jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>Take a look at this baseball on ebay <br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5162979189&fromMakeTra ck=true" target="_new">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5162979189&fromMakeTra ck=true</a><br /><br />Then read what spence said about a ball that he authenticated:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.psacard.com/articles/article3224.chtml" target="_new">http://www.psacard.com/articles/article3224.chtml</a><br /><br />This is why psa is a joke.Look at the ball in the middel of the top pictures. look anything like the ball he authenticated.<br /><br /><br />[edited to fix link]

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Uh-oh, looks like we've got us a match. Still, $2300 isn't so bad when you consider it was signed by one of the most famous batboys of all time.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>?

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>What does the LOA say, how does it describe the signatures? I don't know how one can criticize an LOA when you don't know what it says.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>Unreal. I would love to hear Spence's explanation. Actually, I will withhold my criticism in light of David's post--Let's see what the LOA says.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>The link to the article on the psa website does not appear to be working. What did it say?

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>try this one:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.psacard.com/articles/article3224.chtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.psacard.com/articles/article3224.chtml</a><br />

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>PASJD</b><p>Thanks for the link. I apologize for being slow here, but is the issue that Mr. Spence authenticated an item he elsewhere acknowledged not to be authentic, or that the seller is offering a letter from Mr. Spence that does not match the item sold, or something else?

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>The first sentence of the post says "Circa 1955-1956 Brooklyn Dodger Authentic Team Signed Baseball, clubhouse version." The first thing I thought of when I read that is that this baseball has "clubhouse" signatures, which means a batboy or someone else signed them. My guess is that the LOA mentions that there are clubhouse signatures on the ball and that the seller misinterpreted the meaning. Some authenticators also use the term "secretarial" which is a little more clear in defining the signature as being signed by someone else.<br /><br />Rob L

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>"misinterpreted"? If so, it's a suspiciously convenient misinterpretation. One has to wonder why the seller would post a photo of the LOA in such a way that the letter can be identitified but not actually read.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>totally agree with rob--i'll bet in the LOA it's stated this is a forged item---why wouldn't christies sell it???---i'd bet the seller is being deceptive--thats a high opening too.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>This is being sold as a real ball. I was told by the seller that the loa states authentic signitures no club house. I have asked him to send me a copy of loa untill that time I can only go by what the seller told me.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i would bet its a copy of the LOA and not an original.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>If it is a copy are you saying that someone found a copy then bought a forged ball so they could sell it as authentic. If it is a club house version I will be more than happy to say I was wrong. I also belive if you are authenticateing a ball and it is a forgery you should say it not authentic and leave it at that. If someone belives that clubhouse meant the ball was signed in the club house they could buy it thinking it is real. I dont think that if a ball is signed and there are numerous forged signitures that any loa sould be given.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>WP</b><p>If you check the Yahoo boards under CLCT you will find an interesting post about spence. It sounds as if he might have been fired or resigned.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p> -The “clubhouse” or “ghost signed” balls are not completely worthless. As vintage pieces of memorabilia, I regularly notice that they are still selling in auctions for hundreds of dollars despite being recognized as invalid autographs. <br /><br /> Maybe this would explain why a loa was issued? Ghost signed and secretarials are not forgeries,at least in the sense that they were intentionally created to scam someone out of their money. spence probably indicated that it was a legit "clubhouse" baseball from the 1940's or 50's, not something created yesterday in spanky's basement. It seems here that the seller is trying to dupe someone who doest have a clue as to what their doing. All that "legalese" at the bottom in red throws up a red flag for me too. jmho

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>You can say what ever you want. If a ball is not authentic its not authentic. Guys who represent Global Psa and other big companys wont authenticate certain balls because of club house sigs. When it come to there items or houses that need it authenticated it becomes all right. There should be one standard if the signitures are not real the ball isn't. I know they didnt forge the ball to make money in the 50"s but if it is a forgery it shouldnt be sold now.<br />sorry for the spelling

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p>been written by the same person..reminds my of an autographed photo seller in SCD--the autographs all looked the same, but the photos were great! Since they were cheap, I bought them for the photos...

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>WP - How do I get to the Yahoo boards to read the story you mentioned. Can you give me a link?<br><br>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Foster S. Jeter</b><p>you are referring to.<br /><br /><a href="http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600465545&tid=clct&mid=3027&si d=1600465545" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=1600465545&tid=clct&mid=3027&si d=1600465545</a>

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p>Shelly does have a point. I can understand where these clubhouse balls can<br />"muddy up the waters" in the marketplace. I can also see the thought behind authenticating them, although this probably has more to do with PSA, etc. making more money. Whats the fee for writing a letter on a clubhouse ball?

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>I recived a copy of the letter where jimmey does state that it is a club house ball along with 7 other balls that where not. The catch is that at the bottom of the LOA he then says that all the signitures are authentic. The seller emailed me a note say that the signitures are authentic because Jim said so. That is the problem if you dont know what club house means and the letter says all signitures are authentic you have a problem. Im trying to find out how i can show the letter. I have no down load page. If one of you can do it for me please email me at shellyj@cox.net and i will email it to you.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>scgaynor</b><p>Sounds like an auction house style cert. <br /><br />"Clubhouse" baseball's are collectible. Vintage Brooklyn Dodger Clubhouse baseball's are still worth $200-400, whereas a malicious forgery is worthless. "Clubhouse" baseballs are legit souvenir items, they just don't have authentic signatures. <br /><br />As far as people not knowing what "clubhouse" or "Secretarial" means, that is their problem. This is similar to not knowing what "Tobacco Card" means in vintage Baseball Card collecting. It is up to the buyer to know common terminology in thier field of collecting interest. <br /><br />Scott

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>I dont care if its club house or not. When you see the cert you will see how deceptive the wording is. I also feel that instead of calling club house it should say. SIGNED BY SOME ONE OTHER THAN THE PLAYER.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Authentic simply means that an item's true identity is accurately communicated. If the ball is a clubhouse ball and is described as a clubhouse ball, that is an example of authenticity.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>Here is the letter. The line regarding that the signatures are authentic should have been included in the paragraph regarding the other baseballs. The comment on the clubhouse Dodger ball should have been a stand alone sentence at the end of the letter. That would have created less confusion.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1107903732.JPG">

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>shellyjaffe</b><p>He said the signitures where authentic. That is not true. When you see the LOA he say the dodger ball is a club house ball. Then he says all the signitures are authentic. Authentic what? He should have done a seperate cert for the club house ball. That would have made it easy for everyone. I still say you dont call it a club house ball you call it what it is. A ball signed by someone other than the player himself.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Rob thanks for posting the letter. Will you show them the reply from the seller.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>As far as PSA/DNA goes, all this thread shows is that James Spence accurately identified a signed Dodgers ball as a clubhouse ball. I'm sorry, but it looks as if Spence won this thread.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>Shelly, can you send the response again. It didn't come over as an attachment.<br /><br />Rob L

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>I beg to differ on the outcome of this thread. The wording on the letter is so ambiguous that it can easily be misinterpreted.<br />The current seller of the ball is an ebay "drop store." These stores are springing up now, you drop off items you want to sell on ebay and the store (not connected to ebay) will put them up for you, for a large fee. Saves the owner the effort of writing an ad,shipping, etc.<br />The seller of the ball knows NOTHING about autographs and he believes he is selling something authentic. The Spence letter fooled him completely. <br />So how does Spence win this thread, by fooling an unknowing person?<br />--<br /><br />I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Todd (nolemmings)</b><p>You're suggesting if not saying that clubhouse balls, while by definition full of forged player signatures, are themselves collectible, so it's ok to say that those signatures are "authentic", as it merely means that they belong to an acceptable forger. Buyers should not read anything more into it and should educate themselves. Sorry, that seems like a crock to me.<br /><br />If the term "clubhouse ball" has such a specific and easily-understood meaning, there is little need to add anything about authentic signatures. What does the LOA say? That the sigs are authentic to the unibrowed clubhouse boy for the team, or simply that the sigs are authentic? How hard would it be to state that the sigs are not those of the named players, but of some other person or team representative?<br /><br />All that being said, I do agree that LOAs are only as good as what they say and who's saying it, and that one should always exercise due diligence. This Spence LOA would raise flags wih me, but I do agree with Shelly that it is inconsistent to authenticate a forged signature by a separate and unconnected reference to "clubhouse ball".<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Foster S. Jeter</b><p>Here is the cert. letter:<br /><br /><img src="http://forums.collectors.com//attachments/dodgerletter6.jpg"><br /><br />Whoops, Scott beat me to the punch! Also, this is a blanket cert. for all eight balls. Perhaps the other seven were real/authentic and only the Brooklyn Dodgers Ball is "clubhouse." In which case, the cert would be accurate, albeit confusing.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>i think each item merits its own LOA WITH A MATCHING HOLOGRAM or corresponding # ---if one pays for authentiction for 6 items ,then 6 seperate LOA'S SHOULD be issued,not one. i think we all could agree w/this. also, the cluhouse ball should be IDed as a ball signed by a batboy or attendent,although period,surely a forgery.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>This is why "auction house" style LOAs are BS. You can't certify 100 3x5 cards on a blanket LOA. This is a practice that has to stop.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Foster S. Jeter</b><p>email addresses removed to protect the innocent:<br /><br /><img src="http://forums.collectors.com//attachments/responsea.jpg">

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I just sent robertl the reply from the seller.You will see where Richard is correct. I only wanted to show you what can happen when you decide to hire authenticators that dont take the time and engery to make an loa that everyone novice or expert can understand. A club house signiture is a FORGERY.whether for profit or not. All you need to say is the SIGNITURES ARE NOT THAT OF THE PLAYER BUT BY SOME ONE ELSE.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>jackgoodman</b><p>vintage grandfather signed Babe Ruth baseball that is consistant with other grandfather signed items of the period. Any offers?<br /><br />edited to not be anonymous. sorry.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p> Would everyone agree that if the last two sentences were in reverse order, that this LOA would be less murky?

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>What's interesting is that AZFAST is just a selling house for the owner and AZFAST is only selling the item as they see it. I wonder if the actual owner believes they have a "real" autographed baseball. Probably not, it would be a great reason for the owner to use another source to sell it so the heat doesn't come down on him/her.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Yes to some an no to others. If you dont know what a club house ball is then no if you do then yes. If you ask a friend that is not in this hobby which I just did. What is a signed club house ball? They said to me it was a ball that was signed in the club house. The did not say a phoney ball signed by some on other than a player. That is the problem with that type of cert. You can't asume that some one knows.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I agree that an extra few words could have been added to the LOA to make the definition of 'clubhouse' clear. Ala, "The Dodgers ball is a clubhouse ball (signed by the team ballboy or employee instead of by the players)."

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>I really see this as more of the fault of the seller than of James Spence. In my mind, the LOA is pretty clear that the specified baseballs all contain authentic autographs EXCEPT for the Brooklyn Dodgers ball, which is clubhouse. It is not James Spence's fault if the seller fails to disclose this fact.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Foster S. Jeter</b><p>Caveat Emptor. I don't find fault with James Spence as much as I do the seller for giving the impression that the ball is "authentic." <br /><br />Scott J.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>MW where does spence say that the dodger ball is the only one not authentic. all he said was it is a club house ball and then says all autographs are authentic. If you showed this to a Judge and he didnt know anything about baseball he would say the letter says all signitures are authentic. I cant stress anymore than I have that when you say club house signiture to anyone other than a true collector he would think it came from the club house. Whey cant you agree that the loa should read signed by some one other than the player or players autograph is a forgery.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p><i>"If you showed this to a Judge and he didnt know anything about baseball he would say the letter says all signitures are authentic."</i><br /><br /><br />I think it really depends on the judge. "Clubhouse" is fairly common terminology among vintage baseball collectors; as such, a judge might be more likely to rely on the testimony of an expert in this area.<br /><br />In any case, ignorance of what the word "Clubhouse" means is no justification for an ambiguous or misleading auction.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>The reason the auction is ambiguous is because of the LOA. If the letter was written so that anyone could understand what club house ment it would end all this b.s.. Is that a fair enough statement? <br />The only reason I started this is to show how the average consumer could get screwed not the experts that are on this board. I wanted to show you that an LOA could cause this much discussion when it is written in such a way that it could make something that is not real become just that.<br />I will say this and end this with the same thing I have said from the start. It is not a club house ball it is a forgery. It was not signed by the people who's signitures are signed on the ball. The ball might have history to it but it is a forged ball.I dont care if it was not done for profit at the time. It is now being sold for profit because certain people have made a forgery into something that it is not. If you can say this is not true then I give up.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p><i>The only reason I started this is to show how the average consumer could get screwed not the experts that are on this board</i><br /><br />The "average consumer" is not the average reader of this forum and I hope we don't get to that point. Personally, I don't care if someone buys this item for $2300 or more if they can't bother to read the scanned LOA that's included with the listing or if they don't know what "club house" means when applied to autographs. <br /><br />I'd like to see more discretion with threads like this one. The easy litmus test, I think, is that if no one here would be fooled by a questionable item, it's doesn't need its own thread.<br /><br />Bill

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p><i>"It is not a club house ball it is a forgery."</i><br /><br /><br />In my opinion, that would be just as inaccurate as saying <b>all</b> signatures on the ball are authentic. Many of the autographs on the Brooklyn Dodgers ball <b><i>are</i></b> authentic. It is because a small group of autographs on the ball are clubhouse (i.e., signed by a clubhouse attendant) that the ball has been authenticated in the given manner.

jim spence
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>did he tell you what signitures are phoney like the most important ones such as campy and robinson and alston no he didnt. what is the ball worth without knowing who is real and who isnt. it is a ball full of forgerys what is the matter with you.