Quote:
Originally Posted by GrayGhost
Frank, what is your solution on something like a Gehrig, Ruth, etc? Blind faith? JSA, PSA, Albersheim, Simon, etc have made a mostly strong reputation by getting it right most of the time, someone has to be relied on.
You could use Forensic document guys who get it wrong more often that not, oftentimes VERY wrong. There's a reason some of them aren't accepted.
With any player, unless you get the sig in person, there is some type of "leap of faith". But, having confidence in what you buy, and who authenticates it means a lot.
I mean, I could look at a Mathewson and give an opinion? Would I be right? Maybe, but Id still rather have some of the respected authenticators look, as that is their business and what they do for a living.
|
I think the issue is the science involved in authenticating an autograph. It's like advertising for food, where they say eating this food reducing your chances for heart attack, and the FDA made them remove these statements. If autograph authentication is only 90% accurate, in a way, that should be stated somewhere so that the buyer/seller know that upfront rather than trust it 99%. This is as opposed to grading cards for quality and authenticity where there is more science involved, i.e, using black light, 30X magnification, etc. I guess I don't really know how autograph authenticators work, but if they are just eyeballing autographs and/or comparing to existing genuine ones, I really don't think that is enough.