1927 Yankees team ball forgery

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Isn't Spence 1 person?

Yes Spence is one person, but his company (of the same name) employs several different authenticators.

[Lordstan]

David,
I am very sorry to hear about this. It was such a magnificent item. Wow.
We all get fooled sometime.

I also give you a lot of credit for posting about it.

I hope you are able to find a way to be compensated, either through the owners of the auction house, even if it isn't in business, or though Spence. They get paid a lot of money. I think they should stand behind it. Just my 2c.

Best,
Mark

[tinkereversandme]

I started collecting autographs a few years ago and have come to this board to be educated and it seems when I ask a question on here or comment about something, it is always met by David in a snarky and sarcastic fashion, so I guess this is kind of vindication that a person who knows all can make a mistake. I also don't understand why it was said that there is no way JSA would pass it now. Why not? It seems like their opinion clashes often on items that others find "highly suspect" all the time and it doesn't stop the bidding it seems. I hope you do go to Jimmy and report what he says.

Regards,

Larry

[RichardSimon]

Halls of Shame was kind enough to send me some pictures of autographs, which I believe were probably done by the person that I have discussed here. A Black Sox team ball and a "To Charlie" ball from the famous con.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by tinkereversandme

I started collecting autographs a few years ago and have come to this board to be educated and it seems when I ask a question on here or comment about something, it is always met by David in a snarky and sarcastic fashion, so I guess this is kind of vindication that a person who knows all can make a mistake. I also don't understand why it was said that there is no way JSA would pass it now. Why not? It seems like their opinion clashes often on items that others find "highly suspect" all the time and it doesn't stop the bidding it seems. I hope you do go to Jimmy and report what he says.

Regards,

Larry

It was stated that no way would PSA pass the ball now. I believe that the authenticators in the hobby have become more aware of a ball like this now.
I too believe PSA would not pass the ball now.

[mr2686]

First off, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with the following, but am really curious to what other's think. What I'm wondering is this - On this thread I've read that the ball would not pass now because 3rd party authenticators have become aware and have learned from their previous mistake. On past threads over the last few months, 3rd party authenticators have been bashed for making constant stupid mistakes, obviously unable or unwilling to learn. So what do we think:
1. TPA's are pretty good but make mistakes like everyone else?
2. TPA's have become too big and too busy to give each individual item their due?
3. TPA's are becoming Morales types and blanket authenticating?
4. Are TPA's leaning more and more to passing items that they should be
giving "no opinion" to?

Any thoughts?

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by mr2686

First off, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with the following, but am really curious to what other's think. What I'm wondering is this - On this thread I've read that the ball would not pass now because 3rd party authenticators have become aware and have learned from their previous mistake. On past threads over the last few months, 3rd party authenticators have been bashed for making constant stupid mistakes, obviously unable or unwilling to learn. So what do we think:
1. TPA's are pretty good but make mistakes like everyone else?
2. TPA's have become too big and too busy to give each individual item their due?
3. TPA's are becoming Morales types and blanket authenticating?
4. Are TPA's leaning more and more to passing items that they should be
giving "no opinion" to?

Any thoughts?

1, 2, and 4.
1) PSA and JSA are "pretty good." They are nowhere near as good, however, as they advertise themselves to be--but what product is? Everybody makes mistakes--it's part of being human. the problem, however, is that the TPAs would have us trust them implicitly, while at the same time indemnifying themselves against all liability and responsibility for their mistakes.
2) Often we see mistakes that just should not have been made. Pure carelessness is the most likely explanation.
4) We see far too many instances of items being passed when no--or too few--actual exemplars exist.

[travrosty]

Someone said psa wouldn't pass it 5 years ago, well spence was psa's top guy just a little over 5 years ago, and look what spence is passing now. It is in my opinion, no good.

http://catalog.greyflannelauctions.c...px?lotid=26104

Does anyone think this is real?

These companies pass them then, now and whenever.

Whose says they have gotten better. They both passed a Thomas Sayers boxing autograph from the 1860's with no exemplars.

Here are some pics from the jsa ruth ball that sold north of 85,000 dollars in the grey flannel auction. Some of the sigs are shaky, the Dutch Reuther, really? Are we really going to defend these companies come heck or high water? It's insanity multiplied.

Lot more to come, not even close to being done here. Let's get opinions on this one. Whaddya think? Full JSA LOA.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

Yes Spence is one person, but his company (of the same name) employs several different authenticators.

Not at the time this ball was bought. in 1999. He said it was just spence.

He said Birkholm thought it was no good, and Birkholm worked for JSA. So does JSA think it is good or not? And would it have passed when Birkholm worked there? And would it pass now? Would Spence stick with his original authentication on this ball, or bail on it?

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Not at the time this ball was bought. in 1999. He said it was just spence.

ahhh ok sorry about that, i thought you were talking present time.