Posted By:
barrysloateHi Rob- all good points, but I will disagree with them a bit. First off, I never even considered that any part of my description of the 1871 Boston piece fell under the blanket of authentication. All I did was identify the 11 players pictured, information that is available to anyone who has a book with photographs of the players on that team. In fact, I did a better job with them than SGC, if I may pat myself on the back. I rightly categorized them as CdV proofs, since they were not finished products as the photos were affixed to a very thin layer of cardboard. SGC mistakenly identified them as CdV's, and in my opinion they did not properly label the holders. That may come back to haunt them one day, but I digress.
I think Rob M. hit the nail on the head, that the burden of proof varies from piece to piece. Areas such as autographs and game used equipment can be extremely problematical, and I'm sure there have been countless situations where one authenticator calls a jersey unquestionably game used and another says it isn't. I'm sure that happens on a regular basis. Regarding the 1871 Boston display, is there any other valid opinion regarding who is pictured in the eleven photographs, and the fact that they are CdV's, albeit incomplete ones? Is there a possibility that another historian might think those are actually the Unions of Morrisania, and the photo of Harry Wright is in fact a fake? I just don't see any gray area in that department.
Regarding the Old Judge proof I had I fell asleep at the wheel. I knew when I catalogued it it didn't look right but I went ahead and included it in my auction. After you called me it was yanked immediately. But I was not the owner of it, and I don't feel it was quite the same process of authentication, but admit I can't exactly explain why. I will say I take 100% responsibility for the error.
Regarding the Hannegan CdV, I believe that falls under the category of photo identification. I think we are in full agreement that it is a CdV, and there is a strong resemblance to Hannegan, both in the facial features and with regard to the Leslie's woodcut. But when you (through Mike Wentz) pointed out that Birdsall had the nickname "the old man", something I was not aware of, I agreed my identification was erroneous. Frankly, the difference in value between a Hannegan CdV and a Birdsall is minimal; the difference in value between a real uniform and a fake one is everything and nothing.
Again, let me stress that I am not questioning the authenticity of the Federal League uniform, as I don't have a clue; and I repeat that REA Auctions did everything they were supposed to regarding the presentation. I just think authenticators should stick to authenticating, to remove even the slightest possibility of conflict of interest. In the case of Dave Bushing, who I suspect loves buying and selling but hates authenticating, I feel he is doing the right thing.
To repeat, the autograph and game used equipment market is rife with questionable pieces reaching the marketplace. The CdV market to date has not experienced the same difficulties.