I corrected my typo, David. Thank you.

That's very disturbing news. Is this a well known dealer?

I would not call him well known but he is known to some.

Thanks, I know you are walking a thin line with what you can and cannot share. Appreciate you answering my questions.

You know what they say "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."

David - I share the feelings of all those who have posted, saddened by your loss and uplifted by your honesty. As a scientist, do you feel that the "proof" of a forgery is just as difficult as the "proof" of authenticity? If so, where does that leave us?

Thanks, Craig.
There are many ways to "prove" a forgery--impossible-for-the-time materials, the signor not being physically able to have signed at the date and place indicated by the piece (letter, postcard, etc.), lousy execution...
I think it's impossible, though, to prove authenticity. If you didn't see the item being signed--and with the vintage pieces many of us collect that, of course is not possible--the best you can do is not find any evidence of fraud. A strong provenance goes a long way, too. At the end of the day, though, all you can say is "I believe, with some high level of confidence" that the piece is genuine. How high that level must be--and what it takes to produce that level--varies with the individual collector.

David,
What will you do with the ball now?

:( I'm also very sorry to read this...kudos to David and all of the others who are willing to share their knowledge, expertise and expose those who continue to deceive people in this hobby that we all share in and love.

Ricky Y

If I go to purchased a house and it needed a soil test for the spectic tank etc and a company gave me a certificate that said "in their opinion based on such and such" that the soil was ok and then I buy the house but find out 10 years latter that their results were not up to standards and that was the reason for illness etc.

Wouldn't I be able to go to court, Why not here

I based my decession on a report that everything was OK, now I find out they are not

Sorry to hear about the ball David, That's got to make for a rough day.

I'm hoping you save it as an object to study, comparisons might help someone else later on. Tough call though as it's a dangerous forgery.

Steve B

Because the soil test will be detailed. Not an opinion.

Here's what we tested for, and what we found at what level and how that compares to what the law allows.

If the testing was done wrong, yes you can pursue it.
If the allowable levels changed and are a problem now when they weren't 10 years ago....Maybe, but I doubt it would work.

If they say "we dug a hole and the dirt looks ok" that's just an opinion and is closer to a COA that the actual soil test.
The technology is available now to know a load of stuff about a signed item, but it's not quite cheap enough yet.


Steve B

David, you mentioned earlier in the thread this was a Spence ball. Was this ball fully authenticated with a full letter from JSA or PSA when Spence was with them? Or did it just come with an auction letter of authenticity or possibly only a verbal opinion?

It was a James Spence letter from 1999, when he was on his own before PSA.

have you submitted it to be re-authenticated by PSA or JSA since you have owned it? Or possibly asked James Spence if he would stand behind his previous opinion and give this ball a new letter?

I am not saying I believe it would pass. There are several red flags that have already been pointed out in this thread. I just have never seen anybody give up on such a valuable item so quickly that was already authenticated by a top TPA just because of the opinion of 1 or 2 people.

Don't worry, Casey--I haven't thrown it away. I'll probably show it to Jimmy, but it doesn't matter much to me what he says. As I said before, I saw some obviously forged work by this guy, and there was enough in common with my ball for me to seriously, seriously doubt it, myself. Jodi confirmed for me what I basically already knew, but wasn't willing to accept.

You are a really stand up guy David for not putting this ball back into an auction and i am really sorry this happened to you.

Isn't Spence 1 person?

Yes Spence is one person, but his company (of the same name) employs several different authenticators.

David,
I am very sorry to hear about this. It was such a magnificent item. Wow.
We all get fooled sometime.

I also give you a lot of credit for posting about it.

I hope you are able to find a way to be compensated, either through the owners of the auction house, even if it isn't in business, or though Spence. They get paid a lot of money. I think they should stand behind it. Just my 2c.

Best,
Mark

Not at the time this ball was bought. in 1999. He said it was just spence.

He said Birkholm thought it was no good, and Birkholm worked for JSA. So does JSA think it is good or not? And would it have passed when Birkholm worked there? And would it pass now? Would Spence stick with his original authentication on this ball, or bail on it?

ahhh ok sorry about that, i thought you were talking present time.

I guarantee that ball would not pass PSA today.

As a matter of fact, it wouldn't have passed PSA five years ago.

Why does it matter if it would pass today, or if it could be snuck by someone? David's being quite honorable with this one. He knows it's not authentic, so trying to get it to pass JSA is not what he's trying to do.. Getting something you know is not authentic to pass, does not make it any more authentic..

David, I admire what you're doing here, and I sincerely hope you're able to manage a way to get some sort of reimbursement.

I think the point Chris was making was that the TPAs have since become aware of this forger's work and what once fooled them would no longer do so.

David, I was replying to a comment from "CaseyAtBat."

That, too. Thank you, Steve. Those of us who study autographs, learn something new every day. Unfortunately mistakes are made. It's not like some so-called authenticators who give blanket-authentication to EVERYTHING that crosses their desk (that's if they actually examine the autographs).

That wasn't in reference to Chris. It was in reference to those asking if it would pass today.. It's almost comes off like they're trying to encourage him to sneak it past and then pass it off to someone else..

so was I. I probably should've quoted him first. Sorry for the confusion.

No problem, David.

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.