Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy
Not interested, but let's start with your opening sentence. Are you're inferring that with PSA/DNA (and other like third party authenticators) that the number of fake autographs has decreased in our hobby? Come on, that is certainly not the case. Or are you inferring that autograph collectors can now have peace of mind from a third party authenticated autograph such as by PSA/DNA? If the latter is the case, let's revisit this thread...
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=148790
This was a facsimile autograph that PSA/DNA authenticated as being the real deal. It wasn't a fake or a forgery, it was a copy of the original. A 10 year old with a loupe can tell the difference between a facsimile autograph and one that is actually penned. Why couldn't PSA/DNA? You can't blame this on on "mechanical error" as you PSA apologists like to often do. They simply authenticated a reproduction autograph without looking at it under magnification.
OK, how does this relate to our topic of greed and fraud? Well, it was fraudulently submitted and authenticated and then the greed of the OP wouldn't let him see the fact that it was a fake.
You infer that autograph collecting has become safer with TPG authentication, but how do you explain PSA/DNA authenticating a copy - again, not a forgery - a copy?
What greed and fraud topic do you want to talk about next? |
Do you believe more people have purchased forgeries without PSA/DNA certification or with?
Yes, I am claiming that the autograph hobby has become immensely safer for the casual collector. If I look on eBay for signed Mickey Mantle baseballs without third party authentication I 100% believe that I will find more forgeries than searching eBay for baseballs with authentication.
Also, do you believe I can find more eBay listings for fake 1952 Mantles listed as authentic in PSA slabs or raw?
Edited to add: ALSO, are you seriously inferring a casual collector is better off buying a high dollar autograph without any authentication than with? Because I couldn't disagree more with you.