"Enhanced" Autographs
 

When PSA or Spence determine that a signature has been enhanced does that mean enough of the genuine signature is evident under the enhanced version to determine "enhanced" as opposed to fake? Couldn't an enhanced auto be deemed fake just as much as a fake be deemed enhanced? :confused:

I've seen them use a machine that can see underneath "new inc" and I assume if they see a genuine auto underneath its fine. Enhancing devalues an auto but unless it's a terrible attempt that distorts the original auto, I'd still want say a ruth enhanced ball.

Fwiw in the future there will be old enough forgeries (if not now) that people will "enhance". Here's a video for reference

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7mdOdTp7b28

The second someone other than the player touches that signiture the ball should not be graded or authenticated.

+1
PSA and JSA will issue a COA for enhanced signatures. I think that is absurd and would NEVER do it.

Just saw this thread. Certainly everyone whose opinion is worth listening to is in agreement on this. I think the fact that JSA and PSA authenticate Babe Ruth forgeries that are 'out in the open', there is no way you could trust them with anything that has been 'enhanced'. Besides, who in their right minds would want such a thing?

I watched a Joe Torre personalized autograph to me "disappear" over the years. Who remember Flair pens? I think it was signed with a Flair and faded to being invisible. I still have it but I would never consider enhancing it.

One of my saddest experiences was watching the autographs fade to nothing on one panel of my '73 Cincinnati Reds ball. They weren't gone completely until around 2005 or so - a long painful process which included Bench, Anderson....

Even as a kid I was smart enough to know not to trace over them, even though I knew they were heading to oblivion.

Agree with both Shelly and Richard. That said, I would still buy such an autograph if:

1.) it was extremely uncommon / rarely encountered (obscure ballplayer),
2.) a significant portion of the actual, original autograph was discernable under close inspection
3.) I did not have that autograph in my collection, and therefore needed it.

You ask "who would enhance the autograph of a obscure ballplayer"? I have found far more ink-enhanced, lightly signed pencil signatures of common ballplayers on album pages than I could shake a stick at. Doesn't seem to matter who the name was. Some collectors just wanted to make those signatures "pop" on the album page. All personal preference I guess. As a collector I avoid purchasing enhanced autographs whenever possible. But every once in a great, great while, a really tough autograph is located that has been enhanced (or taped over, etc). If I can discern that the actual signature still is visible/exists under the enhancement, I will buy it, for a fair price. Some might ask why bother, if you cannot easily see the original signature. All I can say that ballplayer signed that item, and that signature is still there in some capacity, and I am willing to accept less inorder to have it. I want to cross that name off a want list, rather then have potentially nothing at all. I like the idea of buying the best quality you can afford. But sometimes there are few other choices; especially in my limited budget. Just my two cents worth, as a collector

A prime example of an enhanced ball, still neat to me. Sucks it was touched up (I'd never do it) but still a ruth sig underneath the areas of enhancement.

And your example is a perfect example of why most collector avoid enhanced signatures. Your comment that it is a "real Ruth signature" is also a perfect example of why such stuff can get away with being sold., and by "such stuff" I'm including complete forgeries.

Huh

Huh?