Chase, it's not just a handful of collectors, it's experts like Ron Keurajian who have questioned the authenticity. I would tend to trust someone like him on this more than a company like PSA or JSA.

His credentials? the author of two volumes of “Baseball Hall of Fame Autographs: A Reference Guide."

Oh wait, Joe isn't in the Hall, never mind.

I believe someone, probably Thomas, mentioned that Richard Simon (not sure he still posts here) is also skeptical. He always impressed me from afar with his expertise.

Crap I'm an idiot. My apologies to JSA. Will fix the auction listing for posterity and will ADD the apology to all of my posts in this thread dealing with this piece.

It's not even a Spence era PSA piece, don't know what I was looking at.

I don't recall home run balls, but I had heard that about Pete Rose and bats from a bunch of hits leading up to the record.

Home run balls wouldn't be impossible though, and it wouldn't surprise me.

So, you prefer your own opinion over that of the experts when it comes to authenticating, despite admitting you "know next to nothing" about it. Got it. However, you do know enough to know that they are inept. After all, the interwebs told you so. Also, forum groupthink informs you of what opinions you ought to hold. Brilliant! Oh, and you think the case made above regarding the Jackson photo was ironclad, despite someone clearly having refuted nearly every argument proposed, one by one, with photo examples. You'll do well here. Keep up the good work!

Oh, and 'know-it-all' is hyphenated. ;)

No one has refuted any of the arguments. They just disagreed.

Regarding the provenance, I’ve read that the couple who sold the scrapbook to Bowen was “friends with Frank Smith’s family.”

Obviously anyone can make this claim. Is it fair to assume that part of authenticating the “only signed photo of Jackson in existence” involves verifying this claim? Or was it simply the case that having a scrapbook of Smith photos and living in the CLE area is proof enough of the friendship?

As Joe Orlando says, the job is to be skeptical, so I wonder what evidence here satisfied the skepticism of all involved.

The photo could've been handed to Joe and he might've said "I'll sign it later," and then had his wife sign it for him.

I've seen a couple glaring examples of "provenance" being given so much weight it was ridiculous. Two examples in the GU arena:

1. Years ago, a major AH had a GU Hank Aaron bat with great provenance. It had come directly from a guy who only played one season in the majors - 1970. He faced Aaron in a game that year, struck him out or something, and after the game, he claims he went to the Braves locker room and Hank gave him the bat. The AH pulled down that "provenance" story when I pointed out the Aaron GU bat was from the 1973-75 labeling period.

2. A former player, having been released towards the end of the season, took with him his jersey and pants, and gifted them to a well known broadcaster. They ended up in an auction earlier this year, which I won. The jersey and pants were graded MEARS 10 attributed to that player, because of that impeccable provenance, and the jersey really is nice. So are the pants, but they are quite clearly tagged as belonging to a different player - a guy who wore the same uniform number for many consecutive years with that same team, who played in almost all of the games that year, The pants have that player's number stitched into them, and the use on the pants is heavy, as would be expected for that guy, who stole bases and was a star player. The fellow they supposedly belonged to, on the other hand, was a relief pitcher who never stole a base in his decade long career. And he also had the same uniform number his entire career with several different teams, and it is not what's in those pants.

What obviously happened is that the player grabbed his shirt, easily identifiable with his big uniform number on the back, and then just grabbed a pair of pants that were the correct size out of a hamper, not caring, or not paying attention to the tagging, to make sure they were actually his. In fact, I'll bet most players never pay attention to uniform tagging to begin with.

So much for provenance. A well told story should never outweigh what an item actually is.

From other exemplars of his wife's signature it seems fairly clear it isn't hers. It's either Jackson or Smith IMO. I suppose it could also be someone who forged his signature much later.

Yes there were some great points made on the original thread in 2015 here, as well as this thread and the Blowout thread but that is cowardly groupthink, conformist reasoning! We must discount them entirely.


SNOWMAN MELTDOWN ALERT!!!!!
No you silly boy that is not what I wrote. 3 post grad degrees and yet you continually misread what people write here. Helps a discussion if you are less consumed with your own opinion and actually able to understand someone else's opinion.

Yes I know the same companies who encapsulate lots of altered cards employ autograph authenticators who are routinely making errors in their assessments. I never take an authenticated card as being authentic—not until it passes my tests. I would have thought Snowman, the consummate contrarian, would appreciate that I like to think for myself and not fold when presented with a differing view. I guess only you are permitted to oppose other opinions.

Again…read, Snowman, read…Maybe you can have your 3 year old show you how to do that? Based on all that has been presented here in 2015, in this thread and on Blowout, I feel there is just enough doubt that I am not comfortable with the authentication on the Jackson. Sorry that you were not able to persuade me given your vast knowledge and experience in the autograph authentication space.

The exemplar you linked from the REA auction has a "k" unlike anything I've ever seen on a supposedly autographed Jackson item. However, his 1919 contract, which is shown in this thread, and supposedly wife - signed, is reasonably close to Joe's writing. I wonder if the REA wife signature is an outlier, because if that's how she always wrote it, then she didn't sign that 1919 contract, and Joe also must've used someone else's example as a template for drawing his name, because he sure wasn't attempting to match that "k."

Katie Jackson's signature changed from 1910s to the 40s-50s...most of her examples are from the 40s and 50s filling autograph requests. She was usually present at contract signings with baseball clubs (famously wasnt for Joe's 1920 contract as the story goes and I have not seen his 1920 contact surface...if someone has that picture as an aside to this I would love to see it) That 1919 contract and the 1912 album someone posted here is her signature...

I would have to re-read Gropman's bio of Jackson (he actually interviewed people who knew Joe and his sister was one of them he talked with) but I believe Jackson learned by tracing over what Katie wrote and then copying what Katie wrote until he could do it on his own...so stands to reason there would be some similarities between the two.

As another aside...I think (I could be misremembering this and totally wrong) in the early days of collecting Mrs Jackson's signature was actually thought of as Joe's signature...I dont know when the public and collecting community learned that Katie was who was actually signing items and not Joe...maybe someone on here knows that.

Are there examples of a signature believed to be hers with that distinctive "e"? I can't recall now.

Lol. Even the guy who made the arguments above agreed that I refuted several of them with the examples I gave. Clearly, you didn't even read my post.

Clearly you didn't read his post. He said only two of your were even well stated. Then he pointed out how he disagreed with them. You are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else is this thread. Acting like your opinion is the only correct one is not a good look.

There is a difference between acknowledging someone has made a worthy counterpoint, and admitting your argument has been refuted. As I read it, Thomas was doing the first, not the second, thing.

I have told him so on several occasions now. Proves he is just here to argue/debate for the sake of arguing/debating.

He seems to have too much ego invested in these discussions. I disagree with many people frequently, rats60 and Mark17 and packs certainly, but we're just enjoying the give and take and not taking it personally or looking to win.

I'll clarify for you since apparently you're not getting this. Go read the post again, because clearly you didn't even read it. I wasn't offering an "opinion" in most of those counter arguments. He made numerous false claims. I simply posted examples to show that his claims were false. You don't get to have an "opinion" on whether or not a line goes up. The line either goes up or it doesn't. You don't get to have an opinion on whether or not there are wide gaps between the letters in the example photos I posted. The gaps are either present or they are not (and in these examples they are extremely clear and obvious gaps). You don't get to have an opinion on whether or not the tail of his J's sometimes go up, reaching near the top of the J. They either do or they don't. Each of these examples were presented by him as reasons for why the autograph is fake. I simply provided photographs of known examples that irrefutably disproved those claims. You don't get to say "oh that's just your opinion" or say "agree to disagree" or any such nonsense. I swear you guys will sit here and argue that red is blue and 2 is 4.

This has nothing to do with ego. I'm just an idiot. I'm basically allowing myself to continue in a conversation with a room full of crazy people who are pointing at a red stop sign and saying it's blue. Then my dumbass goes and pulls up examples of red and blue on a color chart and uploads photos of red stop signs to prove that the stop sign in question is red, not blue. Then the net54 asylum inamtes respond by saying "that's just your opinion".

If we can't all agree that I clearly disproved at least those 3 points listed above, then I'll just move on and be done with this thread because it has clearly become something other than an honest conversation on your end. But you should expect me to address you condescendingly in all future interactions if that is the position you wish to take.

This is the great self-deception of the narcissist -- he is the only intelligent person in the room and everyone else is stupid. Or crazy. Man, it must be lonely at the top.

Yes, you showed that for a couple of the apparent unique features of the 1911 signature but not all, there was another exemplar that appeared to have the same feature or close to it. Still, for each of those features, and I think I am correct about this, MOST of his known signatures did not have that feature. So the significance is still very much a matter of opinion.

Thank you. This is the only thing I'm asking of people who are engaging in this conversation. All I ask is that people are honest and that they accept basic facts. If we can't have that, then there's no point in discussing. There are many other things we can have a difference of opinion on, and that's fine. But if we start saying things like "that's just your opinion" on whether or not a line goes up or down, then we're all just wasting our time here.

If someone said this I must have missed it.

Here is what I said:
"majority of his other signatures end with a downward stroke with some ending with a straight/even stroke. This one has an obvious up stroke"

and then

"Of the up tail endings you posted one is a straight line I would say, one slight up tail after a long straight stroke, and one long gradual but obvious. Yet none are done in a sharp quick stroke that matches the short sharp one on the photo."

And this is the one example (attached) you showed to counter my point which I am talking about when I said "one is a straight line I would say"...

Yes one clearly goes up and one does not comparatively (or down for that matter)...thus is pretty much looks like a straight line

I appreciate a dissenting view point and opinions and again as I have said before you made some good points which causes me to reevaluate and think more, but now I do think you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing at this point, which is fine but Im not really interested in that if people are going to be misquoted, taken out of context, accused of making "false claims" (I take umbrage to the charge that I have made "false claims") when this is all entirely subjective for the most part, and people are having to repeat themselves bc it seems like you have either not read previous posts or failed to grasp what was trying to be said (which might not be your fault as that could be someone, myself included, doing a poor job of explaining).

Again thanks for the counter points and the time in doing that I do appreciate that, but given all the rest... Im done engaging and trying to explain myself as I thought I did well enough and clarified when asked and where I thought needed and if not then sorry I tried best way I could.

Yall have fun with this

And at the end of the day, not sure why each of us cannot decide for ourselves if we feel good with the authentication or not If not then we should not get abused and described as crazy while the accuser is simply decides be is the only one being courageous. Talk about someone being full of themselves. WOW.

Travis/Snowman, That is what all of you are doing, just wasting your time.

You stated to others that you look to deal in facts, not opinions, right? When it comes to autographs, I don't know if you can qualfy anyone as an "expert", since to begin with it is a proven and known FACT that no matter how hard someone tries, they can never sign their own name exactly the same way twice. So if the person doing the signing can't even duplicate their own signature, how is some third party going to be able to tell the difference between that person's true signature and that of a skilled forger? And I believe that is one of the main reasons so-called "experts" can determine the use of an auto-pen, because all the signatures are exactly the same.

Truth and FACT is, all a so-called autograph "expert" can prove with 100% certainty is that an autograph is fake, like when the item signed wasn't created till after the alleged signer had already passed away, or the ink is analyzed by a chemist and found not to be old enough to have been available when the alleged signer was still alive (ie: T206 cards autographed with Sharpies). Truth and FACT is, unless they actually witnessed a person signing their name on an item, no so-called "expert" can guarantee with 100% certainty that anyone's autograph is legitimately signed by the alleged signer.

So unless some autographed item is definitively proven to be 100% fake, and there was no "expert" on hand that actually saw the item being signed by the alleged signer, the chances of any autograph being legitimate, or fake, is going to be between 1% and 99% (and I'm using round numbers so don't someone be a jerk and say it should be 99.9999...%, or something like that).

Now here is the biggest and most important FACT of all. Since pretty much all autographs will likely fall into this wide range of uncertainty somewhere between 1% and 99% as to whether they are legit or not, it will be up to the collecting public at large to decide whether or not a particular autograph is legit or fake. The so-called autograph "experts" do not, I repeat, DO NOT, decide on behalf of autograph collectors if something is legit. Not having seen an item actually being signed, all any "expert" can do is offer their OPINION on whether or not they think any particular autograph is real or fake. And that "expert(s)" OPINION is then taken into account by the collecting public, along with all other pertinent facts, stories, evidence, provenance, along with the multitude of thoughts and opinions of all the autograph "non-experts" out there, and then the overall collecting public will be the one to decide if they accept a particular autographed item as real, or not. And from all the back and forth arguing going on in this thread, guess what? It really doesn't matter because the collecting public has already decreed they feel it is legit by the simple, incontrovertible fact that at least two collectors saw fit to be willing to pay out over $1M for this signed Joe Jackson picture, whether it was truly his signature or not. We on Net54 make up an extremely small portion of the overall collecting community, especially in light of the recent surge in new collectors/investors, and their apparent obscene amounts of disposable cash to spend on such collectibles. And furthermore, whether we like it or not, this overall collecting community now includes these new people and their money. And another FACT, they, along with rest of us "old time" collectors, effectively vote for and show how we feel about an item's legitimacy and value by the dollars we are willing to pay for it. And let's face it, even with all the crazy money being thrown around in the hobby today, any time you see a single item go for over $1M, that is still extremely rare and speaks to the acceptance and deemed authenticity of an item in the eyes of the collecting community today.

So you guys can go back and forth about if it is real or not, the collecting public, not the "experts", have already decided it is real. Or if nothing else, due to all the story and drama surrounding the alleged Jackson autograph on this photo, it is considered as the most valuable baseball related autograph I've ever heard of.

Continuing to argue about this is like the other thread arguing about who is the greatest pre-war ballplayer, which got into a pissing match between Cobb and Ruth proponets. Truth is, there is no correct answer as pre-war baseball is split into two very distinct eras with Cobb playing more in the deadball era and Ruth in the live ball era. They are both great in their own ways and styles of play. I learned Ruth supporters can be very opinionated and unwilling to have any openess to facts, and merely say they are right, and have no open mindedness at all. They are also good at accusing people of saying things they didn't say or mean, because that is what they think. And the same stubborness and unwavering opinions are being shown on this thread as well. And for the record, Ruth is not a five tool player, which many people look at in determing if a player is great or not. Doesn't mean he's better or worse than Cobb, who should be considered a five tool player, just that is one thing Ruth wasn't, but Cobb was.

And Travis/Snowman, I'm not directing this at, or specifically picking on you. You were just the last person to post when I started this response. LOL Guys, let this thread go. There is no right or wrong answer. And the price paid for the picture says it is considered worth a helluva lot, regardless!!!

So here's a question I have for everybody. If you paid $1.4 million for this photograph, would you want to then pay for an ink analysis to find out for sure whether the writing was done in 1911 and the signature and place/date are in the same ink? Or would you rather not do that, to avoid the chance of finding out that you just spent a lot of money on something written in 2011?

It come with a LOA/COA or whatever they call it. So I would treat it like most treat PSA graded cards. It is exactly what the flip/LOA/COA says no matter what it really is.

If it was non-destructive, then yes.

I'd also want written assurances that the AH would make good on the item if it failed. That sort of stuff is usually arranged ahead of time.

I’d normally expect such a thing was already baked into the authentication process…but of course it was not.

Still wouldn’t establish Joe vs Katie vs someone else back then, but obviously would at least rule out a modern forgery.

Have read different descriptions as to whether auto is in pencil or pen. Can anyone clarify?

I posted screenshots above. Heritage said pencil, Christie's said fountain pen ink. Which seems pretty odd to me. As for an analysis, while I am straddling the fence right now, if it were shown that the ink has been on the paper since 1911, I'd be more inclined to go with legit. The signature is not in the style of Katie's, and who knows what exemplar existed in 1911 for the photographer to copy.

Great summary. The only quibble I would have is with the above, and it's similar to the argument around establishing card values from individual sales. This only establishes the acceptance of the item among the number of parties bidding on the item (at most), and the last 2 bidders (at least). Both/all could totally disagree with the 'eyes of the collecting community' as a whole. But I totally agree with the gist of what you are saying. There are at least 2 parties that strongly believe this to be authentic (for whatever reasons), otherwise the price wouldn't have been what it was.

I entirely understand your concern/issue, and don't disagree at all. What's the old saying though, "Money talks, and BS walks!". You can still have a lot of people who do not believe it is real, but even so, they now know that at least a few people in the hobby do feel it is real and will pay big bucks for it. So real or not, everyone knows this unique item is worth some serious money, and to me, that shows the acceptance by the hobby community that is a real collectible item. This item has a back story and provenance all its own, and that is a big reason why it is being accepted by at least some portion of the hobby. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but I think you have to accept it.

Suppose the winner and higher bidders were unaware of the controversy, or chose to believe PSA and JSA. How does that show acceptance by the community as a whole? Your reasoning sounds circular, it sold for a lot of money, therefore it's accepted.

The modern version of the Hobby is that slabs and slips mean more to collector-investors than what’s inside the slab.

Similarly, the provenance associated with authenticity is now secondary to the “provenance” of a high publicity sale. There is a critical mass of wealthy collector-investors who will care much less about whether this item was actually signed by Joe Jackson and more about the fact that this is THE photo that sold for $1.4 million.

Some of you maybe saw that a doodle of an elephant from Gary V got slabbed by PSA and sold for $400,000. Laugh all you like, but this is today’s Hobby. We may make fun of the collectors paying six figures when the names aren’t Ruth, Cobb, or Shoeless Joe, but I suspect the “empathetic elephant NFT” and Jasson Dominguez 1/1 buyers have much more in common with many of us than we’d like to believe.

+1

You and I are on the same page. We may not like what others are accepting, but we have to live with it whether we like it or not.

I think Bitcoin is tantamount to a Ponzi scheme, and NFTs are a joke. But guess what, even though I don't care for either of them, I have to accept that others do and accept that they are considered part of our world now.

I doubt the winner or serious under bidder(s) did extensive research (or what some would call groupthink, sheep-like analysis) but I could be wrong. As has been written here over and over, the label is everything. There will always be a buyer for this Jax photo given the authentication associated with it. No longer matters what it is only what it says it is.

Right, we don't know if the buyer was a sophisticated collector who did his own research and assessment, or someone who just relied on the authentications and thought it would be a cool thing to own and/or a good investment.

Well......yeah!

Peter, take a look at what Jason.1969 said in his post, and my response to that. I'm not saying I agree and accept that the Jackson autograph is legit, but because others do, I have to accept that that signed photo is worth serious money.

Put it this way. Now that you know that at least two people feel this item is worth over $1M, what if hypothetically speaking, you lucked out and somehow you could acquire this photo for $500K right now, knowing there are at least two people out there that would give over $1M for it tomorrow then. Are you telling me that even though you may not believe that autograph is real, that you still wouldn't pull the trigger and acquire it for $500K today so you could resell it and double your money tomorrow? You know you would. I would. Heck, anyone with half a brain would. And that is what I mean by it now being accepted in the hobby as having a significant value, regardless of whether or not you believe Joe Jackson actually signed the photo.

And the whole community doesn't have to agree to make it acceptable. Just think of the vast number of "normal" people out there in society who view us baseball card collecting nerds as complete idiots because we spend so much time and money acquiring little pieces of cardboard that mean virtually nothing to them. But then what happens to one of these "normal" people if say an elderly relative passes away, and while going through their belongings they come across some Old Judge cards, including a Delahanty HOFer card. Even though they couldn't care less about these cards and have no use or desire to keep them, they are aware that card collectors pay good money for old cards sometimes, and accept that these cards are collectible and definitely worth something. So when they see a sign for a card show at a local Holiday Inn, they grab the OJs they found and head up there with their spouse, where they eventually run into me through an acquaintance because no one else at the show knew a damn thing about OJs, including the local rep handling the REA table.

Anyway, helped them to realize what they had, and got the REA rep to call and get them a huge reduction on the seller's commission before they consigned the OJs to them. Bottom line was, they had no use or desire for the cards themselves, but accepted that these OJ cards were valuable because others would pay good money for them, and didn't just throw them out. People in the hobby who don't believe the Jackson auto is legit are going to be like the couple that found the OJ cards. They may not feel the item is worth anything to them personally, but because they know it is valued by others, they'll accept that and treat it like the valuable collectible that it actually is.

Now if that is a circular argument, then I guess so be it.

Bob I get the point but it feels circular to me. It sold for a lot of money therefore it's worth a lot of money. The same thing happens when prices are driven up fraudulently, it increases the price of the next one because it alters perception of value. So what? Suppose tomorrow there was a well-publicized revelation that the ink was from 1980, or someone admitted to forging it. It wouldn't be worth shit. It's not like the Wagner which has value independent of whether it's trimmed or not because of its unique notoriety.

Sometimes I wonder how much of the price of 1952 Topps 311 comes from the belief, echoed often in the media, that it’s Mickey Mantle’s rookie card. I believe this is another example (besides the Jackson auto) where the less informed may drive prices more than the better informed.

It’s probably also the classic example of the circular reasoning in the Hobby. Have talked to many collectors who collect Mantle “because his cards are the most expensive.” And needless to say they’ve done well for themselves, at least on paper.

As Wallace Stevens put it,

What we said of it became
A part of what it is.

There is doubtless an Emperor's New Clothes aspect to the hobby.

Peter,

Agree with you, but in this case it is a unique item so I don't think we have to worry about the shill bidding angle to manipulate the price. We're not going to see 5 more signed copies of the exact same picture suddenly turning up in various auctions over the next few months. (At least I pray we don't.)

You're also correct about the hit to it's value if it suddenly turned out it could be proven the signature was not legit after all. But this item already underwent a lot of scrutiny and exposure when it ended up on the Strange Inheritance cable show and then was initially sold at auction back in 2015. I have to believe that if anyone from either side of the argument had found any factual new evidence since that initial sale that could definitively prove their point, one way or another, that the signature was fake or real, that they would have jumped at the opportunity to come forward and show the other side up. In this particular instance we have multiple "experts" on either side of the argument. And if there's one thing an "expert" enjoys, it is to be proven right over someone else so people will continue to look at and come to them, as the "expert".

So I don't think there is suddenly going to be any new evidence coming forward, and therefore, this recent sale at $1.4M is going to be viewed and considered as a legit sale and value by the hobby community. Now does it mean the item is actually worth the price paid for it....who knows. We'll just have to wait and see if at some point in the near future the new owner puts it back up for sale by auction, and see how much it goes for then versus what was just paid for it. But for now, circular argument or not, I think the hobby is going to have to accept that there is a new item that just got added to the short list of baseball collectibles worth over $1M. You don't have to believe the autograph is legitimate, but just know that the item is worth a lot!

I would not buy something I believed to be fake for the sole purpose of flipping it to someone who didn't know better.

From there, it's just a short trip to altering and faking things.

But in this instance no one knows for certain if it is or isn't real, and likely never will. People just have to decide what they think for themselves then. And if you are on the side it is not real, and therefore don't want to have anything to do with it, that is perfectly fine and your prerogative. Trust me, there will be plenty of other people more than happy to step in and deal with this autographed photo.

Most people don't have the time required, or even the interest, to educate themselves on how to identify a forged signature. And even if they did, they probably wouldn't be very good at it. But there's a strong desire from collectors and the hobby at large to know if a signature is authentic or not. So the hobby lets the free market decide who is most qualified to render an opinion, and they vote with their dollars. Like it or not, the hobby has chosen PSA & JSA as the experts whose opinions matter most. If one of them says it's good, that's enough for the hobby at large to accept it. If both say it's authentic, then that's about as good as a buyer can hope for in this market.

The idea that prices might suffer if the buyers only knew about the "controversy" is laughable. There is no controversy from the market's perspective. Serious bidders on this photo do not care one bit what a small gaggle of internet trolls thinks about the authenticity of this photo. They only care what PSA & JSA have to say about it. Most buyers who are paying 7 figures for something like this aren't idiots. They are fully aware that the experts aren't infallible. They realize there exists at least some possibility of them being wrong. But it doesn't matter. Once that photo gets the stamp of approval from the hobby's chosen experts, it immediately has maximal market value. It is what it is. But nobody bidding on this stuff actually cares one bit what any of us think. Our opinions don't matter (and yes, I'm including myself in that statement). They view these posts the same way they view random people on Twitter arguing about politics and pop culture.

You are a bit late to the game but congrats to you, personally, for at least getting here. Even a tad less anger...gotta keep working on that one. :D I think many of us said DAYS ago that the only opinion that matters belongs to the company on the label.

I think if ya ask the small gaggle of internet troll groupthink if they care if the bidders or buyers of items like this care about what they think they will let you know they care very little.

Your last 10 posts have all either quoted me or been in reference to me. All of your activity here in the past week. And if you look even further back, still the vast majority of your posts are again either quoting me or in reference to me. Yet earlier, you said you don't read my posts and you just skip over them. Some might say that amounts to an infatuation.

That would be the reason why you wouldn't issue an LOA for something.

There would be very, very few authenticated autos out there if this were the criteria…which by the way I fully support. If you don’t know, just say you don’t know.

For game used bats, don't they assign a grade based on probability it is what it purports to be? Why not something similar for autographs?

The PSA/DNA grading standards for professional model bats are best described in the following manner:

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being best, what is the degree of likelihood that the player in question actually used the professional model bat. After determining that the particular bat is indeed authentic, our experts then consider a host of factors in evaluating the quality of a professional model bat. The core of the grading criteria is based on the strength or weakness of player use characteristics and/or the documentation that accompanies the bat .

Or a letter of opinion, where you write about your opinion.