Ted williams signed poster
 

I've owned this several months. It came with both PSA and green diamond LOA. But I showed it to a forum member and they had concerns about the auto. Anyone have thoughts on it?

I don't care a lot for it. something doesn't look right, maybe the trail off at end and slant

:):):):):)

Looks almost identical to mine (including the tail off the last "s"), which was signed at a 1988 Ted Williams tribute event (and has since been certified by SGC). I have no doubt mine is real, and I believe yours is too.

Cheers,
Blair

This is a classic later Williams. The flow is great. I don't understand why so many people try to over think Williams and others. Yes there are bad ones out there and some might be authenticated, but judge the item not the cert. It gets tiresome watching people jump on the negative wagon for no reason other than they are going to fly in the face of JSA or PSA.

+1

In my opinion, when it comes to Mantle, Williams and DiMaggio, PSA and JSA are highly accurate.

If they cant get those guys right. Then they should be out of business:D

That's a common retort any time PSA or JSA are questioned - the sort of response that allows them to remain infallible to many on this board.

It could very well be that the people you are accusing of "jumping on the negative wagon" actually believe there might be a problem with the autograph. Would you rather that no one ever questioned PSA or JSA? Would that encourage them to do a better job?

Does anyone have an example of a Mantle, Williams or DiMaggio signed piece authenticated by PSA that was incorrect? I don't think I have ever seen one (other than maybe a large bulk lot with an auction LOA).

I have been reading this board for years and I honestly cannot recall one time where someone claimed a TPA was infallible or even close.

If anything, the board appears to be weighted in the other direction in my opinion, and to many, everything they touch is questioned, e.g., the Williams that is the subject of this thread.

Is their batting average very, very high with Mantle, DiMaggio and Williams? Yes, in my opinion. That does not translate to my claiming they are infallible. :)

Where did I say that anyone claimed a TPA was infallible? :confused: Also, where did I state that board opinion was weighed in either direction? :confused: (I stated "to many")

If you are going to quote me, please respond to my quote, and in the context with which it was written.

I always thought most Green Diamond holo/COAs were pretty good and reliable. I remember seeing a post on here where the ones signed by his son (which were the most common forgeries from their Green Diamond COA) were detectable, but I can't recall how easy they were to detect.

Either way, if it looks close enough and there's a Green Diamond holo, I pretty much accept it as authentic (regardless of the TPA cert)...but that could just be me. I generally trust the players' holograms, like Bonds, Ichiro, Stan the Man,etc.

I did quote you accurately and within context. As you can see in the attached quote from you, "That's a common retort any time PSA or JSA are questioned - the sort of response that allows them to remain infallible to many on this board."

While you did not specifically state the board was weighted one way or the other, you did state "commonly" and "to many." I simply replied, if anything, it was weighted the other way.

In fact, I'd still like to see ONE example of the "many on this board" to whom the TPAs "remain infallible."

Do I really need to explain the obvious?

This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. You make a comment in support of the TPA opinion and you are for lack of a better term labelled a follower and that no one should ever question the man behind the curtain.

That is not the point though, the point is that a lot better than most of the time I feel they are correct in their opinion. It's not because I am some rube that doesn't know one signature from another. I feel many of this board jump on that wagon because they have a problem that they are making good money giving their opinion. Nothing more, an opinion.

This is the part where others jump in and call Zipper and I followers and how they got this or that wrong and that we must not know what we are talking about and have to blindly rely on the opinion of some 18 year old kid to tell us our autographs are good.

No, not the obvious, but when you are having a conversation with your straw man, and someone calls you on it, then "yes" you'll need to either explain yourself or not respond.

As far as your new request to divert from your straw man discussion, go look it up yourself.

Where did anyone call you and Steve "followers"? All I did was note that with your 'band wagon' comment, you appear to be trying to stifle people who ask questions about slabbed autographs. I think that's a bad idea - some people have legitimate questions, and while it might be obvious to you or Steve that a Ted Williams autograph is good, it might not be so obvious to a less-experienced collector. I think you should just answer their question, but of course that's up to you.

Sometimes I wonder if you read what you write. You said this: "That's a common retort any time PSA or JSA are questioned - the sort of response that allows them to remain infallible to many on this board."

Now you say the above?? OK, you didn't claim anyone said they were infallible, you just said they remain infallible to many. Isn't this splitting hairs? If you don't claim anyone says they are infallible, can you please explain who these "many on this board" are???

Ken

And sometimes I wonder if you understand English. You got one thing correct - I did not state that anyone here has claimed that a TPA is infallible. 'Claiming' is active, while "they remain infallible" is passive. If you can't understand what I wrote, then scratch your head and move on. And if you want to talk about splitting hairs, concentrating on the word "infallible" as the most important part of a discussion is about as hair-spitting as you can get.

I probably should have used something less caustic than "infallible", but based on the responses by yourself, Steve, and Eskimo, I'm certain that each of you would have found another word to key on in order to divert the discussion away from the ridiculous "band wagon" comment that I was responding to.

I don't really think "less caustic" is a method you'd choose very often. The strongest word you chose to use was "infallible." Since you seem to pride yourself as well-educated, I'm going to go ahead and assume that's the word you wanted to use. But I'm going to go away now, scratching my head and once again thinking you're an ass.

Ken, I've never done anything to warrant your initial attack on me in this thread, or to have you call me an "ass". In fact, I've bent over backward for over two years now, attempting to get along with you, despite regular unprovoked attacks. That's done now.

Well, I think it should be obvious to most now that you are the smartest person in the room. I no longer wonder why you "or many of this board" overthink things. Maybe we should all just sit back and let you get to 10k posts the old fashion way, by thinking everyone wants to read your posts.

I would not go there. A few years ago they where set up by being sent Morales authneticated Mantle, Williams and Joe. They turned them down. Then they where set up the oppiste way and authenticated bad ones and tryed to buy them back. If I can make a mistake on those three guys so can Jsa and Psa.
No one on here knows everything.
I can tell you that Scott does more research than anyone that I know on this site. He trust no one and it takes a long time for him to buy anything.
I think everyone should take a deep breath and sleep on this one.:)

Of course everyone can make a mistake and everyone can and has. I am not trying to take anything away from Scott, I'm sure he is very knowledgable and helped many people out. I just think it's ridiculous to pile on. It's an opinion, nothing more. Just like my opinion. Nothing more.

In reference to that Morales set up, I agree that was completely ridiculous and deserves ridicule. Bottom line is they didn't authenticate a bad item. They probably did not want to authenticate them and didn't want to be associated with Morales. The right thing to do would be to refund the money and be truthful about not wanting to be on the same item with Morales.

The funny thing about that is they....JSA....were already associated with Morales in the sense that JSA had authenticated those items as authentic before Morales ever did. They turned down their own authenticated items simply because these had a Morales cert. Just plain stupid, underhanded, and unethical.

Can you please reference the "regular, unprovoked attacks?" Because I've bent over backward trying to ignore your holier-than-thou attitude while trying to compliment your collection.

I'm not sure about unethical unless they took the money for authentication, but definitely very stupid. Everyone has a choice as to who they do business with, but I bet they wish they could do that one over again

JSA took the authentication fees, issused the rejection letters with the usual verbage, and even referenced the Morales letter on one of their rejection letters. Now being JSA had already authenticated these items as genuine, all of the ones resubmitted with Morales letters, I'd say that was unethical.

I agree Big Dave.

Bottom line they did no authenticate any bad items.
You are so wrong. They did land up authenticateing bad items. After they where caught turning down the items.
The where sent fifty Ted Willaims and they authenticated all of them. The problem is that they where bad. They tried to buy them back from the people that sent them i(tony p) He refused and showed people that psa and jsa said they where authentic. They where again caught by there own fear of being wrong . I really dont know how anyone can trust people to authenticate something if they really dont look at the item.:mad::confused::mad:

Shelly,
I was referencing the Morales example. Of course other items that were not authentic have been authenticated. Please read closely before attempting to put me on blast. I never said they don't make mistakes.