Autograph opinions

[JoeyFarino]

As ive been collecting autographs ive noticed that when asking opinions of others on authenticity the responses are like night and day. For example i was looking for a opinion on a mantle auto and mustve asked about 10 people. Some people said "no way" and there were some that had no question it was authentic. Its frustrating because how can anyone ever feel comfortable knowing what they have is legit?

[toyman55]

I have been on Net54 now for 5 years and I have found that if you visit the site and get to know the people here who are proficient in autograph collecting you can not go wrong. On Mickey Mantle autographs I will take Shelly's opinion without question. I come here every day and learn something new each time.
good luck.

[Lordstan]

I know exactly how you feel Joey. Getting into autographs as a new field of collecting can be tricky. Autographs are about understanding the individual signer's patterns. It is partly exact and partly interpretation. This is why opinions can vary. No one expert is always correct.
Shale is correct that many people will have specialties. When asking, I weigh the opinions of those "specialists" more heavily than others to help me form my opinion and comfort level.
As many here know already, I trust many of the people here waaay more then I do the "authenticators," but many others prefer them because they are official.
The final thought is that there is NO WAY to KNOW an autograph is real unless you see it signed yourself. Every other situation is based upon your belief of the opinions of others.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

The final thought is that there is NO WAY to KNOW an autograph is real unless you see it signed yourself.

I've seen this line repeated many times here and elsewhere. While this may be technically true, it is a bit deceptive.

You can often ascertain authenticity with an extremely high level of accuracy on items that were not signed in front of you.

Examples include signatures on official documents, signed items with lengthy inscriptions or dedications, etc., etc. I could go on, but looking at the whole picture, a knowledgeable collector can often arrive at an assessment that is highly accurate.

Of course, part of the "whole picture" is a realistic assessment of the risk level of the autograph. For a Babe Ruth item, virtually any type of deception is possible and highly skilled forgers have been pecking away for generations. For items of significant lower value, highly skilled fakes and elaborate deceptions becomes far less likely.

[Duluth Eskimo]

It doesn't really matter to me who has the item, more what the item looks like. I said it looked sloppy and that I wanted to check further. I am not buying the item, he is. I only buy items I feel comfortable with. Knowing that someone I am familiar with on the board is selling it makes me more comfortable with the fact that if I get the item and examine it closer and don't like it they would refund my money. If other people like it and are better with Mantle and Maris than me, that's great. Bottom line is that I buy based on my opinion and experience rather than expecting everyone to agree on everything that is out there.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Duluth Eskimo

It doesn't really matter to me who has the item, more what the item looks like. I said it looked sloppy and that I wanted to check further. I am not buying the item, he is. I only buy items I feel comfortable with. Knowing that someone I am familiar with on the board is selling it makes me more comfortable with the fact that if I get the item and examine it closer and don't like it they would refund my money. If other people like it and are better with Mantle and Maris than me, that's great. Bottom line is that I buy based on my opinion and experience rather than expecting everyone to agree on everything that is out there.

Jason,
My comment wasn't to try and convince you that the photo is authentic. I was merely providing background on it's history, which is part of any assessment of autographed items. You have your opinion and I respect that.
Mark

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

I've seen this line repeated many times here and elsewhere. While this may be technically true, it is a bit deceptive.

You can often ascertain authenticity with an extremely high level of accuracy on items that were not signed in front of you.

Examples include signatures on official documents, signed items with lengthy inscriptions or dedications, etc., etc. I could go on, but looking at the whole picture, a knowledgeable collector can often arrive at an assessment that is highly accurate.

Of course, part of the "whole picture" is a realistic assessment of the risk level of the autograph. For a Babe Ruth item, virtually any type of deception is possible and highly skilled forgers have been pecking away for generations. For items of significant lower value, highly skilled fakes and elaborate deceptions becomes far less likely.

Steve,
I agree 100% with everything you say here. My quote is aimed at people who need that black and white answer. As you stated, you can get close to absolutely certain about an autograph's authenticity based upon the preponderance of evidence, including provenance, medium, letter formation,historical context, etc, but even legal documents can be forged, notaries can be bribed, etc. Because of this, the statement is true, but isn't really the end all be all in the world of autographs.
Mark

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

I've seen this line repeated many times here and elsewhere. While this may be technically true, it is a bit deceptive.

You can often ascertain authenticity with an extremely high level of accuracy on items that were not signed in front of you.

Examples include signatures on official documents, signed items with lengthy inscriptions or dedications, etc., etc. I could go on, but looking at the whole picture, a knowledgeable collector can often arrive at an assessment that is highly accurate.

Of course, part of the "whole picture" is a realistic assessment of the risk level of the autograph. For a Babe Ruth item, virtually any type of deception is possible and highly skilled forgers have been pecking away for generations. For items of significant lower value, highly skilled fakes and elaborate deceptions becomes far less likely.

+1

[eastonfalcon19]

Originally Posted by toyman55

I have been on Net54 now for 5 years and I have found that if you visit the site and get to know the people here who are proficient in autograph collecting you can not go wrong. On Mickey Mantle autographs I will take Shelly's opinion without question. I come here every day and learn something new each time.
good luck.

I have to agree. I've been on here for a few years now and have learned a ton and continue to learn every time im on. You can also search threads on Mickey Mantle autographs and learn his signature yourself. This is the best way (for me) to become pretty good at identifying a good Mantle.

[Duluth Eskimo]

When you ask an opinion, opinions can vary. The only way you can feel comfortable is to do your own homework and rely on the knowledge you have gained over the years. You asked my opinion on the Mantle and Maris and I said I'm not comfortable as they were both very sloppy, but I wanted to check further when I have a chance to look at my examples. I rely on what I think and not necessarily what other people think. That is why PSA and JSA are making so much money and why I make money buying non authenticated signatures and selling them "authenticated" with COA's people feel comfortable with. Yet on Net54 others and I give you an opinion for free coming from years and years of experience. I guess in the end you get what you pay for. Jason

[Lordstan]

Jason,
The Mantle Maris photo Joey has been asking about is mine. When I go home to my parents home, I will usually rummage through boxes of my stuff that I collected starting back as far as 1978, through the 1980s, when my father and I were dealers including having a store, up through around 1992 when we closed the business as I no longer had time for it. Everything was boxed up and stored. Many of the items that I post have not seen the light of day for 15yrs. The last 2 batches of items I brought out included the Mantle Maris and the group below. That is the history of the photo in anutshell.

As I told a couple people that I asked opinions from, this was obtained in the 1980's. While I have seen Mantle at shows maybe 75 times and am sure of it's authenticity, I don't remember when or where specifically I got the Maris. Because I am not as comfortable with Maris, I did ask for some opinions and so far, prior to Joey posting, I only had one negative opinion on the photo from the people I asked. That person's problem was with the Maris and not the Mantle. The one thing that does strike me is why would a forger signed Maris' name on Mantle? Wouldn't a forger want to create one with the best eye appeal possible?

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Some people said "no way" and there were some that had no question it was authentic. Its frustrating because how can anyone ever feel comfortable knowing what they have is legit?

In all due respect, some people comment on authenticity who should not be. Among people who have the necessary acumen, you will usually find little disagreement... especially on relatively "easy" ones like Maris and Mantle.