Poll: Is this Cobb legit, or is it a "rotten peach"?
 

Here is an autograph with PSA slabbed certification that is a subject of controversy. Haulsofshame reported on it being pulled from ebay. You can go read the story if you haven't already to gain some background on this autograph.

Do you think this autograph of Cobb is an exact replication of the autograph that Ron K. has, or is a totally different autograph as the owner of the autograph has claimed, or are you undecided?

I have shown Ron's autograph of Cobb, also the Cobb in the slab, and my diagram of the slabbed autograph showing that there are stray dots on Ron's example that also show up on the slabbed autograph, possible evidence of the background also being scanned and replicated along with the autograph in my opinion.

But make up your own mind. What do you think?


p.s. there is a fourth option, that being that the slabbed cobb is legit, and ron k's is the facsimile, but i havent added that as an option because i believe that option to be incredibly remote as to not even be a possibility. If you think that is the case, just post and mention that that is what you think has happened.

I have also added the owners comments on why he believes it is a totally different signature, in the name of fairness. And here it is.

-----------


I spent half of the night looking at both specimens in question. I noticed a few differences in the two autos. Would really like some others feedback.

In the so called "original" as Mr. Nash calls it, where the "T" in Ty makes an "X", going up & left from the center of the "X" there is a distinct dot where it appears the pen sat longer. There is no dot in mine. Where the "T" in Ty makes a "J", there appears to be more space in the Keurajian copy. The "X" in the Ty is again, going downward & left from the center of the "X" in the "original" the pen mark becomes immediately thinner in the "original". This does not happen in mine. In the "C" on the "original", as the "C" is coming down left to right, the "C" appears quite circular & the ink thins as it is coming down. The "C" in mine is not quite as circular at the top & does not thin as it comes down. The first "B" in Cobb on the "original"....from the very top coming down the ink gets thinner. Mine does not get thinner until closer to the "o" part of the "B". Also....look closely at both "o" parts of the first "B" in Cobb. They do not flow the same. Also.....look at the line connecting the two "B's" in both autos. The "original" gets thinner as it connects to the second "B". Mine gets thicker. Last, but not least.....look at the line under Cobb's name. There is a small hump directly under the 2nd "B" in mine & after the "Y" as well. The Keurajian copy does not have either of these small humps in the line below Cobb's name. They are very subtle, but blow up the Keurajian copy to the same size as my copy, and you will notice that this is not the same auto.

Where is the button that says you should just leave this alone until Donavon is able to report back on the findings of his research. This was beat to death in the BST section. I am beginning to question your intentions....

People asked that it be moved out of that section and into memorabilia. Most people hadn't seen it over there.

what's wrong with asking questions? What are my intentions then?

To get his findings from the re-evaluation from psa is to get an opinion from the same people who said it was good in the first place. They will either stick with it being legit in their opinion or say it's bad.

but so what? Polls are taken to get people's opinion. Why sacred cows? If this was a CC poll I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

Your poll is drastically skewed. Everything from your title to the verbiage in your post shows where you stand on this autograph. You further muddy the water by posting your "detective" work. If you wanted to truly know what people thought of the auto, you would have just posted the two pictures and asked people's opinion. Instead, you are trying to get "data" to show the board "I was right, I called it, look at me."

If you need academic jargon to show my point, google "experimenter bias"

I was interested in autograph collecting for a short period, but the vileness of the auto collectors that I see post here has completely cured me of that insanity.

i have just posted the owners comment on the cobb too, so it is fair and people can make up their own mind.

my opinion carries no more weight than his. This isn't a scientific poll, it's not a scientific experiment, it's an opinion poll, and people have eyes and can compare for themselves and make up their own mind.

I agree with Smotan 02. Why is this talked about again. Let it go till Donovan finds out his finding then we can all talk about again which I'm sure will happen.

same...i'm going back to enjoying my steve avery jim abbott and gregg jefferies autos. if they're fake i'm out a lunch, but faking those guys would be like reprinting the '87 topps set.

I don't think Jim Abbott and Steve Avery would cover the tip.

I remember watching women go after beany babies around Christmas. Now, that was vileness.

I'm amazed that no one has discussed that this could be the same auto. That would explain a lot.

rotten to the core
 

Couldnt have said it better myself! Take 2 100+ out of petty cash!:D:D

so far 2/3 think replication, 1/3 not sure, but no one agrees with the owner that it is a different autograph. Probably because there are no differences to the naked eye.

What's the value in a poll anyway?

Ego Boost!;);)

That would explain a lot. If it were true.

It's not.

I''s patently clear that the slabbed auto is a copy--probably a print of a scan--of the 3x5. Identical--and I mean identical--form, but a bit of detail lost in the duplicating process.

An authenticator screw-up, plain and simple.

The poll is irrelevant, the slabbed example "seems" to clearly be a copy of the 3x5 of some sort, IMO.

Agree.... no doubt that it's a blatant reproduction.

For what it's worth . . .
 

.

. . . and having more time to kill than I should, I imported both Cobb autographs (Ron Keurajian's & donovan's) into an Excel spreadsheet. I oriented both autographs to exactly the same plane, and sized both to the same height and length specs. Then I placed donovan's example directly below Keurajian's, so that the beginning and end of both signatures were on the same vertical planes. I then copied the image of donovan's example, and pasted it to the right of Keurajian's (both on the same horizontal planes).

Then, using perfectly vertical lines that extended over both top & bottom examples, I touched over 25 common points. And the contact points one just about every single vertical line matched on the two signatures. So obviously, one was a reproduced copy of the other, right? I mean, no ones signature matches exactly (especially nearly 25 different contact points). So it would seem plausible that use of perfectly horizontal lines over both sigatures should produce the same common contact points, right?

Well, that's what I expected, but that's not what happened. Of the twenty five horizontal lines, only six contact points matched exactly. And there were a number of obvious misses.

So how could so many vertical contacts match, but not horizontal contacts?

If I get a chance, I'll try to post an image of my "experiment".

I personally don't know, but hazard to guess that the technologies used to create the two source images may not create perfectly true representations.

Anyone else have an idea ?

it's obviously the same reproduced autograph in my opinion,

what is probably happening is that because the slabbed one is under a slab it is probably not being reproduced on our computer screens exactly as it appears in person as well as being a little blurry. It is not a very good scan like ron's scan is and the scan was taken with some thick plastic in the way instead of paper right up against the scanner like I assume Ron's was.

Ron's example was posted online and that's probably where it was grabbed from. If someone was smart, they would have manipulated the scan, stretch it slightly one way, then another to make it look slightly different, but most people don't take the time to do that, they scan and print.


I have seen autographs that I had to do a double take before, they look the same, but it didn't take long to find some small differences to convince me they were not exactly the same autograph. You can't reproduce your autograph two times in a row exactly like that. It's not physically possible and if anyone can show me two the same from any other athlete, I would really like to see it.


but please post your findings, it's interesting and welcome.

This is like watching people argue over the moon landing.

Full disclosure: I don't think we ever went to the moon.

Off-topic..

But why do people not believe we went to the moon.

Some people are conspiracy minded for whatever reason. Maybe they need to think "bigger things" are going on beneath the surface and things are not what they seem. :confused:

The moon hoaxers (as well as the 911 truthers, etc.) have been debunked on every possible scientific level. But they will always counter with some "evidence" from some web site or whatever. I learned long ago there is no sense debating them.

Everyone's got an opinion.

Is it possible both were done by an autopen? It would explain the *slight* differences the owner is claiming. Any other reproduction method would be readily apparent under 7X magnfication.

The tell for me would be the length / positioning of the underscore. Almost impossible to reproduce.

There has never been even a hint of Cobb having an autopen.

What about a forger creating an auto pen? I'm having a hard time believing an authentication company can't tell if a pen has made a signature or if a signature was lazer printed.

There was an elaborate report on a web site called Autograph Alert, which outlined in detail how PSA authenticated laser prints as real. All it takes is sloppiness and not bothering to remove the autograph from its holder or plastic sheet.

You would think their company name was CSI with all the fancy equipment they like to brag about like pro-scopes and spectral comparator machines, but all that is useless if you don't look at it closely with the greatest piece of equipment available - that being your own eyes, up close with an intent to do a complete, thorough job. One of the first steps in authenticating is to make sure its not a preprint, reprint, autopen, laser scan, etc.

Some of those that got passed were still in the frames, with the sticker being placed on the back of the frame. JSA proudly admits on its facebook site that they have no problem authenticating the autograph directly through the frame, so no need to take the item out. They passed an autographed ball still in the sealed cube holder. They claim to have special magnifying equipment that can look through the plexiglass and tell them if it is authentic or not. I still prefer to see the item in person, closeup, with my own eyes, with nothing in the way, i.e. frames, glass, and ballcubes. But that's me. I am sure Richard is the same way.

But if someone comes to a show with a Michael Jordan jersey framed in a 400 dollar frame, and they don't want to take it out, the authentication company has to decide to pass up that piece or decide to take their submission money and authenticate it through the frame. Guess which one they choose?

They should also be able to tell if it was an autopen versus a real signature too. Autopens shouldn't be able to fool them. But Cobb never had an autopen, if he did we would see more of these.

But it's neither here nor there as it has been shown there are stray dots that show up on both the original, and the laser printed scan, that means the autograph as well as the background was scanned, and reproduced for the cut and the stray dots were replicated too. It's a scan that was printed on old paper probably and then printed with a modern printer and then cut down irregularly to make it look like it was cut from something. That's my theory. But no word yet from PSA or Donovan, wonder why?

I think you guys are right in that we'll never hear back from him. Maybe Leon can give him a call, cause doesn't he have to put a phone number to register.

We won't hear from him if he has some agreement with PSA which would entail a refund to him of some sorts in return for his silence.

according to their site cert # still shows an authentic cobb...maybe they haven't got to it.

if psa will fully reimburse donavon for his exchange of silence then i say good for him. he doesn't owe us anything. telling leon to call him is ridiculous!

maybe good for him, but he promised to get back to us with the results from psa. i expect him to keep his word. He does owe us to follow through on what he said he was going to do.

Both of you are right.
Good for him and he does owe us, he did promise to get back to the board. Is his word good? Or does the money trump his word? Stay tuned.
And how about this scenario: PSA determines the autograph is not authentic, PSA reimburses Donovan and that means he will be quiet. PSA keeps the Cobb and destroys it. PSA keeps it in the database and thus never has to concede that it is bad. Sound plausible??
I guess we don't even need Donovan to come back to the board. His silence speaks volumes for himself and for PSA.
However, it would be nice if he did come back and enlighten us as to what he was told by PSA and the promised document examiner that he said he would take the item to.

PSA says fake. By "master forger", not sure how that explains the identical background spots.....

jim,

how did you get that info, is it true?

the dots are in the same spots, and even a master forger can't copy a sig exactly like that. so if that is what psa said, i am dumbfounded, and it would be scary to think that psa couldn't tell a printed copy. If it looks exactly the same as Ron K's example, there would be no way to tell if it was executed by a master forger BY HAND, because it's the same form and the same signature. If they mean master forger in the terms of it being photoshopped and/or printed on a laser scanner/printer, then they should say that, not just master forger because it gives the impression someone sat down at a table with pen and ink and made a very exact copy.


In my mind, it can't be anything other than a reproduced copy by a printer. But that's me. I am going to ask Donovan again what the verdict is.

He posted it in the thread in the BST

thanks, I see that now, now i dont know what to think.

it cant be hand drawn, no way. not in my book.


Identical background spots is the dead giveaway for me.

According to what Donovan told us -
PSA Discovers Master Forger!!!
Someone great enough to fool the entire world,,,except for one thing, the master forger is a Hewlett Packard printer and it did not fool some people on Net54.

ps. we should all quit the autograph business now, there is a master forger on the loose,,, A MASTER. Us mere mortals have no chance.

Richard, I found that peculiar too, ,that psa would use the word MASTER forger, (correction, not psa's words, donavon used the word amazing forger, with a very skilled hand, when relaying what psa said), it might be the only way to explain that they would get fooled is to create a MASTER (amazing) forger, for surely no one could blame them now that this Merlin the magician is out there, we are no match.

The steadiest hands in the world could not create an autograph that exact. Notice on the T in Ty, there is a segment near the top where the ink skips. This master forger would have to quickly make that top of the T to skip in the exact same spot.

He couldn't do it slow as the ink would show signs of pooling and it would be more thick in that spot where he stopped, and where he started again. It would look cruddy, slowly drawn and would be obvious. But that's not what we have, we have a quick skipping of the ink just like ron's example. how do you do that if you are copying it by hand? impossible. there are no differences to the human eye between the two and the human eye is very keen.

Maybe Hewlett Packard, or some printer company, should view this as a great advertising opportunity. "We are selling the Master Forger, for only $99.99 you can have the same machine."
This is so much BS,,, did they really think that we would buy a story like this?
Donovan for educational purposes I would really like to have my hands on that piece for a good look. Do you think you would do that?
I would gladly pay all shipping charges involved and return it to you promptly.

Donavon,

Richard Simon is a long time hobbyist, authenticator, and very respected in the collecting community. He would give the item a fair inspection, he is willing to do it for free and you have his word he will return it to you.

What could be the reason to not believe him or not take him up on the offer? What do you have to lose? You already got paid for the item. Why such a rush to destroy it when it only looks bad that the evidence will be burnt quickly upon arrival like there is something to hide instead of the hobby learning from it? Why not have another authenticator look at it? You had said previously you would have a document examiner look at it too. Why not get a second opinion instead of only trusting the same people who got it wrong and said it was good in the first place?

When a bridge falls down, do people contract for a new bridge with the same company that built the bridge in the first place?, Or maybe go with someone else this time?

Again, Richard will do a thorough job and he will be fair.

And again, if you write 'forgery' on the back and keep it in your possession and only send it to trusted idividuals for inspection, how can anyone ever sell it or use it? How would it 'escape' back to the general hobby? Destroying it is a way for no one to ever be able to see important evidence of a master forgers or photoshopper's work and learn from it. Is it because it is PSA?

I don't want to seem like I am piling on donavon, but why burn it? There are many times in my life I have thrown something away I was SURE I would never need, use or look at again, and after awhile I really needed it but it was gone. We need to save exemplars, even forgery exemplars for the education of this hobby.

Agreed on Trav' last post

thank you,

no one is claiming Donovan is at fault for any of this but to burn evidence doesn't make sense when we can learn so much from it as a hobby.

if more of this work surfaces, this autograph is important for comparison, just thought donavon would see it that way since one victim of a forgery would want to help other future potential victims.

Agreed on Trav' last post

This would be such a good thing for the hobby if either myself or Travis or some other party would be able to get their hands on this piece.
I do not understand the reluctance of Donavon in this matter.
Only good can come out of letting us study this item, good for collectors as we can educate ourselves and make certain that another item like this does not get into the hobby.
Donavon I appeal to you, for the sake of the hobby, please don't burn this item. Please send it to me for study.
You will be doing irreparable harm if you don't allow me or someone else to have a look at this piece.
If you reply in the negative you will just be thumbing your nose at all collectors and not helping the hobby at all.
Do the right thing here, it won't cost you a thing.

True story Donavon, similar to yours in many ways.

I bought a cut off of ebay of Tom Sharkey, old time heavyweight boxer.

When I received the signature, I thought it looked funny, it looked 'flat', like it was a reproduced signature out of an old magazine ad, etc. It looked like a printed copy.

I wanted to confirm my suspicions so out of everyone I know which is a lot of people I decided to send it to someone that would take time and do a thorough job, I sent it to Richard Simon.

He confirmed it that it wasn't an original signature and sent it back to me. I still have it, I didn't burn it. It won't enter the hobby, but I have it for reference in case other boxing collectors run across something similar in the future. That's how we learn and grow as a collecting community, not destroying evidence and leaving future generations to guess if something similar rears its ugly head at a later date.

I just heard from the owner of the Cobb cut and he told me he would not be mailing it to me due to his fear of it being lost in the mail and then winding up back in the hobby.
I am sorry but that is a crock. A huge crock.
Didn't PSA use the mail to send it back to you Donavon?????
It was good enough for the million dollar Hope Diamond but not good enough for a masterfully forged Ty Cobb cut??
Why not send it Fed Ex, which is virtually foolproof.
I will pay for the shipping.


ps. The owner did invite me to Louisiana if I did want to examine it but I am not about to do that. Who knows if there really is anything to see?
This whole thing was a crock from beginning to end and now Donavon won't do anything to help the hobby.

"The item, legally, belongs to Donavon."

Your direct quote from the BST thread. He doesnt want to send it to you or anyone. Let it go.

Yes, you can promise you wont sell it but what happens if you are robbed or when you pass away. Look how he got the signature, from a bulk sale. Frankly, I think he is doing the right thing by destroying it.

Is that a serious post?
Robbed?
When I pass away?
I am going to hold it for a day or two, did you think I was going to hold it for years? Huh? Why would I want to do that?
You quote my early post but why ignore the post where I said I would return it quickly to Donavon. Post#41, in this thread.
He got it from a bulk sale? He said he got it from an estate sale. And the master forger just dropped it into an estate sale with a bunch of Goudey cards?