Psa

packs · #1 09-20-2017, 10:10 AM

Maybe they aren't authentic.

bobbyw8469 · #2 09-20-2017, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Maybe they aren't authentic.

I think that's the issue...in some instances, these are KNOWN real autographs that are being rejected. Like someone else stated, if PSA can't tell the difference, maybe they need to stop the autograph division. And yes, I believe forgeries are rampant.

packs · #3 09-20-2017, 11:33 AM

What does known to be real mean? I don't understand the criticism here. PSA rejected autographs they feel aren't authentic. That's their opinion. If you're saying that they shouldn't authenticate autographs unless they're able to make a determination without fail, wouldn't you prefer they err on the side of caution and reject an autograph they aren't comfortable with?

Republicaninmass · #4 09-20-2017, 12:07 PM

Hence why the say "questionable"

There was a slew of cards ending the other night, a few which I thought were questionable, so I didn't bid. I try to err on the side if caution as well. If my first inkling is a NO, I have to stop myself from asking "could it possibly be rushed, an off day, etc"

As far as modern guys who sign TTM there is no reason to fail them solely because it's an expensive, vintage card

MrSeven · #5 09-20-2017, 12:12 PM

I think the strangest PSA result I've ever seen was a Ted Williams autographed Gene Budig baseball from the late 90s.

The general consensus I've been told is that Williams stopped signing balls in 1993 after his stroke. I suspect any Budig baseball will draw additional suspicion right off of the bat by a TPA.

This ball had the saddest Ted Williams autograph I've ever seen. It was extremely sloppy & deformed and looked like it came from Williams shortly before his death. I have no doubt it was real.

Had a full LOA. I'm guessing they assume nobody would forge such a sad looking autograph. I just don't know how you'd authenticate an item like that.

bobbyw8469 · #6 09-20-2017, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

What does known to be real mean? I don't understand the criticism here. PSA rejected autographs they feel aren't authentic. That's their opinion. If you're saying that they shouldn't authenticate autographs unless they're able to make a determination without fail, wouldn't you prefer they err on the side of caution and reject an autograph they aren't comfortable with?

Known to be real means I stood in front of Mantle while he signed it. We BSed about big breasted blondes whilst he signed my card.

packs · #7 09-20-2017, 12:23 PM

Why did you pay PSA then?

theshleps · #8 09-20-2017, 02:56 PM

I have always run my autos by Jim Stinson and Ron Gordon both original PSA folks for their opinion. I have seen them say something is good and PSA rejects it and I have seen the opposite too. I trust Jim more as he can tell me exactly why and a whole history of that player and signing habits, ghost signers, etc. I couldn't care less about a LOA except when I am selling my dupes and the AH requires getting one. I had a Bobby Doerr rejected by PSA- it was a fairly recent TTM one. Who is going to forge a Bobby Doerr?
The problem is when PSA rejects a vintage signature of mine I have no idea who looked at it and why they didn't like it. Would they have still rejected it if it was sent in by REA or HA? Also some of the AH's tell me to resubmit it to them again and it is often accepted. So I have to pay twice and hope someone else looks at it? Crazy and us old timers are frustrated. Sure there are lots of fakes but some items we have held for decades and have great provenance and still a rejection. Just frustrating

tha-rock · #9 09-20-2017, 04:23 PM

I agree with the comments posted and Michael has discussed this subject with me. Very disturbing if true. It makes no sense to me to reject an autograph merely because its vintage, or on a vintage item. When I submit a signed item to a TPA, I'm buying a professional opinion as to the autograph's authenticity. They were not there to see it signed, so all they are providing is an opinion, since they can't be 100% sure about it. In my mind, the question is how sure does an authenticator need to be before he is willing to say "I'll authenticate it." 51%?, 75%?, 90%?, 99%? I sort of understand the basis for charging more to authenticate an 18th century player than someone like Darold Knowles, because of the effort involved. Does their standard for declaring authenticity vary as well? For example, would they want to be 95% sure before they are willing to put their seal of authenticity on the likes of Al Spalding, Candy Cummings, Monte Ward, Kid Nichols, whereas for Darold Knowles or Milt Pappas, they are willing to certify it if they are 60% sure about it. Should the standard for authenticity vary based on the age of the item or age of the autograph?
It also makes no sense to me that some TPAs want to charge more for authenticating the same autograph if it is on a vintage item than if it is on a recent item. What justifies that? Certifying a Hank Greenberg signature on a 1939 Playball should be no more difficult than certifying it on 1980’s reprint.