebay) will put them up for you, for a large fee. Saves the owner the effort of writing an ad,shipping, etc.<br />The seller of the ball knows NOTHING about autographs and he believes he is selling something authentic. The Spence letter fooled him completely. <br />So how does Spence win this thread, by fooling an unknowing person?<br />--<br /><br />I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>You're suggesting if not saying that clubhouse balls, while by definition full of forged player signatures, are themselves collectible, so it's ok to say that those signatures are "authentic", as it merely means that they belong to an acceptable forger. Buyers should not read anything more into it and should educate themselves. Sorry, that seems like a crock to me.<br /><br />If the term "clubhouse ball" has such a specific and easily-understood meaning, there is little need to add anything about authentic signatures. What does the LOA say? That the sigs are authentic to the unibrowed clubhouse boy for the team, or simply that the sigs are authentic? How hard would it be to state that the sigs are not those of the named players, but of some other person or team representative?<br /><br />All that being said, I do agree that LOAs are only as good as what they say and who's saying it, and that one should always exercise due diligence. This Spence LOA would raise flags wih me, but I do agree with Shelly that it is inconsistent to authenticate a forged signature by a separate and unconnected reference to "clubhouse ball".<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Foster S. Jeter</b><p>Here is the cert. letter:<br /><br /><img src="http://forums.collectors.com//attachments/dodgerletter6.jpg"><br /><br />Whoops, Scott beat me to the punch! Also, this is a blanket cert. for all eight balls. Perhaps the other seven were real/authentic and only the Brooklyn Dodgers Ball is "clubhouse." In which case, the cert would be accurate, albeit confusing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i think each item merits its own LOA WITH A MATCHING HOLOGRAM or corresponding # ---if one pays for authentiction for 6 items ,then 6 seperate LOA'S SHOULD be issued,not one. i think we all could agree w/this. also, the cluhouse ball should be IDed as a ball signed by a batboy or attendent,although period,surely a forgery.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>This is why "auction house" style LOAs are BS. You can't certify 100 3x5 cards on a blanket LOA. This is a practice that has to stop.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Foster S. Jeter</b><p>email addresses removed to protect the innocent:<br /><br /><img src="http://forums.collectors.com//attachments/responsea.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I just sent robertl the reply from the seller.You will see where Richard is correct. I only wanted to show you what can happen when you decide to hire authenticators that dont take the time and engery to make an loa that everyone novice or expert can understand. A club house signiture is a FORGERY.whether for profit or not. All you need to say is the SIGNITURES ARE NOT THAT OF THE PLAYER BUT BY SOME ONE ELSE.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jackgoodman</b><p>vintage grandfather signed Babe Ruth baseball that is consistant with other grandfather signed items of the period. Any offers?<br /><br />edited to not be anonymous. sorry.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p> Would everyone agree that if the last two sentences were in reverse order, that this LOA would be less murky?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>What's interesting is that AZFAST is just a selling house for the owner and AZFAST is only selling the item as they see it. I wonder if the actual owner believes they have a "real" autographed baseball. Probably not, it would be a great reason for the owner to use another source to sell it so the heat doesn't come down on him/her.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Yes to some an no to others. If you dont know what a club house ball is then no if you do then yes. If you ask a friend that is not in this hobby which I just did. What is a signed club house ball? They said to me it was a ball that was signed in the club house. The did not say a phoney ball signed by some on other than a player. That is the problem with that type of cert. You can't asume that some one knows.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I agree that an extra few words could have been added to the LOA to make the definition of 'clubhouse' clear. Ala, "The Dodgers ball is a clubhouse ball (signed by the team ballboy or employee instead of by the players)."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>I really see this as more of the fault of the seller than of James Spence. In my mind, the LOA is pretty clear that the specified baseballs all contain authentic autographs EXCEPT for the Brooklyn Dodgers ball, which is clubhouse. It is not James Spence's fault if the seller fails to disclose this fact.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Foster S. Jeter</b><p>Caveat Emptor. I don't find fault with James Spence as much as I do the seller for giving the impression that the ball is "authentic." <br /><br />Scott J.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>MW where does spence say that the dodger ball is the only one not authentic. all he said was it is a club house ball and then says all autographs are authentic. If you showed this to a Judge and he didnt know anything about baseball he would say the letter says all signitures are authentic. I cant stress anymore than I have that when you say club house signiture to anyone other than a true collector he would think it came from the club house. Whey cant you agree that the loa should read signed by some one other than the player or players autograph is a forgery.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p><i>"If you showed this to a Judge and he didnt know anything about baseball he would say the letter says all signitures are authentic."</i><br /><br /><br />I think it really depends on the judge. "Clubhouse" is fairly common terminology among vintage baseball collectors; as such, a judge might be more likely to rely on the testimony of an expert in this area.<br /><br />In any case, ignorance of what the word "Clubhouse" means is no justification for an ambiguous or misleading auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>The reason the auction is ambiguous is because of the LOA. If the letter was written so that anyone could understand what club house ment it would end all this b.s.. Is that a fair enough statement? <br />The only reason I started this is to show how the average consumer could get screwed not the experts that are on this board. I wanted to show you that an LOA could cause this much discussion when it is written in such a way that it could make something that is not real become just that.<br />I will say this and end this with the same thing I have said from the start. It is not a club house ball it is a forgery. It was not signed by the people who's signitures are signed on the ball. The ball might have history to it but it is a forged ball.I dont care if it was not done for profit at the time. It is now being sold for profit because certain people have made a forgery into something that it is not. If you can say this is not true then I give up.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p><i>The only reason I started this is to show how the average consumer could get screwed not the experts that are on this board</i><br /><br />The "average consumer" is not the average reader of this forum and I hope we don't get to that point. Personally, I don't care if someone buys this item for $2300 or more if they can't bother to read the scanned LOA that's included with the listing or if they don't know what "club house" means when applied to autographs. <br /><br />I'd like to see more discretion with threads like this one. The easy litmus test, I think, is that if no one here would be fooled by a questionable item, it's doesn't need its own thread.<br /><br />Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p><i>"It is not a club house ball it is a forgery."</i><br /><br /><br />In my opinion, that would be just as inaccurate as saying <b>all</b> signatures on the ball are authentic. Many of the autographs on the Brooklyn Dodgers ball <b><i>are</i></b> authentic. It is because a small group of autographs on the ball are clubhouse (i.e., signed by a clubhouse attendant) that the ball has been authenticated in the given manner.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>did he tell you what signitures are phoney like the most important ones such as campy and robinson and alston no he didnt. what is the ball worth without knowing who is real and who isnt. it is a ball full of forgerys what is the matter with you.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>You know that im not trying to insult or put down anyone here but your last statement makes some one belive that some of the signtures are good is by far the most out landish statement I have ever heard. If Jimmy Spence in his LOA wrote that the campy erskin robinson reese alston furrilo are fake but the rest are good what do think this ball would sell for. I cant belive that your are telling me that by saying club house you can sell the ball as partly real without knowing which players signitures are real or not. In his artical the way I read it and the way he shows it all the signitures are phoney. No where did he say that the ball had any real signitures. <br />I just am stuned by your arguement.You would sell this ball as authentic is what you are saying.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Actually, it's not a ball full of forgeries. Most of the clubhouse signatures on the ball are confined to a single panel. This is typical of a 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers clubhouse baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Tell me where you know what is good and what is bad. He said that this is a clubhouse ball because of certain things whithin the ball the panel was only part of the statement. I dont know if I am talking to Jimmey or not but your arguements are beyond belive. The ball has some of the most important people on that are forged forged forged. that makes the dodger team ball a forgery/. It say dodger team ball. if any part of the ball is forged its not a team ball any longer. Are you pulling my chain or are you a complete idiot.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>Please tell me what signitures on the dodger ball are real. please show me where spence says any of the signtures are real. I just dont understand how some one can make a ball that is garbage into something other than what it is.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>The LOA that you are talking about is almost 5 years old. I believe that things have changed in the way that LOA's are written since that time. <br /><br />Every PSA/DNA or GAI LOA that I have seen over the past few years does break down the clubhouse signatures vs authentic signatures. <br /><br />Shelly, just because your friend, who is not in the hobby, didn't understand what "clubhhouse" means is not a reason to have to explain common hobby terms in an LOA. Does your friend know what a "Sweet Spot" is, how about "ONL" or "OAL". If he is an autograph ball collector, then he should know. If he is not, then I would not expect him to know. <br /><br /><br />In response to Dennis: <br /><br />"i think each item merits its own LOA WITH A MATCHING HOLOGRAM or corresponding # ---if one pays for authentiction for 6 items ,then 6 seperate LOA'S SHOULD be issued,not one."<br /><br />That is true, but Auction House style certs are meant to be cost effective for the auction house. If you want holograms, then 1 LOA costs $50, 6 LOA's costs $300. If you want individual LOA's, they are happy to give them to you, but you have to pay more.<br /><br /><br />"i think we all could agree w/this. also, the cluhouse ball should be IDed as a ball signed by a batboy or attendent,although period,surely a forgery. " <br /><br />It is, by use of the word "clubhouse." <br /><br /><br />In response to Rob<br /><br />"This is why "auction house" style LOAs are BS. You can't certify 100 3x5 cards on a blanket LOA. This is a practice that has to stop."<br /><br />Why can't you certify 100 3 x 5 cards with one LOA? If they are all authentic, why do you need more than one LOA?<br /><br />Scott<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>your company deals with consignment and I know you do your best to have everything that you sell authenticated. Im only trying to help the poor slob who is just learning. A letter should tell you everything about the item and if the item is forged it should say forged not clubhouse. I only want everyone smart or dumb to be able to read a LOA and have no doubts about what it says. ball. I would be interested in seeing a more up to date letter from psa telling me what signitures are real or not on a dodger ball. I know that if its a yankee ball they will say mantle clubhouse but not anyone else. I also think that it should be called a forged signiture because that is what it is. I think they dont call it a forgery because the price of the ball would go way down.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p><font color="blue"><b>In response to Rob<br /><br />"This is why "auction house" style LOAs are BS. You can't certify 100 3x5 cards on a blanket LOA. This is a practice that has to stop."<br /><br />Why can't you certify 100 3 x 5 cards with one LOA? If they are all authentic, why do you need more than one LOA?<br /><br />Scott</b></font><br /><br />If someone wanted to break up the lot and sell part of it how would the LOA be used? Would the provider of the LOA give the person 100 copied LOAs with the entire lot? That would really leave someone open to temptation. <br /><br />In the case of valuable baseballs I would think that each ball should have its own LOA for the same reason - what if someone wanted to break up the lot?<br /><br />That's just my opinion. Everyone has one, mine is no better or worse than anyone elses, unless you agree with it or disagree with it.<br /><br />If signatures are "clubhouse" then the LOA needs to specify what "clubhouse" means and which ones are "clubhouse." My rationale for this is because not everyone is completely aware of the different acronyms and jargon used on this material. I've heard the arguement that if you don't know what it is then you shouldn't be buying it. What if it were your mother, wife or girlfriend buying you a surprise gift? They may not know what to ask or what the "odd" words indicate. <br /><br />I showed a Gehrig autograph I have to a few of the "experts" and they were split on it - 2 yes, 2 no. I'm sure if I were to have paid for a LOA it might have been nice, but I was just curious to see what these "experts" thought giving it a cursory review. The autograph is on a New York World Fair Laurel Card. The signature was almost exactly like the one in the Halper auction. I suppose I could pay to have it authenticated and send it to all the experts. How would I sell it? Would I provide the LOAs from the ones that believe it's real and also provide the rejection letters from those that don't think it's real? Just how much stuff out there do you think has been submitted and resubmitted until it passed (by at least one person)? After getting "the" blessing from one of the "gods" then I could go out and "legitimately" sell it, even though another "diety" said it wasn't the real deal. <br /> <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>this is a typical nouveau-Net 54 witch hunt...it's what the board has devolved into - a forum for newbies to come in and roast their enemies prior to contributing anything meaningful whatsoever that's related to vintage cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>There where hundreds of Mantle Williams sweet spot balls sold as real signitures to many people in the late 80's early 90's. These people then went out and had them signed by the other five hundred hr hitters. Psa Global Online authenticts would not authenticate the balls if they caught them in time. Why? Aren't the Mantle and Williams clubhouse signitures and the other signitures good. There where over 5000 hr balls sold that where forgerys in that time period are they not clubhouse balls. Why is it that these have no value. They are part of history. What about all the Ruth Pieces that psa authenticated that where photo copys. Should we call them clubhouse and give them value.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>Shelly, it has been my experience that they list all clubhouse signatures on the LOA. If they only list Mantle, then Mantle is most likely the only clubhouse signature on the ball. <br /><br />I don't really understand it either, but for some reason "clubhouse" signatures are more acceptable to collectors than "forgeries". If you just call it a forgery, it lumps it in with all of the other crap that you see in SCD or usually on Ebay. <br /><br />I believe that for most people the word "forgery" connotes some guy sitting at a table scribbling Mickey Mantle's name on 8 x 10'' photos, where as a "clubhouse" Mantle is more acceptable because it was common practice for the era to have the clubhouse attendant sign the names of major stars. <br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>Scott im not new to this hobby. Im the one that just had Heitman come on and answer your questions. this is not a witch hunt this is as important to your questions regarding trimming bleaching and all the other problems in the card side of the hobby. If we protect each other and stop the bs that is out there we can all feel comfortable about dealing in this business. I have been in the hobby fof over 30 years. I just wanted to say what i felt was wrong with the side I know best.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I agree Scott. This thread started because Spence supposedly called a clubhouse ball a ball autographed by the players. No one had actually read the text of the LOA, but naturally that makes no difference. When it turned out Spence did call it a clubhouse ball, some had to find something new to moan about.<br /><br />Spence called it a clubhouse ball. If you think he should have explained the clubhouse part better so a newbee would have a better idea what that means, that's fine. But Spence called it a clubhouse ball. Get over it.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>but we need to witch-hunt "responsibly".

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>You are right everyone that said that the loa was ambiguous is wrong.Spence is right. Now tell me what signitures are real on the ball. Or if there are no real signitures how can someone sell it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>Shelly, those other signatures on the 500 HR ball's are not "clubhouse", they are modern "forgeries". My point is that there is a difference. Facsimilies are also not "clubhouse", they are simply printed like a photocopy or rubber stamp. The autograph hobby does not use the term clubhouse in that way. <br /><br />In response to Judge Dred:<br /><br />The auction house style LOA is intended to act as a LOA for the buyer of the lot only. If the buyers wants to get individual LOA's for each item, that is up to them. Can you imagine how much time it would take to generate individual LOA's for each piece in some of those huge catalog auction lots. On a lot of 100 3 x 5 index cards, the LOA's themselves would cost $500-$1000 and that is if you could cut a sweet deal with the authenticator. What do you do with the lots of 500, 3000, or 10,000 pieces? Are you going to create individual LOA's for each Billy Champion, Garry Maddox and Geoff Zahn signed index card?<br /><br />Scott <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>What do you mean, that an LOA of 100 cards is viable if they are all authentic. You, as well as I know of numerous times that items that were covered under one of these blanket LOAs failed when resubmitted. Ask Kevin Keating about this. Auction house LOAs aren't worth the paper they are written. It's just a cheap practice used by the auction houses to pump alot of stuff out, including items that are considered crap.<br /><br />Rob L

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>I said a blanket cert is fine if they are all authentic. <br /><br />If there is something that didn't pass in the lot of 100 pieces, than the blanket cert is not fine. If the authenticator didn't take the time to examine all 100 pieces, that is a problem. I agree with that 100%.<br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>Okay, but that means that we have to assume that all of the autographs are legit. There are to many times that items from these lots are sent in individually and fail. I have personally discussed this with Spence a year ago and he said that the items are given a cursory review and the price for these reviews is less. It's cheap and doesn't work. I can give you an LOA that stands up good as these.<br /><br />Rob L

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>It is much cheaper to do the auction house style LOA's. I get them done from time to time but PSA/DNA has always done more than a cursory review. I, however, break things down more than most catalog auctions so the lots are generally single items or have just a few pieces. I also have other checks and balances in place for authentication. <br /><br />If you found items that didn't pass you should bring it up with the dealer that you bought it from. You may have to get a 2nd opinion, but If the dealer / Auction House is honorable they will make it right. If they are the kind of people that are "hiding" behind the 3rd party LOA, than keep that in mind when making future purchases. <br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>scaygonor. what about the balls that have nine good signitures. does the ball have value or because of the phoney mantle and williams is the ball worthless. It seem to me that if a dodger ball that has phoney sigs with good ones have value why not the five hundred that has nine good signitures.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p><br /><br />Value is determined by how much somebody is willing to pay. If somebody has a 500HR baseball with 7 good signatures and one bad signature, it is not worthless, but it is worth much less. The same is true with a Dodger Clubhouse Ball. <br /><br />I just sold a 1949 Dodgers ball with all authentic signatures for over $1600 (condition was not that great). That same ball with a clubhouse Jackie Robinson might only be $900, with a clubhouse Robinson, Snider and Campanella might be $300. It just depends on how many clubhouse signatures and who they are.<br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>Scott,<br /><br />I see your point. It would cost a lot of money to LOA each one individually. Also, how many people would want to spend the money on getting a LOA for a $10 item. My comment was based on someone that wanted to break up a lot and use the LOA. I'd be willing to bet that the LOA didn't list each autograph individually. At that point it becomes a blanket LOA that seems a bit useless (except for the purpose of selling the lot for the first time - which it was intended for in the first place). There are just so many ways it could be exploited later on. That's why I believe an LOA should be something that is individual and something that would not be easy to manipulate the wrong way.<br /><br />Now, onward to Salem, Massachusetts... <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>Well the problem with the five hundred hr ball is that no real authenticator will pass it because of the forged mantle and williams. yet they will authenticate a forge dodger ball from the fiftys. It doesnt make any sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>In a perfect world, there would be no way to manipulate the certs, but where there is a will, there is a way. <br /><br />Have fun witch-hunting.<br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>The key is to buy your autographs from reputable and honest sellers. It's not the honest people who lie and cheat, it's the dishonest people. <br /><br /><br />Whether it's in photographs or autographs or baseball cards, do you know why I chose to buy from honest people? It's not because they never make mistakes or ship the wrong item or charge $1 too much for shipping. It's because when the honest seller says "This item was part of the Sotheby's auction lot #202" you know the item was part of the Sotheby's auction lot #202.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan</b><p>Spence was lazy in what he wrote and that was his only crime which was done five years ago. He should not have issued an LOA stating it was an authentic 'clubhouse' which still commands SOME value as opposed to a freshly scribbled on ball which are seemingly all over the place. This seller doesn't know what a clubhouse ball is because it is a 'drop off'. What's the big deal really? There are WAY bigger problems in the business than that. What about all these sellers who sell 'freshly made' forgeries or better yet, ones that get 'authenticators' who aren't exactly that to say that their items are good? Why don't we attack them?<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan</b><p>Scott,<br /><br />Is the Geoff Zahn index card a secreterial? I don't have exemplars. Was it obtained via the mail? Is there any corner wear? Is it mattable?<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Dan<br /><br />P.S War Silent Lucidity!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>What it comes down to is this. The ball was being sold in Christie's which attracts a large crowd of people who would never, ever know what the words "clubhouse version" means. They would read the sentence about all signatures being authentic and that is what would register in their minds. The crowd at Christie's does not consist of the people on this board for the most part. It is a moneyed crowd that is there for fun and to buy something that they can put on their doctor, lawyer, accountant office walls or shelves, but that has no connection to the hobby. One of those non hobbyists would easily misconstrue the COA.<br />The drop store selling this ball made that mistake.<br />The COA was poorly written, to say the least. Anyone not familair to the autograph hobby would misconstrue the wording on that COA.<br />--<br><br>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>Danny (who else would be Jack Chesbro), I picked Geoff Zahn because he has special meaning to me. I literally learned to read off of Baseball Cards. My father would buy four packs a week from the drug store for me and I would read the names outloud to him and he would correct me if I pronounced the name wrong. I remember getting a Geoff Zahn card and not even knowing where to begin. On such memories is the Baseball Card hobby based.<br /><br />Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>I agee 100 percent.Im not just picking on Spence I think that there is a group of Authenticators out there that are total disasters. AAU Donald Fragipani Christoper Morales (the new authenticator for Coaches Corner} William Tell and the list goes on. These are the guys that say there Forensic experts. Take a look at Coaches Corner auctions it will make you sick.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan</b><p><br />Shelly,<br /><br />You are 100% correct. I think everytime we bash a 'mistake', it gives the 'bad' authenticators and bad autograph companies who get everything failed by a legitimate authenticators...well, bullets for their weapons. Look at this:<br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5163739459&ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:US:1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5163739459&ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:US:1</a><br /><br />Dan<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan</b><p>Scott,<br /><br />I couldn't agree more about the memories. I remember the smell in the air, the date (third week in May) and the aisle in which my father introduced me to baseball cards. Rackpacks, 1980 Topps. The memory I bring to the table is of an adoration to the Pirates' Omar Moreno and how these cards wouldn't grade well today as I kept them in rubber bands and tupper ware. <br /><br />Dan<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p>"Take a look at Coaches Corner auctions it will make you sick."<br /><br /> BRAVO!! I've been waiting 3 years for someone in the hobby to make that statement.<br /><br /><br /> I for one appreciate the fact that scgaynor and R.Simon come on this board and express their opinions and debate certain issues. I wish Jimmy Spence would too,but I can see where he might not want to spend time on here just being attacked. jmho. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>why not other people that have been talked about have come on here and where treated with respect.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p><i>why not other people that have been talked about have come on here and where treated with respect.</i><br /><br />Shelly - I'm not clear what this means.<br /><br />Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>I had to read it a few times myself. I think what he meant was:<br /><br />"Why not? Other people that have been talked about have come on here and were treated with respect."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>Thanks that is what I meant. Sorry for not writeing it correctly.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p><br /> Just saying that some people would not expose themself to the possibility of being "hammered" in a public forum. Not saying thats how he feels, just saying I would understand if he did feel that way.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>James Spence's five-year deal with PSA/DNA expires this spring and the veteran dealer/authenticator appears he's not going to renew his agreement. Spence told Sweet Spot Online that the contract offered him by PSA/DNA was unacceptable and "insulting." A noncompete clause in the original contract would effectively take Spence out of the sports memorabilia business for one year, Spence said. Joe Orlando, president of PSA/DNA, told Sweet Spot it would be inappropriate for him to comment.<br />-- <br><br>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>WP</b><p>PSA is not worth a damn when it comes to vintage sigs without Spence. Any thoughts on what he might do?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I'm not entering into the big signature and authenticity debate, but I feel I should note that of the hobby 'big wigs' I have personally dealt with, I found one of the nicest and most helpful was Spence. My guess is that many others posting on the board would have a similar impression of him if they dealt with him personally.