Poll: Should a traced over signature get a COA?
 

There are traced over signatures in the hobby which have been issued COA's. It is a common practice.
The COA does state that the signature has been traced over.
I have my own negative opinion about this practice, in my opinion, once a signature is traced over it is no longer the original signature, but I am curious about the board members opinions.

Nope..it's wrecked in my opinion. Is a painting still an original painting if the entire thing is painted over?

I had to vote "No." Once an autograph has been been traced then it has been "altered" and "tainted."

Nope. Null and void in my opinion.

Nope. The ink at the top was not applied by the original signer. It's not an original signature.

No COA...However, I would make an exception for an extremely rare autograph, as long as the tracing is also noted on the COA...Imagine someone like Addie Joss. I'd take a traced over one in a heartbeat, as long as the original signature was verifiable..

devils advocate question
 

Ok, I don't collect autographs but obviously see them discussed very frequently. So, a devil's advocate type question. Is there an issue with having a COA/LOA for a traced over autograph much like cards or coins with qualifers/details. It could say something like

AUT (details- traced over autograph)

I have also said I don't think I would have a problem with the Gretzky PSA 8 Wagner if they simply put "handcut" on the flip, though I know it will never happen. :eek:

I am waiting to vote :)

.
.

The COA's with the traced over autographs do state that the autograph is traced over.

ok...then as long as it is being sold as, authenticated as, and bought having complete transparency, then I am ok with it. I guess me and one other person feel that way. I can't see the harm in buying something and having a COA describing it and it's exact condition. Why would folks care?

Leon,
Would you buy a card you wanted if it was attached to another card and you could not actually see the card you wanted except for the back?
The ink in the trace over actually covers the ink of the original signer.

I guess if it were 100% traced over and no remnants of the original autograph exist, then I understand this point. My thought is it would be a crudely traced over autograph where much of the underlying one can be seen. Like it was very light and someone didn't do it to deceive but because they thought it would look better.

see my response to Dan's concern...

Actually yes it is. The original painting is still there under the new one. And a good art restorer can totally remove the newer painting or the newer poorly done restoration. Over painting older paintings was once fairly common.

I don't recall the details, but there's at least one case of a painting by one famous artist painted over one by another famous artist. The decision was which one would they save.

It may make for a crummy autograph, but the original is there under the tracing over. I think as long as it's noted on the coa/loa and always described as traced over it's ok. Not desirable, but ok.

Steve B

Anyone have an auto where one player signed completely over another?

For me it comes down to is the description on the COA accurate.

There's a difference between the questions of is it an autograph and is the certificate accurate in its description. For example, I don't terribly mind if PSA grades a reprint as long as they label it as a reprint. The label is accurate.

And, by the way, I do see the point that a traced over autograph (where the behind autograph is no longer seen) is not the player's autograph. I'm not disputing that sentiment.

sticking with it
 

Actually, after a little more thought, and as of what I have read so far, I don't have an issue with any COA'd autograph being sold as what it really is. If someone wants to pay me $5 for a dollar bill I take out of my wallet, and I am not being dishonest and selling it as a 1 dollar bill with my handwritten COA that it is straight from my wallet, then why can't someone spend their 5 bucks on it if they want to? No one is being dishonest and no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Ya'll might recall a Frankencard Just So Burkett....it was only the middle of a card with the whole outside and all lettering taken from another Just So actress card and the Burkett was carefully glued in the middle of it. If I recall correctly it was slabbed as such and still brought 5k-10k in auction. Just some food for thought. AS I said I don't really collect autographs but this question also easily pertains to other collectibles too, in some respects.

If an autograph is traced over, it is obscured at least in part.
How does one give an opinion on the authenticity of the underlying item, whether it is painting or autograph, if one can't see it?

I think the wording is the key. If TPA's gave out letters of opinion it would be different. It could say "In our opinion, this is an original autograph that was traced over at a later date". Unfortunately they give "Certificates of Authenticity". You can't say something is authentic if it isn't visible. You can call it semantics if you want, but it's still true.

Would any professional art dealer/appraiser give you an offical letter stating that the painting underneath is a real Van Gogh or would they states it looks like a Van Gogh pending closer inspection after restoration. What happens if they remove the newer painting and the older one isn't real? Not meant sarcastic. I'm just asking.

Also, I think the autograph scenario is different as well in that currently there is no way to remove the newer ink from the top of the old ink.

Mark

Leon,
I think your comparison is different.
To me, the comparison of the franked card would be more like if someone took the "Babe" from one sig and the "Ruth" from another and taped them together. If both are real, then I have no problem with someone deciding that's what they want for whatever their reason is.
You can see both parts of the franken card and the franken Ruth(my example), but you can't see the original ink of the underlying auto. How can anyone say it real?
Suppose someone could remove the ink. What if the original is fake as well?
How plausible is this scenario?
Suppose a father gets Ruth's auto on a ball. The pen is weak so he goes over with his pen at home. Later the kid enhances the auto because it's fading. Now we have a trace on trace.

I have no problem at all with a properly worded LOA to that effect. I won't be buying the item, but issue away, third-party authenticators.

I dont have a problem with it because it says so clearly on the COA. If you get into the issue of not authenticating traced signatures then what about a Babe Ruth where JUST the first name is traced? What about if just the large B in Babe is traced? What about just one portion of one letter? It is s lippery slope to start making rules so I say just let it be with full disclosure.

I once had a Cobb single signed ball with PSA/DNA that the signature was "traced" that I bought in a major auction. Once I got it I realized that only a few very small enhancements were made sporadically throughout where there was some wear and the whole thing was not traced, maybe 5% of the signature overall which I did not mind aesthetically. I dont think people have a problem if it is enhanced in a few spots and clearly stated so on the COA.

Just my opinion.

I do wonder how they can tell if it was real to begin with however, seems pretty hard to see when the signature is faded and a new one over the top is in dark ink.

The point about how or if one can authenticate a signature that is totally obscured is a good point. I'm not an autograph authentication expert, so cannot offer worthy insight into that.

I might change my answer from yes to know if authenticating the signature under tracing is a significant issue. But I don't have the answer.

Just curious...why would they issue an LOA for a Traced over signature but will not even consider authenticating a laminated autograph?

I was not aware of that, but it is a very good question.
Did that happen to you Brandon?

Richard, I should clarify that I was told to not even bother submitting by someone I respect in the hobby....maybe things have changed or maybe I was misinformed? I do have a large collection I would like to submit at some point but really was curious of the reasoning behind it.

traced over and sad!
 

Sad but true story for you Richard,
I was at a good friend of mines card store about 3 weeks ago. A woman walks in and wants 3 U.V. baseball cubes . She asks my friend if he has them and he says yes. He asks her what are the sigs on the balls and she said her grandfather had given her 10 -15 baseballs . She had 3 with her in the car and brought them in the shop. All single sigs Cobb, Ruth , Gehrig. were the 3.
They all looked good to me ,on the right balls and correct for the time but they looked funny. I asked her if she had these for a long time and she said yes,I asked her who were on the other balls and she said she couldnt remember but would bring them in for us to look at. I asked her what made her want the U.V. ball cubes ,she said to me that she had them in a room where the light was always on the balls and she was tired of tracing over the sigs as they faded away!!:eek::eek: I didnt have the heart to tell her what she had done and said I would love to see the others if she wanted to bring them in.:(:( A true story!

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
:(:(:(:(:(