Interesting Story
 

OK, just so everyone knows, I am not promoting any site here or any other agenda, I just thought this was an interesting read about the alphbet gang :D:

http://www.autographalert.com/psadnacritique.pdf

Thoughts??

Very interesting article, thanks for posting.

Very interesting and scary about the laser copies. But if the writer is so questioning of letters of authenticity, why does he so blindly believe the letters about the Kobe and Favre pieces being signed before eyewitnesses? How do we know that those letters are true?

Greg

This is kind of why I try to stay away from autographed items, for the most part. With all the fakes and new technology...its just a crapshoot anymore

It is not new technology here.
I would assume the alphabet guys were sent items, in plastic sheets, and did not even bother to remove them for a real examination. Since they were copy photos of real autographed photos they just slapped on a COA with no examination.
This was not new technology, this was just a copy photo made from an original autographed photo.
This story was originally posted on a now defunct website some time ago.
The site had the word gavel in it but I don't remember the full name of it.
There was much speculation at the time about the true ownership of the site but that has never been established.
The same test was applied to me. I received five photographs, each one in a plastic sheet. I removed the photos from the sheets and it was then apparent that two of them were copy photos of real autographed photos. I wrote out two letters of rejection for those and three COA's for the real ones. A few weeks later I received one more copy photo from the same person. I removed it from its plastic sheet and once again it was apparent that it was a copy photo. Once again I wrote out a rejection letter.
Some time later, I found the gavel website and read the story. I then posted my experience on my website, outlining the entire story. I had originally thought that the person who sent these to me had just been scammed.
Anytime these people want to pay me over $400 and run a test to see if I am doing my job, well feel free to go ahead and do it.
I feel I can make an educated guess as to who was behind this but since it is only a guess I won't post any names here.

Just shows how little time they spend on authenticating the items. With all the technology they have wouldn't you think they'd know if it was a laser print?

If they don't bother to take it out of the plastic sheet that it came in, then they won't know that it is a laser print. They are copy photos of authentically autographed photos, so just taking a quick glance will lead them to a conclusion that it is authentically signed. Taking it out of the sheet should make you immediately suspicious, then holding it under a light will clinch your suspicions.

intresting story only for one reason
 

And the reason is as they say "Its All About The Benjamins";);)

PSA & JSA should pass on authenticating anything already in a frame. It appears that the desire to not tamper with the frame caused them to miss on the laser prints.

And they offered their opinion on the other two autos, which is what they were paid to do.

I understand this wasn't new technology. I guess what I meant to say was that its just like counterfeiting money...crooks will always be upgrading their technology and improve their products to try to screw people. In many instances it's getting harder and harder to spot fakes and it certainly doesn't help when the "pros" are taking your hard earned money and authenticating fakes to add to the dilemma.

Now that this has become much more of a big business since the 70s, I don't even want to know how many fakes have been authenticated over the years. The market is over-saturated with fakes big time.

There is no end game, thats why I think it's wise to stay away from autographed items unless you're HIGHLY experienced.

What??
Where does it say in that story that all the items were in a frame??
Maybe I missed that part??
The Mantle-DiMaggio was not in a frame. The Harry Truman was not in a frame. The Bryant and Favre signatures were not in frames. The Favre came from Favre's own company and the alphabet guys turned it down. The Bryant came from UD and the alphabet guys turned it down.

I had thought, incorrectly it seems, that PSA and JSA did not authenticate framed items.
As far as I am concerned an authenticator should never examine a framed item. I have always insisted that the client remove the item from the frame before submitting it to me.

I do agree with that to some degree. I will repeat for the umpteenth time, if you limit your purchases to reputable knowledgable dealers who know what they are doing then you will have a very nice collection.
One of the people who answered my post to place their name on my mailing list wrote to me and said that every item in his collection came from Jim Stinson,except for one,which came from Rich Albersheim. He has a very strong chance of having a completely authentic collection.

John,
Would you say at a minimum based on what you are paying for an authentication, you would expect an 8x10 to be pulled from the sheet and given at least a cursory, uncovered examination?

story
 

Richard,
Just curious if you were buying an item from "The Experts" Which ones would You trust. List please.

+1

In the last week, in other threads, I have listed them twice.
One more time :o
Jim Stinson, Bill Corcoran, Ron Gordon, Rich Albersheim, Kevin Keating, Phil Marks, Danny Cariseo and for auction houses Lelands, the only major sports auction house I know of that does not use TPA. For non sports autographs Alexander Autographs is an outstanding auction house that does not use TPA and offers some amazing items.
I am sure there are other good dealers out there that I have not mentioned but I have known these guys for a long time and respect their knowledge and integrity.
And for the purposes of full disclosure - some of them do buy from me and I have bought from some of them.

directly from the jsa facebook page.

------------------------------------
Hi I am going to the Tri-Star Show in Houston in January and I have 2 autographed MJ framed jersey with autographs. Can you still authenticate it even though it's mounted and framed. Thanks Michael Riley
LikeUnlike · · October 26, 2011 at 7:27pm ·


James Spence Authentication Hi Michael,

Yes, we will be able to authenticate your items through the frame. The fee on your Michael Jordan jerseys are $100 each. We look forward to seeing you at the next Houston show

---------------------------------

https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Ja...363236?sk=wall


this is an oct. 27 post, you might have to go to older posts a couple of times to see it.

they obviously authenticate through the frame as they admit it!


It's totally inadequate in my opinion to do that. they are getting paid to detect preprint, etc. that only a close-up inspection without anything in the way can accomplish.

They have also authenticated through the ball holder, a babe ruth autograph. not cool.

“Certification and authentication involves an individual judgment that is subjective and requires the exercise of professional opinion, which can change from time to time. Therefore, JSA makes no warranty or representation and shall have no liability whatsoever to the customer for the opinion rendered by JSA on any submission.”

“Certification and authentication involves an individual judgment that is subjective and requires the exercise of professional opinion, which can change from time to time. Therefore, PSADNA makes no warranty or representation and shall have no liability whatsoever to the customer for the opinion rendered by PSADNA on any submission.”

--Nuf Ced...

Sounds to me like you're paying for a GUESS and a nice little sticker.

Not worth the $

Richard

There was a time, pre PSA/DNA and JSA, that Jimmy Spence the dealer was considered to be in that same company you list here. If you were asked the same question then, would he have been on your list?

couldn't agree more that this is total Bulls***. I have recently copied a few items that I plan to keep in frames for my office....Most of the rest of the pics are going to be sold. I printed them on HP Photo Paper on a regular ink jet HP8500. The photo's actually look better in most cases. The fact that they charge $75/$100 for a Mickey Mantle and authenticate through the frame with out looking directly at the photo is akin to looking through rose colored glasses. This practice is totally unacceptable!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Do you want to go back in time and buy from him 12 years ago?
I am recommending dealers for the here and now.

Go back in time? That's just silly. You clearly have strong opinions. I'm just curious about the evolution of such opinions.

Like I said my recommendations are for the here and now.

Predictable

Quite.

Speaking for myself only, if you can earn your way on someone's list, you can earn your way off.

If Spence was on anybody's list back then, but wouldn't be on the list now, so what? He would earn that distinction. There's no messenger to blame.

Don't blame anyone for holding an authenticator responsible for their authentications. Only the authenticator deserves to be held accountable.

I noticed how active you have been in all these threads Phil.
You have not posted in almost a month and most of your posts are for the purposes of selling autographs.
Get active, tell us what you think.
Nobody here knows your opinions Phil, be they 12 years old or 1 day old.
At least I posted a list of dealers I think are trustworthy. How about you posting one.
You have bought from me,, who would you recommend?

I believe Richard answered your question twice. Why the hassle?

It is amazing what technology has done to the autograph hobby. I know a lot of people on this board are not into autographs but I thought that I would share with you a new trend. For autograph collectors it is very difficult to prepare for any chance encounter with an athlete or celebrity. It is impossible to always have a photo or a card of a specific person in case you get a chance to get a signature. You never know who you will bump into but technology that is no longer an issue.

Using a certain type of photo paper, a blue sharpie and a photo printer anything is possible. Once an athlete / celebrity has signed the photo paper in a blue sharpie the collector or dealer can then go and print a photo on the paper and the signature comes out perfect (assuming that it is not on a dark are of the photo that is being printed). The ink in the printer does not effect the ink of the blue sharpie. I did not believe this until I saw it done first hand.

Imagine this scenario, someone gets Willie Mays to sign the proper photo paper in blue sharpie, they could later print his obituary (when he passes away) onto the paper and you would have an authentic signed obituary. Weird to think that could happen.

I am not sure you are going to find a lot of celebrities that will sign a "blank" sheet of paper with such technology available. I can think of a few untoward applications of that scenario. I guess if it clearly photo paper, maybe. I can tell you that at Spring Training I used to like to get blank sided 3x5s signed for years, you might as well leave them at home now. I got tired oh hearing, "we've been instructed by the Players Union not to sign those."

Where did you see this? And can you explain how the ink in the photo does not totally cover up the sharpie ink of the autograph?
I can see this coming to card shows. The promoters and players charge more for "premium" items,, how much will they now charge for signing this special photo paper?

What?? That is absurd. What does the union have against signed 3x5s?

Richard. I could be wrong here, but I believe printers don't actually print white. So if you were to play around finding the right photo for the placement of your signature it could technically work. I'm not thinking that it would be all that appealing to have ink cover any of the signature at all though.

Another option would be a temporary cover for the signature, to be removed after printing. It would create a natural frame for the signature within the photo.

I was referring to the Allie Reynolds, etc as far as the frame. I believe that they were submitted that way. You are correct in regards to the Mantle-Dimaggio and the Truman. I forgot to mention previously that those appear to have not been verified properly. The Bryant and Favre appear legit, but both PSA and JSA still have a right to issue their own opinion.

I don't believe that I can authenticate something in a frame.
It is too easy to slip through a laser printed autograph and fool an authenticator as that story has proven.
I am very surprised to have found out that the alphabets will authenticate items in a frame.
I have probably lost business because I have had people write to me and state that they have framed items to authenticate and ask me if I can do it.
When I say no, I rarely hear from them again, though once in a while someone will say they have taken it out of the frame and will send it to me for an examination.
And if someone sends me something in a plastic sheet, I do make the herculean :D effort to remove it from the sheet before starting my examination.

You are absolutely correct. Nobody who deals or collects is perfect, mistakes are made.

A little bit removed from technology and autographs but there have been instances with Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon where Ford signed a blank piece of paper and then the collector typed in "I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone" (Ford was a member of the Warren Commission) and Nixon signing blank pages and then collectors typing his presidential resignation above his signature.

I saw a buddy of mine who runs a sports memorabilia place do it. He goes to a lot of celebrity golf tournaments and this is what he does. He does not know why it works, it just does if you have the right set up. Not all printers will work on this process and for some reason it only works with blue sharpie. It totally sounds BS I know. Maybe someone with a printing background can explain. It could be that the chemicals in the sharpie does not allow the ink from the cartridge to stick onto the paper. I will see if I can get a video of him doing it.

Is it actual glossy photo paper or matte finish paper?
It almost sounds like something out of the twilight zone.

Chris

Richard responded twice. However . . . stating that he elects not to answer the question is not in fact answering it. I wasn't aware that asking a question constitutes a "hassle". Richard's a big boy. I'm sure he can speak for himself. But thanks for your input.


You are correct, I am not real active on here. Like the large majority, I mostly just lurk. I try to post only when I think I have something productive to add. Voicing opinions and piling on in a public forum really isn't my style. I simply had a legitimate question which for some reason you choose not to answer. That's your choice and to be quite honest I wasn't surprised.

I have bought from everyone you mentioned and I'm pretty sure you are aware that I have bought from you as well (multiple times in fact). My question had nothing to do with disparaging you or questioning whether you are a trustworthy dealer. Rich, I don't have a dog in this fight. Its just that if you are going to put yourself out there as much as you do, you are bound to elicit questions. I simply had a question. A question I'm sure others would like to hear the answer to as well.

Richard,

I have been told several times that the PU warned them against signing anything blank because of potential "identity theft" issues.

Why does it matter? Most of them are already using stolen identities:D

Well, if there are several active posters who would like an answer , post that guys, and I will answer.
I don't usually respond to lurkers who use the board to sell and write nothing of value.

I have posted a couple of times in the BST. Is that a crime? Remove all of your redundant, piling on, inuendo filled posts and your BSTs will probably out number your posts of value.

Several active posters? Maybe you should start a poll. You seem to be into them lately.

If you don't want to answer, dont answer. Don't use the excuse that the source of the question isn't active enough for you. I don't claim to be important here but maybe you should check your ego with a condescending response like that.

LIKE

Guess someone lost a customer. This is something else....

Ben Weingarten

Richard answered the question.

Ok Chris maybe its me. It was a Yes or No question so perhaps you can interpret the answer that he gave. "Yes" Spence would have been on his list 12 years ago or "NO" he would not have been? I will hold my follow up question pending your answer.

What's with the inquisition here? Richard gave an answer, and just because it wasn't one of the one-word choices you want to pigeonhole him with, you get all pissy? This isn't a courtroom here and Richard isn't on the witness stand, so he can choose to answer you (or not) any way he sees fit. To me, your question sounds like more like a set-up for a follow-up slam than a question borne solely out of curiosity. Maybe I'm wrong, but your continued baiting of Richard isn't helping to change that.

It's not an inquisition, Lance. It's someone who's noticed that Richard plays his cards very close to his vest. He'll titillate you with hints of his vast knowledge, but when directly questioned on it, will always have some excuse as to why he'd rather not say.

(And then, of course, his little lap dog will start nipping at the questioner's heels.)

LOL sorry to have started such a storm. I wasn't intending to call out Richard Simon specifically..my comments were geared towards the hobby in general.

If asking a simple yes or no question is pigeonholing then fine. Call it what you will. Either way the question wasn't out of line, it wasn't a "set-up" and it was hardly an inquisition.

I just think if you are going to use a public forum as your soap box then you should be open to some discussion. If he didn't want to answer publicly he could have done so privately. Instead he chose to respond with a sarcastic non-answer thereby prompting my response of, "Predictable". That's not "pissy" thats a proportionate response to sarcasm. Rather than leave it at that Richard decided to engage me further, with more sarcasm and rudeness. That's when I got pissy. Again a proportionate response. So really, who is baiting who? I commend the man for his passion to clean things up. His social skills are clearly another story. It's certainly his prerogative not to answer the question but no matter how many times Chris wants to tell me he did, I will be happy to point out that he did not.

I may have missed something in all these years but except for Ted Williams' son, nobody has questioned authenticity when a player forms his own company to authenticate his autographs as Favre did and nobody has questioned UD about authenticity.
If I am wrong here, please post it.

If I remember correctly, the same book that called into question Upper Deck's multlple press runs of earlier year cards (IE Ken Griffey Jr.'s rookie card), also called into question Upper Deck Authenticated. I don't know if it's just rumor or not, but I have also heard that Upper Deck had rolls of their UDA authentication holograms stolen in the 90's. Additionally, it wouldn't be hard at all to take a real UDA jersey such as that Kobe, remove the real signed "number" from the back to use on a different jersey or to use in a "sting" (I'm not implying that was what happened here but it definitely at least needs to be considered), and have a replacement bogus signed number put in it's place. Just because jerseys are purported to be UDA pieces, they might in fact not be, at least the signature portions. Additionally, at least a couple if not more of UD's custom cuts have been called into question for good reason,

Willie Mays' Say Hey foundation comes to mind as a player who's hologrammed autograph has often been called into question. Brett Bro's, who had legit George Brett signings for years, have now been called into question because of a batch of autographs, that look nothing like previous George Brett autos , that they purportedly sent back to fill customers paid requests in late 2011

Those are the ones that seem to quickly come to memory. I'm sure I have more in my memory bank but it's not coming to me right now. Trying to recover from playing in my first 5 on 5 basketball league in over 10 years tonight. My body is not what it used to be, although there is more of it, LOL

The creator of that pdf file has no clue regarding the Reagan autopen, or is ignoring the obvious. JSA is correct. It IS an autopen. Here's another one to show it:

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/a...anautopen2.jpg
http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/a...anautopen1.jpg

The author makes some totally erroneous statements regarding the Reagan such as:

Erroneous statement : "An autopen signature is like a printed signature and is the same as printed text"

Fact: That is 100% incorrect. An autopen machine of that era holds a writing implement, IE, pen, marker, pencil, etc. and replicates the signature by using a matrix. The writing implement is held up and actually writes on the item that is receiving the autopen signature, it is NOT like printed text.

Erroneous statement "Autopens don't bleed through the paper"

Fact: Autopens quite frequently bleed through the paper because their is "ink", "marker", etc, being applied to an item. If the paper is porous enough for a human signature to bleed through, then an autopen signature done in the same type of ink, will bleed through as well.

Erroneous statement "Try printing with your printer, which is like the autopen process"

Fact: Printing with a printer is NOTHING like the autopen process

Erroneous statement "Things don't bleed through"

Fact: As indicated above, yes, autopens can bleed through, and frequently do.

Basically, the author's total analysis of the Reagan is wrong. I find it entertaining that he/she takes exception with the JSA rejection letter (which in a spirit of full disclosure does have several errors with it, but their conclusion is correct) when his/her analysis is full of similar type of inconsistencies . He/she let their bias against JSA, cloud their judgement on that item. Additionally, what proof does any of us have that every item that the writer claims was a copy, was in fact a copy?? I could take any item in my collection that I've had authenticated, post a story up on the web and say it was a copy and people would quote it as gospel. Autograph Alert has a very big axe to grind with PSA/DNA and JSA. You need to take EVERYTHING they say with a grain of salt.

I have no doubt that PSA/DNA and JSA frequently make mistakes. I've seen it with my own eyes and personally witnessed a lot of the politics of the autograph business, and it all involves around $$$, and Autograph Alert and it's contributors are not immune to their own questionable tactics when $$$ is involved.

If the author of the pdf can't even tell the difference between an autopen applied signature and a printed signature and/or believes they are the same as indicated with their erroneous statements, then how the heck are we to believe the rest of their analysis?? As mentioned in my post above, it's also possible the jersey number was switched out, but yet many believe the author. Does the author even know the difference between a laser copy and the originals. How do we know he/she actually didn't send the originals to get the certs? They would do themselves a big service if they would simply eliminate the portions of that pdf that apply to Reagan.

If someone blindly believes that story, then I can easily see how on the other hand there are those that blindly believe that PSA/DNA and JSA get it right every time (they don't and in my dealings with them, they've never claimed too).

Mike Navarro






Mike

This incident took place several years ago and the story was told to me by the person who did buy these items, someone well known in the hobby. I asked him for permission to use the story and his name but he did not want me to use his name here but told me to go ahead and tell the story.
Grey Flannel was auctioning in two separate lots signed typed letters of George W. Bush. They both had PSA COA's.
The letters were bought by my source. When he received them he did think something looked a bit strange. When he laid one letter on top of the other he could clearly and easily see that an autopen had been used to sign both letters. The authenticator at PSA who examined these could have easily done the same thing.
The letters were returned to Grey Flannel who immediately refunded the purchase price.
Mistakes can be made, of course. But to make this type of mistake just shows how hastily the work was done.

Here are some more athletes that have some issues in hologram distribution.

Stan Musial's Stan the Man - Have received an autographed rookie card back from them with the hologram not stuck to the card, but simply cut off their "roll" where you could basically peel it off and stick on anything and you could sign it "Mickey Mouse", and it would appear like an authenticated Stan the Man graph.

Larry Bird - Same issue as above

Bobby Orr's Great White North - Same issue as above

An athlete's hologram basically means nothing as far as rock solid authenticity.


Mike

I started a blog about my autograph experiences this past weekend and my first relevant blog entry was today and pertains to the above quote:

http://autographnation.blogspot.com/...rspective.html

I remember seeing a few Roy Campanella rubber stamped items that had been psa/dna slabbed. I'll tell ya, the ebay seller flipped out on me royally when I pointed it out to him. He insisted that it was signed..