Just goes to show "there's an ass for every seat":D:D:D

I would have used the P.T.Barnum analogy "There's a sucker born every minute" But what ever works for you works for me! ;););)

Small wonder why many of those "called out" on this board choose not to come on here to answer any allegations. Mr Darvick comes here, explains his position, and is set upon immediately. A subject was brought up, he answered it, if you have another question for him, ask it. Who he works for has nothing to do with it.

Who ANYONE works for is of course germane to the issue. Leaving Herman totally out of the present discussion, I'd certainly want to know if someone's opinion could be, intentionally or unintentionally tainted by their employment or affililiations.

I'm not sure Herman will clarify his answer to these questions, although I would be really interested in the answers. "I don't remember the story behind the book signing - it was 18 1/2 years ago." This would hold more weight with me if not for his definitive answers in his original post. It appears that he remembers the details quite clearly. His defense of his original OK seems to hinge on extraneous information from SOMEONE. If that someone was a party to the signing, it would be some nice corroboration to his finding. IF that is the case, why the generic LOA? Wouldn't it be prudent to note any provenance rather than "It looks good to me"?

On the face of it, it appears that 'legend' turned into 'fact'. None of this has any direct correlation to authenticity of the signature or not. However, the quick certainty with which several of these questions were answered (without attribution) makes me nervous.

At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, Mr. Deertick (a favorite of ours in CT!), but...an autograph has to stand on its own two legs regardless of the story that surrounds its past. I remember Charles Hamilton relating how he would get autographs "all gussied up" in fancy frames with tons of letters of provenance from Haile Selassie to General Lee, but the signature was a pig nonetheless.

When I get a piece to sell, I ignore all the provenance, framing, previous sales records and ESPECIALLY previous COA's and concentrate on the autograph itself. I'm guaranteeing the autograph alone - not all the (potentially) worthless window dressing that comes with it.

I agree! :) All the extras should support the conclusion, not prove it. But ignoring info (such as signed while on a deathbed) is ignoring info for you to make your decision an informed one, no?

.....

provenance only helps a fake autograph make it to being "real". everybody has a story and provenance stories are faked all the time.

people can look these authenticators right in the eye and lie like a rug.

that's why these bags of hair people sell with interesting and rock solid "provenance" turn out to not be a DNA match. it's all phony.

provenance is only needed to bump a fake autograph into the "real" category, if it is really real, you don't need a provenance story. it's nice but can't be relied on because people...

A. Lie
B. remember things incorrectly, especially if it happened a long time ago.
C. unknowingly lie / are duped by someone else.

I voluntarily authenticate for JSA. I hadn't seen the signed book, or a copy of the Joe Jackson signature in it, since 1994. I see no reason for me to change my mind. With the existence of the Foster + Freeman Video Spectral Comparator, I probably would want to examine the signature to possibly learn if it was signed between the book's publishing in 1947 and Joe Jackson's death in 1951, and not after I sold the first authentic Joe Jackson signature at auction in 1990 for $23,100.

Just curious, where did the first authentic Joe Jackson come from and any details about the signature? Was it a check, a document, a baseball? What steps were made to prove its authenticity? Thanks!

[QUOTE=Herman Darvick;1033963]I voluntarily authenticate for JSA.



that's the dumbest thing i have ever heard.


who FORCIBLY authenticates for jsa? do they have people chained to their desks over there?

[QUOTE=Herman Darvick;1033963]I voluntarily authenticate for JSA.



that's the dumbest thing i have ever heard.


who FORCIBLY authenticates for jsa? do they have people chained to their desks over there?

Matt,
Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the first Jackson sig was a cut from a legal document...and there's the rub. Putting all these comments together, and what we know about Jackson, you have the following:

1. He could sign his name, but barely and it was very labored.
2. He wasn't one to sign his name in front of anyone (probably because he was embarrassed by how long it took him.
3. If he didn't sign in front of someone, and took an item home to sign it...and Katie signed all of his autograph requests, why the heck wouldn't she sign that.
4. Every other legitimate Jackson sig has been from a legal type of document.
5. With his, or any other signer that has a slow/labored signature (and where a letter or two may be erased and re-written from time to time), how the heck would you be able to honestly give an opinion that it was legit.

If some fool wants to spend 13k on an item that "might" be legit even though there's no logical reason why it should be, well, that's their business.
Sure, you look at the autograph and judge it on it's merits, it's just that you can't do that we something like this.

I'm not quite sure that that machine can tell you the AGE of writing sample, as it uses different sources of light for its analyses. I believe it can tell you differences in ink colors, erasures, overwriting, etc., but nothing about age.

I believe that one would have to take a minute sample of the ink, or use the latest advances in mass spectrometry (non-destructive) in order to determine the actual age of the ink (comparing it to known manufacturer's samples). This was done with a Clyde Barrow letter we once handled to determine that the graphite was not of the period: an analysis using a light source of any kind would have been useless. Of course, the cost of such apparatus is far beyond the reach of any autograph dealer or authenticator.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[QUOTE=travrosty;1033973]Travis - Not speaking for my respected colleague, but I believe he meant to say that he is not paid to authenticate for them.

Clarification of my earlier: Essentially, the supporting material has to be pretty much ironclad for it to carry any weight in an authentication of the writing itself. For someone to say: "My grandmother said she saw Jesus sign it" doesn't merit any consideration.

Yeah, that would be kind of crazy.

But for a 'signer' like Joe Jackson (or Jesus), provenance becomes even more important than for a guy who knew how to write...in English. If someone who was trusted and not in dire financial straits said: "My grandmother remembers my grandfather getting Joe Jackson to sign the book, and it was his most treasured possession, and it's been a part of our family for 70 years" might carry some weight.

Sure - but but the general public buying the piece has to be convinced that the consignor or seller is "trusted", and someone just saying so simply doesn't cut it in today's world, I'm sorry to say.

Not really, Scott. We lawyer types call that "chain hearsay" and it has no value in court because it is not eyewitness evidence of anything.

Adam, that is exactly why this:

"The "Shoeless Joe Jackson" written on the lower portion of the page was written by the collector to identify who signed it."

and this:

"In the signed book, why was the "e" erased and rewritten? Because Joe didn't like the "e" he had signed, erased it, and signed it again. A forger would have to be real dumb to erase a letter and rewrite it. Why was the pressure heavy? Because he hardly ever used a pen and wanted to make sure his signature looked good."

bother me so much. This information, if firsthand, would be valuable. Otherwise, not so much. Yet it came out very quickly in response to doubts about the item. Firsthand is provenance. Anything else in my book is 'legend'. I have no quarrel (although I understand if others may) if it can be used to support any findings of fact. I have a big problem if it is used to attempt to prove a fact.

old people lie as much as yong and middle age, and income has no bearing because it is greed, pride, and other reasons.

barry halper was middle aged, and he sure wasnt in the soup and bread line, had plenty of money, but still lied when he said he got the 500 home run sheet signed by babe ruth at yankee stadium at babe ruth day when halper was a little kid. that was a lie.

and that is the biggest example of how provenance stories may be nice, but cant be trusted, because everybody thought that if halper said it happened, then he is beyond reproach so it had to happen. there is even a quote out there by a respected member of the memorabilia community that said he trusted halpers word above all others and if halper said it was good, it was good and no need at all to question him.

but people lie sometimes and we need more than provenance.

Right, and it still wouldn't get me to buy that autograph. I only collect handwritten letters, and, of course, no one saw such letters written either. It comes down to what you are comfortable with, and while the Jackson book auto might be fine, I wouldn't be comfortable with it - no more than a single-signed Babe Ruth ball.

If you are responding to my post, I also said "If someone who was trusted ";i.e.-YOU (the purchaser) have complete trust in their word. There really are people out there who are not greedy, liars, prideful, etc.

I would be more concerned with an honest person forgetting the facts, as you mentioned earlier: people simply honestly forget things, and I think that has the most bearing when it comes to buying things such as "baseball used in 1909 World Series" or "Nap Rucker's no-hitter ball". Someone wrote on those balls a damned long time ago, but they might have done so 90 years ago (rather than 100), and gotten the balls confused during the post 10 years.

Some hobby friends and I call that the "leap of faith." Obviously the shorter the leap the better. If I were collecting autographs I think the only way I could be comfortable is getting them in person, on legal documents or checks (most times). That's just me though and all you autograph guys probably have your own comfort levels. It's all good as long as you are happy and don't stress too much :).

ps...I should have said, I am in agreement with you Scott.

Following up on "leap of faith" items:

Years ago I sold a watch purportedly given by Marilyn Monroe to JFK on the night of his birthday gala at MSG. Provenance was so-so at best, but the watch dated correctly, engraving was correct, it was encased in a $6,000 gold antique case in a fitted Rolex box, came from an excellent source in the UK, with some limited paperwork. But Rolex was uncooperative with sales records and serial numbers, despite my machinations.

All we had in the way of written provenance was a typed statement with an indecipherable signature and a statement by the sister of one of JFK's top aides, who was not a party to the transaction. Did my due diligence on the physical evidence - there were no autographs involved - and sold the piece with a three-page description advising EXACTLY what we had found, and nothing more.

That's how dealers deal with relics, since that's all you really have to go with, and buyers bid having the same info we do. That's faith...and a gamble. Of course, unlike the infamous Elvis hair, if we had found out it was (allegedly) bogus, it would have been out the door in a flash (instead of having been repeatedly repackaged with the same (allegedly) bogus attribution). Have to be careful in this litigious world...

All five of your points resonate with me. My grandfather was unable to read or write. He was taught to sign his signature by my grandmother. For the remaining 70 years of his life he had my grandmother, then my mother and finally me to do the day-to-day check signing etc. He only signed his name when he was required to for a mortgage, or selling the home or a couple installment loans. I would not be exagerating to say that it was years, sometimes decades in between signatures. His embarrassment was evident as he would struggle to make eleven letters. Each letter was an adventure. Erasures were the norm. I can still see him struggling to write his name, his tongue poking out of one side and then the other of his mouth. He often would stop in the middle of signing, to relax his hand. Each signature was a different train wreck and there certainly was no practicing in between. I can fully understand why Shoeless Joe's labored signature varied greatly over his lifetime. Authenticating it without documentation must be a real crap shoot...:)

Geronimo signed the same way - they weren't letters but more like "pictures" that he memorized and they really meant nothing to him. Yet every "signature" had certain similar traits that forgers to this day haven't picked up on.

I guess I would buy the checks and legal documents, but I prefer the handwritten letters with baseball content.

I did buy a 'leap of faith' autograph last month. It was a letter signed by Arthur Hardy, a black ballplayer back in the first decade of the 1900's who played on a team I am researching. His interviews regarding travel, playing conditions, etc., are priceless and a joy to read. So I broke my own rules and bought an autograph that is impossible to authenticate, only because it was a handwritten letter and I just had to take that leap. I was stressing a little before it arrived.

I was surprised when I received it - the back of the letter is the actual request for information about other black players who Hardy had played with. Good enough provenance for me, but still a minor leap of faith and nothing I would normally purchase.

The other provenance stress I underwent was a glove that Barry Halper owned. It had a typewritten notecard with Bob Feller's signature, but Halper's name still kind of gives me the willies.

why would someone want to put the jackson autograph through the spectral machine now if they know its real, unless they have doubts now? the spectral machine is a glorified black light.

if you want to put anything through the spectral magnatomater spelunkometer machine, put the harry truman ball that sold at eac through the machine. the machine would probably explode. herman, could you ask john to find that ball and put it through the machine? why is there no comment from john anywhere when his name is on the provenance that eac listed when it sold the ball?

Actually, Travis, that machine would be ideal for the examination of that "foul" Truman ball. It would show right away any adulteration or addition to the writing.

I've known John for many years and would be surprised to learn he'd be involved in anything so despicable. I would expect he'd have some thing to say about it.

i just wish he would say something, instead, its silence and i dont know why.

eac gallery's position is that it was 7 years ago, so just let it go.

yes, it would be ideal to look at the foul truman ball, but the ball is so foul the machine will implode. since the ball had "provenance john reznikoff" listed with it when it was put up for auction by eac gallery, i would think eac vetted the provenance at the time, or at least looked at it.

Wonder why they took the Pawn Stars video down, can't find it anywhere.

Probably because it made Rick look like a greedy idiot?

Any event, he got stuck with what appears to be a bogus item with questionable provenance, but what the hey - he makes a kabillion bucks a year with his show so he can write it off, hop in his Bentley, sign a few autographs and go eat at the Brown Derby, Le Canard en Merde, or wherever those guys strap on the feedbag.

He'll likely be joined by the the same people who foist these frauds on unsuspecting suckers...like him...who are more driven by greed ("It's a steal!") than by intelligence.

And that, dear friends, is why the autograph industry, especially in baseball, rock, and pop culture, has turned to sh_t.

The hard truth.

It really is a sad state of affairs, its pushing autographs for profit at all costs.

More and more people don't care if the autograph is really real, just that it can get a certificate, that it gets passed, that's good enough for them.

It's all treated as a game, you have to play the game. If Grad or Spence say good, it's good and you have won the lottery, if they say bad, then it's bad no matter if you saw it signed in front of you.

Two people get to decide for all of us whether or not autographs are good.

Both have passed wife signed sonny liston autographs as good until some "lowlifes" i.e. real collectors notified them and the auction houses that they were wife signed and not signed by Sonny. We get called rabblerousers and undesirables who are just interested in upsetting the apple cart that is called autograph authentication.

I would go to a long time dealer who knows his boxing all day and twice on sunday before having an abc service look at it and make their determination, because they get them wrong so often.

One of spence's authenticator consultants said the same thing, and when Jimmy found out, Jimmy took his name off JSA's website.

But he's got a lot more consultants who evidently work for free while the gods of authentication rake in a ton of dough by pushing through autographs at breakneck speed. PSA has four full time autograph authenticators, and last year they authenticated almost 200,000 autographs from what I can see. Joe Orlando can correct this number if it is error, but no one has ever heard from him. that's 50,000 autographs per year per man, a little over 4 thousand a month, over 1 thousand a week, over 200 per work day.

8 hours per day, that's 25 per hour. or 1 autograph every two minutes without doing anything else but authenticating, no printing out or signing certificates, no visiting the restroom or taking phone calls, nothing.

Who feels confident that your autograph is getting 120 seconds or less to be authenticated and can be done in a thoughtful and thorough manner? They can't even pull up enough exemplars in 120 seconds to properly authenticate, let alone actually look at the autograph, study it, compare, call or email other people to get a second opinion.

1 minute to glance at it and 1 minute to print and sign the certificate? Is that it?

Fast food authentication is what i call it and it's a horrible application to what on paper would seem to be a good idea. Have some experts truly study and use information at their disposal in a thoughtful and thorough way. They have created a monster and now they don't know how to handle it. It's grown way out of hand. Reminds me of the movie King Kong.

They took a business model of pushing them through and finding out ways to get more autographs in and push them through faster and faster, they forgot what it was suppose to be all about. 4 people at 50 thousand autographs per year per man?

If someone dumped 50,000 boxing autographs on my lap at once, which would be a stack to reach the ceiling several times over, and told me I have 1 year to authenticate them, I would laugh and tell them to take a hike. A couple thousand would be a lot to do a thorough job in one years time.

I have many, many exemplars of heavyweight boxing autographs. And if a John L. Sullivan came in, I would pull up a dozen examples, and if that wasn't good enough, seek out more examples, until i was confident in my judgment that i was looking at a real or not real autograph. But it would take a lot longer than 120 seconds, I can tell you that.

Sometimes it might take 15 minutes, sometimes 30 minutes, sometimes 2 hours, sometimes all day, but I am not going to let some deadline push me into making a determination good or bad based on the fact that I have a huge stack of other autographs I have to get to today, and I had better hurry. Ain't gonna happen if I put my name to a certificate.

I look at a few autographs that people email me and I do it for no cost, because they are friends of mine and they have good enough sense not to send 150 dollars to get an opinion from who knows what company, who knows who looks at it and how much time they spent looking at it.

My friend Mark O. does the same and sometimes we cross check with each other, and after I have compared an autograph to 12 or 15 different exemplars and am certain its real, taking 35 or 45 minutes to do so, I learn that Mark compared it to 65 different exemplars and took 2 hours. Makes me feel like I did an inadequate job because he is so thorough, but here someone can email us and get an opinion from 2 people in boxing with over 40 years experience between the both of us, with several dozen exemplars and a couple/few hours of study if that's what it takes. We don't feel rushed because we don't let anybody rush us.

If someone emailed me 10 boxing signatures and needed answers in 30 minutes I would just reply to their email "no thank you, not interested"

the hobby and the way these autographs are authenticated are abominable and it should stop and be done right.

It's like packing parachutes, You can have it done fast, or done right, kind of important to get it done right I would think. But with autographs, collectors want fast, so we end up with exactly what we asked for, and not for the better.

Joe Orlando, Jimmy Spence, or Steve Grad, please come on here and tell me where I am wrong.

According to Heritage which listed certification by JSA and PSA on the listing, both of these companies passed and gave certs to a Thomas Sayers 1880's boxing signature to which their are no reliable exemplars in existance, and pulled the certs only when seasoned collectors notified the auction house. That's what we are dealing with these days.

How can they pass an autograph when even they admit there are no exemplars known? The auction house still sold it saying that both companies still believe it is real even though they pulled the certs because they got caught authenticating without exemplars. How can they make that determination that they still believe it is real if they have never seen one before? I don't get it and I get it at the same time. If that Sayers autograph comes to me, I say 'i'll take a pass on that one, inconclusive", Mark O. says the same, but those companies say "looks good"


on unrelated note
favorite youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNQW-63OuE4

Let me ask you this, Travis. When people here post a scan of an Ali/Joe Louis/Sonny Liston autograph, and you reply that "it's bad." Do you spend 15-30 minutes studying the autograph on the screen? If not, how can you come to the conclusion that the signature is bad? According to you, the TPA's must spend a good amount of time comparing known examples before a valid opinion can be reached. Can you see the discrepancy here, Travis?

I've been signing my own name all my life and I see differences in my own signature quite often that would probably lead these authenticating services to deem it fake.

The moral of the story is...unless you're filthy rich and willing to lose your money on fakes...stay away from autographs. Theres pretty much no way to know if a signature is real or fake unless you're present at the signing.

I can't answer for Travis nor would he want me too, but when you "know a signature is bad" & your an "expert" on that particular signer, you can just tell it's bad in seconds.

When it's real, it takes a bit more going over. So when I see a Mantle, I can usually tell if it's fake in 1 second. If it it appears real on the internet, it still really hasn't "passed" anything, only a formation "thumbs up". Technically, one would need to handle & examine the item carefully and actually should need to know what they're looking for, which I certainly don't.

Whenever corporate america is involved, you will get short cuts to making as much money as humanly possible at the moment, not giving a rats ass for the future. PSA & JSA are a conglomerates in this industry with obvious warts. I do appreciate JSA & PSA not passing EVERYTHING they see; however, They are getting too big and way too SMUG for their own good. This not answering questions crap, not owning up to their mistakes by recalling a thing, and "their word is gospel" will be the end of them. I can't wait for the day they crumble.....and with this attitude of theirs, that they can do no wrong, they will get theirs. Think GM in the 80's. (how's that for an analogy Travis) If not for the bail out of GM, I would have got my wish and watched them go out of business. No way is the govt going to bail out PSA or JSA:D

even if you're filthy rich, stay away....get an new hobby.

Well, unless you're around to see Lincoln, Ruth or Galileo sign, better stick to signatures of John Travolta and Britney Spears...Meantime, if you like autographs and want authentic material, you still have a choice: buy a "slabbed" piece (when I hear "slabbed", I think of a morgue), or get an item from an expert who specializes in the field or individual you want to collect, and has been around long enough to know what he's doing.

A closer look at PSA/JSA timetables: ages ago, I did the same analysis as Travis. One autograph every two minutes just isn't possible, and I know - I've sold 45,000 pieces. Yes, the ones that are obviously bad, you can see right away, but what about the ones that REALLY need research, where you have to dig and dig and dig to find exemplars? Sometimes it takes me an hour or more, plus contacting others in the field, to find examples of a signature. Then, their letters mention slant, pressure, alignments, etc. so that means ethically they have to examine every one of those factors as well - not pull them out of their hat. Finally, they have to print out their letter, sign it, gather up the item and letter, and send it off to packing. In two minutes.

One thing Travis forgot - where do they get the time to offer their "Quick Opinion" service? They must get tons of requests, and if they're going to do it well, they have to spend at least a minute apiece just opening the email, looking at it, and responding.

Something stinks.

I cannot speak for Travis, but there does not seem to be a discrepancy here. You are choosing 3 of the most common or commonly forged signatures for him to answer to.

If it is bad it is easier to tell than if it is good. There is a range for everything. Mantle autographs that are obviously bad are easy to detect from a scan. Earlier signatures may take longer. If the scan does not pick up all the nuances in his signature clearly, it may also take longer to authenticate.

Based on Travis' expertise, I do not think anyone would question his opinion on an obviously bad Sonny Liston or Joe Louis. I would think he would hesitate to declare a little known heavyweight, or an obscure signature to be good/bad just from a scan.

actually i do spend quite a bit of time with opinions i give on most boxing autograph unless it is very, very obviously bad, childlike signature. But the ones that are questionable or even the ones that look obviously good, and that is a majority of the ones that get submitted to these companies, i spend quite a bit of time or i will not make an opinion at all. The tpa's cannot afford to spend that time because they have subscribed to a system where they have scant little time on each autograph, so they cut corners in my opinion. that have a business model that maximizes their profits, but i think it does not translate into giving the customer what they deserve, which is time to do a proper authentication.

thank you for your question.

I will repeat something I have said in another thread. When I was on the original PSA team, with Jim Stinson btw (those were some fun times after working hours), the entire team asked to stay over for a second day to properly complete the work we had. We were told no and that we should rush through the work.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. If our entire premise was totally wrong, you would think someone currently working for PSA would come on here and correct us. I don't see anyone.

Why should they? Only a small group of people in the total population know about Net54. By the numbers you provided earlier, everyone can see it is a huge business that makes them a lot of money. They have no obligation to you.

Based on the way Herman Darvick (who I had never heard of before this thread) was treated by you when he tried to explain his position....I would also stay far away from this place.

My disclaimer- Autographs are only a small part of my collection, I think that they are never a sure thing unless they were signed in person and have only once gotten an autograph authenticated. I respect many of the autograph collectors here, however it is just too speculative for my taste.

Jeff

+infinity

Herman, whom I respect and have known for decades, was directly questioned about the provenance of an item. Personally, I don't see how he was abused.

All due respect, you can always collect safer items, such as Honus Wagner cards graded 8 by PSA, or Elvis hair.

As long as collectibles have any value at all, crooks will be foisting bad material on the public.