Very, very, interesting...

[vintagechris]

The sad thing with these authenticators is it is not just the high dollar stuff, is the lower stuff as well. I bought a signed football card lot from a well known auction house, awhile back and the lot had been ok'd by one of the "respected" authenticators.

When I got the lot and started looking through it it took me no more than two minutes to realize it was LITTERED with bad signatures. For example, there were autographs of Charlie Joiner and Harry Carson where it literally looked like a child was just playing around and writing their name.

They looked like whoever did it wasn't even trying to copy those players signatures they were that bad. I am used to getting a small % of bad signatures in autograph lots like this but this was closer to 40 or 50% and that was just the ones I knew for sure.

I will say this, this lot was so littered with forgeries that the only conclusion is the authenticator didn't actually look at the lot or they passed them without caring because the auction house is paying them.

The auction house allowed me to return them for a refund but I wonder if they held that authentication company accountable for that, especially since they still use said authenticator. Does the auction house just not care because they are getting their cut?

These forgeries were so obvious that if they didn't confront the authenticator, I would tend to believe they don't care as long as they get their cut, which is really sad.

[travrosty]

The auction house allowed me to return them for a refund but I wonder if they held that authentication company accountable for that, especially since they still use said authenticator. Does the auction house just not care because they are getting their cut?
These forgeries were so obvious that if they didn't confront the authenticator, I would tend to believe they don't care as long as they get their cut, which is really sad.


People are still trying to figure that out, is it just shoddy work or are they not even trying, or worse yet, they are trying but have different motives. We don't know.

auction houses never hold the authentication companies responsible.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Travis:

You make some good points, but part of the logic is flawed in my view.

In essence, your point is that these companies "legitimize" some fakes and create a false sense of security, the collectors don't do their homework, etc. In effect, it is the fault of these companies that these fakes are allowed to flourish.

Following your logic, if these companies didn't exist approving questionable items, collectors would be more educated, they'd all do their homework, go to the proper dealer/experts, have everything reviewed my muliple trusted sources, etc., etc.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Big money will attract fraud. Ruth balls would be selling for big bucks whether PSA existed or not. And collectors would be just as lazy and look to some source of expertise whether PSA existed or not. Instead of trusting the opinion of PSA, they'd be trusting the opinion of some dealer or auction house, who is no less prone to the same shortcomings of a TPA.

I think your view of the hobby sans "alphabet soup" is not realistic.

but alphabet soup isnt working. we had no soup before 1999. this isnt any better.

maybe authentication companies would work and be good for the hobby, but they have to operate in a business model that doesnt cut corners.

you cut corners, you get this, and wife signed listons, and manager signed fitzsimmons, and wife signed fitzsimmons, and secretarial signed Sullivan, and wife signed Marciano, and secretarial signed Louis, should I keep going?

They need a lot more experts in all fields, they need to slow down, they need to stop promising instant turnaround, they need to do about 30 other things.

They have known this for years, they implement NO reforms. Sorry, not a big fan of the status quo. I can't wait to see parts 2-10.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

To think that sports autographs had any value other than sentimental in the 1940s is to not know the history of autograph collecting. Through the 1960s no autograph dealer--Mary Benjamin, Charles Hamilton, to name the biggest--would touch a sports autograph.

(Don't believe me? Take a look at Hamilton's 1960 book "Collecting Autographs and Manuscripts," or Benjamin's "Autographs: A Key to Collecting.")

i would agree.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Sportsnutcards

That is what I do not understand about those who are so against JSA and PSA. If they didn't exist how would someone find out who to trust? Where would a novice autograph collector start? How would they even find someone whose opinion they could trust? Everyone makes mistakes, even major dealers, auction houses etc, but they are not brought into the spotlight because their mistakes are usually not out there for everyone to see. That is why 3rd part authentication exists, to give you an extra level of comfort when buying something. They are just certifying their opinion just like every other major dealer in this industry. It is then up to the consumer to make a decision how to weight that opinion.

The reason is because people dont know these authenticating companies, they just see abc, or xyz and trust them. Who looked at your autograph when you sent it in?

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW, DO YOU? nobody does. how can you gauge trust in an authenticator that is a mystery man to you?

If Richard Simon looked at a ruth ball i was considering buying, i can take richard's opinion for what i value it. But if the ruth ball comes with abc or xyz, just whose opinion am i valuing? Give me a name. They don't tell you who looked at it.

Please answer that question and dont dodge it.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by vintagechris

... where it literally looked like a child was just playing around and writing their name...

Laughing.

I crossed paths with a Cy Young winning all-star pitcher a few times a couple of years back thru my job. As a thank you for the "help" I had provided him, he sent me an autographed baseball from his most recent All Star game. I can barely read any of the autographs on that ball. I think it's a sign of the times.

We will see very few modern autographs in the "nice looking signature" thread.

Doug

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Laughing.

I crossed paths with a Cy Young winning all-star pitcher a few times a couple of years back thru my job. As a thank you for the "help" I had provided him, he sent me an autographed baseball from his most recent All Star game. I can barely read any of the autographs on that ball. I think it's a sign of the times.

We will see very few modern autographs in the "nice looking signature" thread.

Doug

Trust me, I have gotten my share of sloppy sigs, but this is not what this was. None of the letters were even remotely formed the way the players signatures are. Charlie Joiner and Harry Carson have very distinctive sigs that have not changed much if at all in 30 years, and these signs didn't even look like the person who signed them tried to make them look remotely like theirs.

Picture the Joiner signature with a printed capital "J" like we all learned to write in school, now go look at a real Charlie Joiner signature. That is how bad some of these signatures were. That is just one example.

funny thing was, when I called the auction house and told them, they pulled the auction up online and from the few pics they had online, said yea, some don't look right. They literally looked for about 35 seconds. Left me really wondering about this and other auction houses.

[Vintagedegu]

-

[scgaynor]

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: Not really

The thing is, for you guys that don't to buy autographs because you are concerned about authenticity, my guess is that the problem of high end doctored cards sitting in holders is 100X worse than high end forged Ruth signatures that pass 3rd party authenticators.

Actually 100X might be conservative.

It is much easier to doctor a card than do a really good Ruth forgery.

Just sayin.


Scott

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: Not really

The thing is, for you guys that don't to buy autographs because you are concerned about authenticity, my guess is that the problem of high end doctored cards sitting in holders is 100X worse than high end forged Ruth signatures that pass 3rd party authenticators.

Actually 100X might be conservative.

It is much easier to doctor a card than do a really good Ruth forgery.

Just sayin.


Scott

Maybe, even probably, and doesn't make either any less an issue.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: Not really

The thing is, for you guys that don't to buy autographs because you are concerned about authenticity, my guess is that the problem of high end doctored cards sitting in holders is 100X worse than high end forged Ruth signatures that pass 3rd party authenticators.

Actually 100X might be conservative.

It is much easier to doctor a card than do a really good Ruth forgery.

Just sayin.


Scott

I think there are problems with a lot of high grade vintage cards. Other lower grade ones I don't think have as many problems. I own around a thousand lower grade to mid grade vintage baseball cards.
I sleep well at night. If I had a thousand autographs, purchased in the last 15 yrs (as that is when I started) I am not sure I could say the same thing.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think there are problems with a lot of high grade vintage cards. Other lower grade ones I don't think have as many problems. I own around a thousand lower grade to mid grade vintage baseball cards.
I sleep well at night. If I had a thousand autographs, purchased in the last 15 yrs (as that is when I started) I am not sure I could say the same thing.

Well-said. In addition, a forged Ruth autograph is better compared to a forged card. I doubt Leon has any card forgeries. An altered card would be compared to an altered autograph.

(I had an apple this morning and not once confused it with an orange.)

[David Atkatz]

What's an "altered autograph"? No such thing. The only "alteration" is an enhancement, and that is easy to spot. I think paying NM-MT money for a VG card that's been doctored (and therefore should not have been graded at all) is analogous to buying an authenticated forged autograph.

(There's no point in forging cards, when there's no shortage of low-grade genuine examples that can be restored.)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

What's an "altered autograph"? No such thing. The only "alteration" is an enhancement, and that is easy to spot. I think paying NM-MT money for a VG card that's been doctored (and therefore should not have been graded at all) is analogous to buying an authenticated forged autograph.

(There's no point in forging cards, when there's no shortage of low-grade genuine examples that can be restored.)

David- stick to autographs....... Have you ever tried to alter a vg card into a NRMT-MT one? Yes, there are a very, very few that could have a surface wrinkle but otherwise be NMT-MT, but mainly a vg card, true vg with honest wear, would have to be trimmed down to a toothpick size to make it have pointy corners. I agree about altered autographs and that there wouldn't be many of those either. I will go back to 1000 cards in mid grade vs 1000 autographs? I will take the cards as having less issues. Now if you were to change the question to be "are there more NRMT+ pre-war cards with problems vs pre-war autographs, I think the difference is much closer. We sure don't see the amount of over-sized cards that were around 20+ yrs ago, I wonder why? (so I do understand the point being made)

Even though this is a nice card it could never be made into NRMT-MT, imo....and get pass anyone with any knowledge of the series..

[David Atkatz]

I'm sure you've heard of building up corners, Leon. I wasn't talking about trimming cards. I was talking about restoring them.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I'm sure you've heard of building up corners, Leon. I wasn't talking about trimming cards. I was talking about restoring them.

Like I said David....stick to autos and I will stick to cards .

[David Atkatz]

Right, Leon. There are no restored cards in PSA slabs.
And this Christmas we'll all see peace on Earth and good will towards men.

(I'm sure Bill Mastro knows what I'm talking about. )

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Right, Leon. There are no restored cards in PSA slabs.
And this Christmas we'll all see peace on Earth and good will towards men.

(I'm sure Bill Mastro knows what I'm talking about. )

Seriously David.....think of this as yourself in knowing autos as I know cards. I study cards and know card doctors and am personal friends with several senior graders. Do we really need to continue discussing this? It would be analogous to me telling you about Yankees autos and memorabilia.

[David Atkatz]

And I know Jimmy Spence personally. That must mean there are no forgeries with JSA certificates.

[David Atkatz]

I seem to recall a number of threads a few years back regarding restored cards being slabbed. I don't recall the names, but the guy was an expert in card doctoring, and he claimed that a great number of slabbed cards belonging to a major PSA collector and board member were almost certain to have been doctored.

[David Atkatz]

Some examples:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...doctored+cards

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...doctored+cards

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...doctored+cards

[insidethewrapper]

I have had baseballs signed in person in the 1960's and they have been out of the sunlight etc and many of the signatures have faded over the years. How in the heck can these older signatures still look so good ? They can't.

Also how can these older cards like 1933 Goudey's look mint. White borders, no nicked corners , no creases etc. They can't . In 1933 etc, are you telling me kids never touched these cards and not once in all these years a corner has been nicked ? That's impossible. How in the heck were they stored all those years before being slabbed .

Is there anyone on here that is old enough to remember collecting Goudey's as a kid ? My dad is 89 and he collected them and he laughs when he sees cards in that shape.

Cards are restored and auto's are faked if they look that good.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

I have had baseballs signed in person in the 1960's and they have been out of the sunlight etc and many of the signatures have faded over the years. How in the heck can these older signatures still look so good ? They can't.

Cards are restored and auto's are faked if they look that good.

Nonsense. Here's an Isaac Newton signature from 1703. Looks pretty good.



This was written in 1864. Not bad, either.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Some examples:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...doctored+cards

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...doctored+cards

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...doctored+cards

David
I have been on this board longer than anyone except the person who started it. You can't show me a thread on the memorabilia side or card side that I haven't read. Except for one person I have more than 2x as many posts as anyone else. I agree with everything you said. I have had many hours of conversations with Dan Markel and was all set to testify in court when it was settled. I am not sure what else I can say except you haven't said anything I haven't already known for years and years. I know there are a ton of altered high grade cards in holders etc etc......I am a preacher of that issue. After one of our discussions on the board, several years ago, I had someone call me and his introduction was literally "Hi Leon, I am a card doctor and I want to let you know more about the things your board members are saying."

[David Atkatz]

I don't understand, Leon. First you ridicule me for suggesting that doctored/altered/restored cards get graded and slabbed, and now you say "Of course they do. I've known that forever."

[insidethewrapper]

David: Must have used better ink back then ( or are they forged), but my 1960's are faded and they have rarely seen the light of day. Maybe something else is destroying these signatures. But color movies from around the late '60's and '70's are also very faded and look terrible.

[David Atkatz]

They did use better ink back then. Museums and archives are full of 1000+ year old documents. as dark and bold as the day they were written.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I don't understand, Leon. First you ridicule me for suggesting that doctored/altered/restored cards get graded and slabbed, and now you say "Of course they do. I've known that forever."

First of all David, sorry if you think I was ridiculing you. That wasn't my intention. I am only having a friendly debate. What I have a problem with is when folks that don't know cards too well lump them all together. My whole thought is that the lower grade cards have far fewer altering problems and that is what I collect. If I collected only PSA 8 and above, then I wouldn't feel so good. If I collected autographs, and taking into account what I have read and seen on this board, I wouldn't feel so good either (unless I was an expert and could authenticate them myself) Sorry if I miss communicated.

[David Atkatz]

I agree with you, too, Leon. Perhaps we each misunderstood the other. My contention was not that low/mid grade slabbed cards have been altered, but rather that raw mid-grade cards are altered to produce high-grade cards, which are then slabbed.

[base_ball]

Originally Posted by Leon

After one of our discussions on the board, several years ago, I had someone call me and his introduction was literally "Hi Leon, I am a card doctor and I want to let you know more about the things your board members are saying."

Did this person tell you anything worth sharing with this board? Or with law enforcement?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by base_ball

Did this person tell you anything worth sharing with this board? Or with law enforcement?

I have shared everything I know with law enforcement. In different threads and posts I have also shared many details. I am not a card doctor so don't know it all. Most things are actually common sense and have been rehashed on the board over and over.

[Frozen in Time]

Let me start by saying that I don't really know anything about grading cards or determining whether or not a Ruth autograph is authentic. But, aside from the comparisons to known "real" autographs of Ruth, I would think that the surface properties of a vintage ball would change enough over a period of 70 or 80 years that a modern forgery might display some disparities in the interaction of the ink with the ball surface that could be examined and quantitated.

If this were true, some type of physical measurement (e.g., refractive index or absorption spectrum) would at least remove some of the subjectivity out of the process.

Does anyone know if this kind of approach has ever been used?

[David Atkatz]

As a physicist, Craig, I'm sure that 60+ years of ink-leather interaction must have some measurable effects. The key, of course, would be to measure them non-destructively.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

As a physicist, Craig, I'm sure that 60+ years of ink-leather interaction must have some measurable effects. The key, of course, would be to measure them non-destructively.

Along these lines, wouldn't fresh ink on 60 year old leather feather or spider-web to some degree?

[scgaynor]

Leon and David are both correct.

The reason that I made my statement about cards being even more problematic than autographs is because it makes me smile when I read people making comments about how they don't collect autographs because of forgeries and authentication companies that make mistakes.

Both doctored cards and forged autographs are problems in a relatively young hobby with easy money available to somebody who puts in the effort to deceive.

But, in my opinion, The problem of altered cards is much worse than some forged Ruth balls. If you are going to devote 10 articles to forged Ruth balls, you should be devoting 50 articles to doctored cards.

It would take alot of $300,000 Ruth balls to equal the amount spent on cards that used to be 4's and 5's and have been turned into 7's and 8's.

Scott

[RichardSimon]

So Scott you are basically saying the the card graders are really bad, correct?
Shocked, shocked to find that out,,, here are your winnings sir.

[scgaynor]

Long time, no talk, hope that you are doing well Richard. I would be shocked, shocked to hear otherwise!

Some are worse than others, and some are pretty good. That goes for both cards and autographs.

I know that fighting to bring to light autograph forgeries has been your crusade for years and it is a problem that needs to be addressed and fixed.

My point is that there are problems everywhere and I would not have much more confidence in high grade expensive cards than I would in high grade expensive autographs.

Scott

[RichardSimon]

Doing well,thanks for asking and your point is well taken.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Along these lines, wouldn't fresh ink on 60 year old leather feather or spider-web to some degree?

Obtaining old ink is easy.
I can remember being at the Atlantique City show some years ago.
Turned a corner and in a corner booth a dealer had a pyramid of old ink in those little bottles. A forgers wet dream come true.
I actually thought of "slipping" into the pyramid, and damaging all the bottles, but I knew it would mean trouble .

[TexasLeaguer]

There's an interesting documentary called "The Man Who Forged America" about a guy named Mark Hoffman who was a master forger. It's not about sports memorabilia at all, but it's worth watching because it shows a number of forgery techniques he used that are definitely relevant to a number of the things people here might collect. His story also has a crazy and unfortunate ending after he gets caught in his web of lies...

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=YORKKIAT
(hit play, close pop-up window, hit play again)

[David Atkatz]

"Old" ink is still "fresh" ink. It's liquid, and would feather when applied to a porous medium.

[RichardSimon]

His story is an eye opener.
He literally tried to rewrite Mormon history, then killed two people to try to cover up his crimes.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

What's an "altered autograph"? No such thing.

David - that's my point. There's almost no chance of a halfway knowledgeable card collector buying a forgery; however there's a very good chance of a halfway knowledgeable autograph collector getting stuck with a forgery at some point.

But if I had to choose, I would much rather get stuck with an altered Ruth card than a forged Ruth signature. The former would still have value.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I seem to recall a number of threads a few years back regarding restored cards being slabbed. I don't recall the names, but the guy was an expert in card doctoring, and he claimed that a great number of slabbed cards belonging to a major PSA collector and board member were almost certain to have been doctored.

I'm with you on this one. I could post a very personal example, but I think Leon would fly to Seattle and kick me in the butt.

I think the doctored cards in slabs are a despicable aspect of card-collecting, but I still don't think it is as rampant as forgeries. Trimmed cards in slabs might be - not sure. I still have to wonder if a trimmed card in a slab is as bad as a forged autograph with an LOA. I wouldn't think so.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by TexasLeaguer

There's an interesting documentary called "The Man Who Forged America" about a guy named Mark Hoffman who was a master forger. It's not about sports memorabilia at all, but it's worth watching because it shows a number of forgery techniques he used that are definitely relevant to a number of the things people here might collect. His story also has a crazy and unfortunate ending after he gets caught in his web of lies...

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=YORKKIAT
(hit play, close pop-up window, hit play again)

TexasLeaguer,
Excellent Mark Hoffman documentary. Very interesting & thanks for posting! I like your avitar. Why your interest in Lon Warneke "The Arkansas Hummingbird"?

[TexasLeaguer]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Why your interest in Lon Warneke "The Arkansas Hummingbird"?

My collecting focus recently has been pre-war pitchers, and I like Warneke because he was a hard-throwing country boy from nearby Arkansas. Even though he didn't actually play in the Texas League, he tried out for the Houston Buffaloes as a first baseman, and was converted to a pitcher by their manager Frank Snyder.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

"Old" ink is still "fresh" ink. It's liquid, and would feather when applied to a porous medium.

Yes, that's what I meant. It feathers when it hits old paper and sometimes wood... you'd think it would be true to a degree for leather as well.

[19cbb]

Operation Bambino. Part II

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=10406

[mr2686]

Keurajian is the author of McFarland Publishing’s soon-to-be-released baseball autograph study, Signatures From Cooperstown

Looks like his book will soon be coming out.

[Leon]

It sounds like the "leap" of faith is getting further and further.....