Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordstan
Signature verification is different in my mind that autograph authentication.
On-site Signature verification is the process by which you get an item signed by the guest and then someone at a desk slap a label on your item in essence saying that "this item is real as it was signed here in front of us".
Of course the problem is that the workers may not be close enough to see your item signed and there fore have to trust that the item you bring to them is the item you got signed. There is a famous video of one of the groups authenticating an item for a reporter that had just had a photo signed and then signed one herself copying from the real thing. The authenticator said to her "you look honest" and certed the fake photo.
Autograph authentication is the process where people bring/send in items for a reviewer to examine. The process should include steps like
1) making sure the item could have actually been signed by the player. For example, say a Ty Cobb signed Lee MacPhail AL Ball is obviously fake as Cobb was not alive when those balls were made.
2) Making sure the item is actually signed rather than pre-printed. Using a microscope or similar would make sense
3) Making sure the signature itself looks the way it should taking into account the letter formation the player had during the time period it was signed, Flow, presence of starts/stops, angles, and other things. Usually this is done, by using a file of known exemplars as a reference.
4) Provenance- Now this is tricky one as there are just as many bad stories out there as bad autographs, but if you had a signature of Ruth on a govt contract that originated from the Smithsonian you'd be hard pressed to say it's bad even if there were some irregularities. Not saying they can't have been faked, but I think you would probably give them a little more slack.
The unfortunate reality is that Autograph Authentication is really a misnomer. All Authentications are just OPINIONS. PSA, JSA, Beckett, and all the others are not GUARNTEEING that an auto is authentic. They have no financial responsibility if they happen to be wrong. You are paying for whatever peace of mind you can get that someone who knows more than you thinks it's good. This is not bashing them. Giving an opinion is a legitimate service.
Now if you want guarantees, the only ones you can get are from reputable dealers like Jim Stinson and Richard Simon who will take back an auto they sold, at any time, if you ever are given reason to believe it's not good. They are not "authenticators" per se, but there is nothing more reassuring then knowing your seller stands behind the product he sells
|
The biggest problem I have with the big third party authenticators (of autographs and cards) is not that it's an opinion, but that they won't ever admit when their opinion is proven wrong.
They're so careful to disclaim any guarantee, yet they also are so protective of their reputation that they refuse to admit mistakes even when pointed out to them. To my knowledge PSA never has commented on Bill Mastro's admission that the Wagner was trimmed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk