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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Travis, with all due respect, please don't call me "someone." I also believe Steve Grad was the main authenticator for PSA five years ago and I do believe he would not pass that. Do I think that Spence would have passed it five years ago; possibly. Please note that I am basing my opinion that Steve Grad was the main authenticator for PSA five years ago (I could be wrong).

Fair enough, sorry, so you are bailing on Spence then, only a PSA guy. Okay. So Grad is good and Spence is not. PSA good, JSA no good then?

Here are two 1927 Yankees spring training signed photos both certed by PSA.

The first one sold in 2004, the second one in 2009. If Grad didn't think it was real in 2009, why didn't he stop the sale at SCP?

Hooks Wiltsie isn't even in the same writing on both photos. Myles Thomas is different, Reuther is different, a lot of them are different, so is PSA still good? The Johnny Nee is way different, but these photos only went for 50k+ and 90k+ so its really nitpicking I suppose.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/sold-...o-yankees.html

I'm not "bailing" on anyone, just stated my opinion on that particular instance.

It's unfortunate but there are honest mistakes. Travis, you have every right to your opinion, whatever it may be. But I will take a person (or a company) that makes honest mistakes over a person (or a company) that blatantly authenticates every autograph that crosses their desk.

I don't know about you, Travis, but I learn something new every day about autographs. I am also certain that the honest authenticators continue to learn about autographs every day.

This thread has turned into a very educational and productive thread, I would hope that you don't turn this into one of your tirades about PSA and JSA. I am sure many of the members here reading this thread are interested in all of our opinions and I think that's great.

Well said!

It does say three sigs were traced over. Would a forger really go that far?


How is the 2009 one fake?? It sounds like it came with provenance.. And is the hooks even his writing? Maybe someone different did it both times. I doubt these would have been signed the same day.

Just give my thoughts, I don't know anything about autos.

Here is a fresh one I have NEVER shown before.

Legendary auctions, signed photos of Jack Dempsey and Jack Sharkey.

In the opinions of the top experts in boxing, myself and fighttoys.com along with others, these are no good.

The Sharkey is considered a secretarial, and the Dempsey was signed by his manager Jack Kearns, not Dempsey himself. Where are their exemplars they used to certify these?

But this lot has an LOA from PSA/DNA.

The first E in dempsey is the #3 style like his manager Kearns signed for him, Dempsey didnt use the #3 style E. Plus there are 4 other #3 style E's in the inscription also, that is Kearns' style.

The Sharkey is in a totally different style than his vintage signatures.

Is Grad still good? Just asking.

So when PSA/DNA says that you can rest easy knowing it is an authentic autograph, do you believe them? When is the insanity going to stop? \

When they are not certifying a James Jeffries boxing autograph as "James Jeffers" they are doing stuff like this.

Travis Roste


http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...x?lotid=118583

Delete

They both came with provenance, provenance doesnt mean anything, they are obviously different. Most bogus stuff at auctions has some romantic backstory to it. Backstory means nothing.

Spot on, Chris.

I think it would help people on the board if they saw vintage signatures of Dempsey, so they can compare them to the one that Travis is showing. Obviously my photos and the one that Travis is showing were not signed by the same person, yet the auction I sold one of them in, the one on the left, uses PSA and it was given a PSA auction cert.

I would not agree with that statement.
Even the FBI in some of their published statements has stated (paraphrasing here) that provenance has value.

very few provenance stories are verifiable. most are stories that grandpa got it when babe ruth made a train stop in peoria, then they show an old article in a newspaper that anyone could have gotten anywhere, then that's provenance. It's really nothing.

out of the two photos i have shown of the 1927 spring training yankees, both had so called 'good' provenance, one was from henry Johnson's girlfriend, the other was suppose to have been given by ruppert to a hotel owner, well at least one of these stories is bogus. probably both.

A good autograph doesnt need provenance, so provenance is not important.

way too many of these authenticators are bamboozled by the backstory, we have seen the luis firpo that was as bogus as a three dollar bill certed by spence, and it came from the famous so and so collection. that was probably the provenance, that a famous collector had it in his collection, well halper did that too, (it's from the famous halper collection, so it must be good) and halper had all sorts of far flung stories that were bogus.

If psa or jsa starts authenticating by provenance, then they going down a slippery road. You either authenticate the autograph on its own merits, or you don't, or advertise the company as a 'provenance authentication company'

Provenance stories just cloud better judgment, all provenance stories do is push a questionable or bogus autograph over the edge to the good side. if it was dead on, no need for provenance, it only helps the so-so autographs gain legs when they shouldn't.

These companies are afraid to give 'no opinions' , or 'unable to authenticate' is what the problem is.

Halper had Ruth hair with provenance3 signed on an envelope by Ruth himself. That provenance really helped, didn't it? It probably pushed it over the edge from "who the heck can know for sure it's ruth hair', to 'well it must be good, it has ruth provenance.'

Provenance is only for the weak autographs. Only one million percent lock solid verifiable provenance helps, and that is almost zero percent of the provenance we see in these auction listings, and in those miniscule cases, the autograph stands up for itself anyway.

I would rather have a dead-on autograph with no provenance, than a shaky looking autograph with good provenance, because the provenance story will fall through way before the dead-on autograph will. Because when it comes down to it, you have to collect autographs, not stories or certs.

You're wrong, Travis. Provenance is not BS stories. Provenance is, above all, verifiable. If it can't be proven that, for example, a piece actually did belong to the person or institution claimed (a photo of him with it, a museum or library stamp, etc.), then it ain't provenance. It's a BS story.

Travs, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Though autographs have to stand on their merits and I would certainly never let a provenance story sway me, I still think that provenance matters. It helps if you are a good BS detector and can tell when the provenance is BS.
Of course when I have the guy who forged the Black Sox items I showed above, the same one I believe who forged the 1927 Yankee baseball, when I have him in my apartment and he is trying to sell me stuff, his provenance meant nothing. He claimed to have a hobby store in Forest Hills and this stuff that he was trying to peddle "just walked into the store."
Someone else who used to post here used to say that to me also.

Once again, provenance is not a story. Provenance is the verifiable history of an object; key word here being verifiable. An auction catalog, say, from the 1950s, in which an item appears, proves where that item was at that time. It thus could not have been forged, say, by someone who hadn't even been born then.

Again, provenance is not the word-of-mouth story that a seller tries to hand you. True or not, that's just a story.

Understand what provenance is, before you criticise.

Agreed. By definition provenance is provable history or chain of ownership.

You are correct and the word of mouth story from the young man in my apartment was totally transparent to me and I knew his word of mouth was BS.
He never fooled me nor did his partner fool me when he tried to sell me that 1920's NY Giants ball.
I always judge the autographs on merit but I do find that most of the word of mouth stories I am told, ok I won't call it provenance, are more often than not believable. Certainly not always but more often than not.
I deal a lot with people outside the hobby and have found much success in dealing with them.
When I buy a Roger Maris signed photograph, and totally think the autograph is authentic, and the photo is inscribed To Yvonne who told me she worked in Maris' dentists office, and asked him for an autograph, and I make my payment to Yvonne G------, well, I tend to think that person's word of mouth story is true.

I have to agree with the rest provenance is a very important aspect of an item. Sometimes provenance is more important to me than Most of the experts put together. "if it was dead on" as you say dead on to who an autograph expert where it has already been proven time and time again that even the best at the game can and will continue to be fooled at the expense of the poor person who is willing to put down hard earned money on the word of a So called expert! Please as I have said time and time again unless you were there when the item was signed it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that the item was signed by the person who signed it. And that my friend is the real truth.

It may not be possible to say with 100% certainty. But it is possible to say, at times, with, oh, 99.5% certainty. That's good enough for most.

Hey guys, a simple request - Stop using swear words. Thanks.

forgery
 

David my friend and you know you are 99.5% might be a good average to hang your hat on but that .5% ended up costing you alot of money!

That holds for all "collectables," not just autographs. Can anyone prove, with 100% certainty, that the 1934 Goudey Gehrig in front of me is real? Can it be proven that someone hasn't figured out how to just-about-perfectly counterfeit Goudeys? It ain't likely, but it can't be 100% ruled out.

True enough! But that's the risk any collector, of any collectable, takes.

With any transaction the buyer must utilize as much information as possible, and provenance is a very important tool, in some cases the most important. But Travrosty makes a good point that every bad piece will have a story to go with it. So it's important to assess and verify provenance. Having someone say, I know it's old because I bought it from an antique dealer is not acceptable provenance. But there are some very great pieces that have resided with families for generations, and the story behind them may be a critical piece of the whole puzzle.

It's not just "not acceptable provenance," Barry. It's not provenance at all.

In the fine art world, the key element in passing a forgery is manufacturing a provenance. That is not making up a convincing story, it is physically manufacturing a paper trail that "proves" the piece's age and history.

Agreed David, but I can't tell you how many times I have been offered reproductions, usually advertising pieces, and when I tell the seller the piece is a modern repro, he tells me that's impossible because he purchased it at an antique store. That's the kind of story Travrosty was calling out.

Sorry Dan, I thought that particular word was acceptable.
Would you want me to go back and soften it up?

I think I changed most of them to BS already. Not a real big deal and normally I'd gloss over it, but a thread on the other side turned nasty that I had to clean up a bit and I'd like to be consistent.

Thanks.

I quite understand that, Barry. But in calling that story "provenance" he shows a (common) misunderstanding of wha t provenance actually is.

I suggest you read "Provenance: How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of Modern Art, by Laney Salisbury, and Aly Sujo. Here's the publisher's description (emphasis added):

Filled with extraordinary characters and told at breakneck speed, Provenance reads like a well-plotted thriller. But this is most certainly not fiction. It is the astonishing narrative of one of the most far-reaching and elaborate cons in the history of art forgery. Stretching from London to Paris to New York, investigative reporters Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo recount the tale of infamous con man and unforgettable villain John Drewe and his accomplice, the affable artist John Myatt. Together they exploited the archives of British art institutions to irrevocably legitimize the hundreds of pieces they forged, many of which are still considered genuine and hang in prominent museums and private collections today.

forgery
 

Yes Richard please control yourself. Dont make me reach thru my computer screen and give you a slap!:D:D

Provenance is not an exact science. Usually the very best provenance is finding something that has been with a single family for a long time, say a ball Babe Ruth signed in the 1940's, or a Beatles signature from 1964, that has never been on the market ever, and you become the very first owner after the original family. But even that is based upon feeling confidant that the family isn't lying. And sometimes they do lie. Good judgment and common sense is important.

forgery
 

Just for the record as to why I disagree with Travis on why Provanence is so important or why provanence does play a role in a story, here is one for you. I have worked for many famous people in my lifetime. I was given this picture and many others by a great man whos name is George George. Google him and you will see who he was. Since we have been talking about Jack Dempsey. Here is a picture of him ,Standing next to him is Rube Goldberg. George George was Rube Goldbergs son. Changed his name for professional reasons. Like I said google him and you will find out why. I have no COAs no letters,no nothing . There is no way you would ever convince me that I would need one as this picture was given to me by his son. I dont think Jack would ever taken the picture with Rube then gave the man a fake signature! Do you! George died in I believe 2008at the age of 88,a great friend. Who knows this story other that me well up until now no one. But now you all do. Provanence? You tell me.

A very strong +1 from me.
The art world and the autograph world obviously operate very differently.
People in the art world will knowingly create a paper trail for a piece.
But the family that is selling me a 50 or 60 or more year old autograph book, that grandma got by standing outside the NYC nightclubs, did not create a paper trail for the book. They would never have thought of doing that. You judge the autographs and you appreciate their word of mouth story.
Barry and I seem to have used the word provenance a bit loosely according to the definition presented in this thread. But as far as I know that word has been used in this hobby for "word of mouth stories."

Richard- if someone wanted to make up an incredibly elaborate story that seemed so convincing nobody would even question it, I'm sure they could. That's why you really have to assess the story and decide for yourself. It's not a science. I've heard some very credible stories attached to really significant pieces, and there is always a part of me that wonders if they are no more than just very carefully thought out lies.

Al,
It would be easier for you to reach over and slap my son, he lives in CT too. :D

Absolutely true. I assess the autographs and stories all the time and consider myself to be an excellent judge of both.
I have to tell the board a good story here.
Years ago, get a phone call from a guy who tells me he has a Munson era Yankee signed team ball. We made an appointment and he shows up with his two sons. He had told me his story about how he got into the dugout and the ball was signed for him. Well when I meet him, he proceeds to pull out a facsimile machine signed ball. I tell him what he has and he gets really angry. "I got the Yankees to sign this ball." He is raising his voice to me, in front of his two sons. Well I said "you may have gotten the Yankees to sign a ball, but not this ball." I was glad that this was taking place in front of a couple of people as he obviously could not do anything, but he actually shook me up wth his phony anger.

forgery
 

See Richard great people live in Ct.!!:eek: My mother and father grew up in the Bronx.

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Barry, According to the prior post, I think you and I have just had a great fall and nobody can put us back together again.

Me too,,, some good times there as a kid.

forgery
 

See I knew there was some Bronx in you ! They were married at the Immaculate Conseption church on Gun Hill Rd. Took thier photos at the Botanical Gardens across from Fordham. I will have to ask my mother where she lived. She is 87. Lives 5 minutes from me.

I lived at 174th and So. Blvd and then 219 and Wh Plains Rd. near Gun Hill Rd.

forgery
 

I will check with her tomorrow. I know my father moved around alot in the bronx.

It wouldn't be the first time.:)

forgery
 

Richard,
Alerton Ave and Morris Ave

That was not near me.

I have read this thread over and over again and I have one big question. If David had not received the advice of Jodi and had placed this ball in an auction with a top auction house, would the letter he had from 1999 been good enough to allow the ball to be sold.
Or would the auction house re-examine the ball now? I think they would re-examine it. At the time this ball was examined authenticators had no idea what skills certain forgers had. This ball was done by one of the best. I think that some of the better authenticators now know the work of this forger (Johnny F..g ) extremely well and probably would never pass it. That is why it baffles me why you are thanking someone for not putting up a ball that we all know today would never pass a top auction house.

Ditto!!!!

Right you are, Shelly. The reason I posted here was not so others could learn from my mistake, but because I knew I'd never get away with trying to foist it off on someone else.

This coming from one who's been convicted--literally--of selling forgeries. :rolleyes:

You can write whatever you want about Shelly, but I am proud to call Shelly my friend. Since "Operation Bullpen" Shelly has done, and continues to do, all he can to assist in ridding the hobby of the "bad guys."

He has also paid his debt to society and refunded monies to those who purchased bad stuff from him.

Then I guess I must be one of the "bad guys."

Chris, catching up to your comment from yesterday. Yes I share your opinion that the ball would not pass now or five years ago. I was just asking David so I could hear the entire story. If he had re-submitted the ball to be authenticated again since he had owned it because I was interested to see how the story played out. At the time in the thread, the only information we had was that David owns this ball and mentioned it had been approved by Spence in 1999 and now is believed to be a forgery.

Nice racket the authenticators have then. Keep submitting the same piece every 5-10 years, because we know more now, then we did then. :confused:

That's all the information there is.

Why would you make that comment? Have I ever called you a "bad guy?" Do you have a guilty conscience about something?

+1000

This may well be true. Nevertheless, David deserves credit, in my view, for exposing the story of his ball for the benefit of all.

By the way, both Shelly and David have been helpful to me in the past and, in my view, are assets to the hobby. No need for conflict.

Mark

Didn't the certs the TPA issued years ago say in the cert "Guarented Authentic" where now they say "Our Opininon". If it says Gurarented Authentic I would think you could go back on Spence for that. That is why they changed the wording because of that so they won't be held responsible for something like this. Just my opinion.

This 1997 SCD ad was just passed on to me. Compare that Ruth signature on the left to the one on my ball.
It seems that someone was aware of this forger's work as early as 1997.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...ankfang001.jpg

Dave,
I can understand the frustration in your comment.
However, as much as everyone would like authentication to be an exact science, it is not.
Until someone comes up with a computer program to do it, there will always be a learning process involved. A daily learning process.
Everyone here knows that I am not a defender of the alphabet soup guys but I have to state what I think about your statement.
I think the policy of TPA auction house LOA's and then "send us more money for a real LOA" is reprehensible. I have openly disagreed with some of their opinions. However, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one statement you made about authentication.

Some people see an old loa from psa and they ask for the piece to be "recertified" before they will buy it. Seems like an LOA is not all what it is cracked up to be. I have heard people say that you should look at an older psa cert with some skepticism because they didn't know as much back then.

But then what good is the LOA then if any LOA's issued before a certain year are looked at with a jaundiced eye? A guarantee would solve that problem. If they were so bad way back in the day, but issued a guarantee, let them pay for their mistakes. They took the customers money and put it in their pocket. They should be on the hook in some capacity if they screw up.

But they didnt issue a guarantee, so customers are stuck trying to figure out when the cutoff date is. Hint:there isn't any. It's as bad now as it was then.

I've come to the conclusion that any authentication(aside from Morales and such), just means that they didn't have enough evidence to support it being fake at the time of authentication.

The simple point is that authenticators have ZERO way of telling you if something was definitively signed by an individual, unless they witnessed it first hand. All they have is a way of telling definitively that certain ones weren't.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Richard Galasso? Is he still around?

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

Rich Galasso is alive but for the most part is out of the hobby, as far as I know.

That sort of thing does happen, and I suspect we'll see it more often as available technology gets cheaper and better.

An example from stamp collecting.
There was a group of stamps from a time when the BEP was experimenting. The group was supposedly printed on paper that had a higher clay content to help mitigate shrinkage of the sheet while drying. For the most part the paper was grayish and was known as "china clay paper" stamps on it were also rare and expensive. And nearly all the recognized ones had certs saying "it is genuine". Pretty clear cut right?

Until a couple kids (Literally) Wondered why some were more gray than others. And how you'd prove It was china clay paper. Enter a family member with access to a spectrograph, and a poor condition but certified stamp and a handful of the commo ones. Surprise! NO difference. so they asked around and got permission to test a few more of the special ones, both lighter and darker gray. Still no difference.
So the china clay papers were discredited and removed from the catalog.
They've gone from experimental rarities to oddities produced on defective paper.

And none of them would get a certificate today as anything else.

On the flip side, the once catalog listed imperforate coils that were delisted because they couldnlt be told apart from carefully cut regular stamps are now back because there are details of how they were cut that can now be checked.

Steve B

Good Question or Not?
 

As some of you may know, I am a relatively new member of the forums and focus primarily on vintage photos of Mantle. That being said, I have been absolutely fascinated by this and similar threads dealing with the authenticity of autographs, some of which have been very helpful for me in evaluating Mickey's signature.

So realizing that I am not in any way an expert on autographs but have been shocked and amazed at the number of forgeries being discussed here (and obviously on other sites and publications) I would like to ask what I suspect is a really naive (and perhaps stupid) question:

Given the almost unanimous opinion here that Coaches Corner Auctions continuously lists obvious fakes and the repeated mention in the forums of work(s) done by the same forger(s) or similar statements implying that the identity of the forger(s) may be known to someone why do those with such information not inform the branch of the FBI that deals with these matters?

Would not the FBI be interested in at least looking into these suspected cases of fraud (backed by the observations posted on the forums as reasonable cause to investigate) and would not such FBI interest deter those who continue to profit from their deception and criminal behavior?

It just seems to me that some steps have to be taken to stop this nonsense that is ruining the hobby and that (based on their posts) at least some on these forums have the knowledge (and perhaps evidence) to help.

Once again
 

I know it's been said here before, but once again, thanks David for stepping up (in a public forum even) and showing us the forged '27 Yankees ball. Any time an example can be raised and we, as a community, can learn something from it, then we're all a bit better for it.

Believe me we all are hoping that law enforcement does something more.
But knowledge and evidence are two different things.

Especially when the high priests keep the knowledge secret.

What do you mean by that comment?

C'mon David, really? This was a somewhat reasonable and informative thread. At one point in this thread you noted that one of the reasons you began to suspect this ball is because of Chris' posts. And then you get bored and start poking at him. C'mon, seriously. You gotta knock that off...

My post had nothing at all to do with Chris. He can flatter himself and think that it does, but, regardless, it does not.

You really are an antagonist, David.

I never wrote that your post had anything to do with me. I simply asked "What do you mean by that comment?"