JSA, really?! Come on

[jimjim]

How could anyone certify this auto? I just shake my head at stuff like this. I don't care if Koufax was surrounded by a mob of people, there is no way this should have been authenticated.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SANDY-KOUFAX...item1e929c5611

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by jimjim

I don't care if Koufax was surrounded by a mob of people, there is no way this should have been authenticated.

I don't see the issue here, if it's authentic it's authentic. So what if it's chicken scratch or coughed while signing or what not. Isn't that the point of a TPG? So yes, if it is authentic I see no issues, if it were fake then that is the issue...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jimjim]

Here is my issue:

This is, if anything, a very rushed and sloppy Koufax auto. If I obtained it myself IP and it was in my collection, then that is great. But the TPA didn't see it signed IP. They are 'authenticating' an autograph that looks nothing like his 'paid' autograph for the sole purpose of somebody else reselling it. This opens up the door to anybody and their dog faking Koufax autos. I am not sure if you ever go on eBay, but the number of reportedly signed IP Koufax autos from this past Spring Training is exorbitant. I was at Spring Training and Koufax did sign at spring training, but not the hundreds of sloppy IP TPA autos I have seen on eBay over the past 6 months. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if some people took this opportunity to fake a number of sloppy of Koufax autos, turn around and call them IP, and send them off to a TPA with their fingers crossed. That is my issue.

[shelly]

[QUOTE=HOF Auto Rookies;1330268]I don't see the issue here, if it's authentic it's authentic. So what if it's chicken scratch or coughed while signing or what not. Isn't that the point of a TPG? So yes, if it is authentic I see no issues, if it were fake then that is the issue...


So no problem only if it not real. That is why we should trust a tpa? We only have to worry if there wrong. I would never authenticate a piece like that real or not. It is a guess and tpa are not supposed to guess

[pclpads]

He's 79, so his today sig likely has the tell tale signs of aging , i.e., unsteady hand and shaky scrawl.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by jimjim

How could anyone certify this auto? I just shake my head at stuff like this. I don't care if Koufax was surrounded by a mob of people, there is no way this should have been authenticated.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SANDY-KOUFAX...item1e929c5611

Yet on the flip side, we have howls of incompetence when they fail someones IP submission......

[jimjim]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Yet on the flip side, we have howls of incompetence when they fail someones IP submission......

If you got a sig IP then what is the point of sending it to a TPA? I guess if you are trying to sell it? That is the only thing I can think of. Am I missing something?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Yet on the flip side, we have howls of incompetence when they fail someones IP submission......

Here is the problem. Many in the world take their "opinion" as truth. Because of that anything they cert as good is considered good regardless of whether it is or not. I would much rather have them fail or give a "no opinion" result on IP submissions that they really can't tell vs passing things that don't look correct.
The IP graphers know that there are all sorts of variables that can go wrong while someone is signing. If they are graphing to resell, it is a risk of the business that they must accept. If they are graphing for their own collection the TPA shouldn't matter.
It isn't the TPAs responsibility to the submitters to pass things. Their purported purpose is to objectively evaluate whether an autograph was signed by a specific person. Let's face it, how many here have been offered a Ruth auto that they swear was gotten IP by their grandfather with 99% being fake?
Pretty much all of the issues with the TPAs that get brought up here revolve around things they passed that were bad as opposed to the opposite situation. I would think that any person offering opinions would err on the side of caution.

[shelly]

Bottom line. Until you see Koufax sign like that over and over again you do not authenticate it based on a guess. Those of you that keep defending them will wake up one day with a pile of crap. The tpa is no better that you when it comes down to an autograph like this. It is a crap shoot

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Let's face it, how many here have been offered a Ruth auto that they swear was gotten IP by their grandfather with 99% being fake?

I have even had people offer me facsimile baseballs that they swear were gotten in person.

[jimjim]

My other main issue with this is that this opens up the door for all the scammers out there to submit their IP Koufax to TPA. If they authenticate one then they most likely will do them all. Has anyone noticed the influx of ugly looking IP Koufax autos on eBay right now. I don't think that is a coincidence. And a bunch of people are buying them because they come with a TPA, and they are getting ripped off.

Specifically for Koufax. If it is signed on a Selig OMLB, it should have either UDA or Online Authentics COA to be 100% real, if you didn't get it IP. Otherwise you are gambling and his auto isn't cheap.

[khw]

i think the title should be "sandy, really come on" , because there is nothing wrong with this signature , it is real , but nothing more than a chance to take a swipe at a tpa , when it is apparent who doesnt have a clue what something should look like, to me this seems to go the other way that somebody needs a tpa to help them because they dont have a clue and a tpa is better than nothing

[Mr. Zipper]

There is a lot of "data" to analyze in this signature. It's not like it is one of those single line "marks" that passes for entertainment signatures these days.

This very well may be 100% consistent with Koufax's crowd signature. The TPAs are continuously updating their files with the latest in-person signature exemplars. While it is certainly not an example I would want -- who picks a dented can when so many un-dented ones are available? -- this does not strike me as an "un-authenticatible" example.

Authenticating isn't just picking the textbook perfect examples and tossing the rest. Just about anyone can do that. A good authenticator will have exemplars of walking signatures, crowd signatures, variants, etc. Even in an atypically sloppy example, a good authenticator may be able to recognize very subtle positive attributes that a forger would be highly unlikely to replicate.

Just my 2 cents.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am the space autograph consultant for JSA and SGC.

[shelly]

Steve, your a friend and what you wrote might be correct but it really does not hit home as much when you are hired by the people we are talking about.
I just feel that until you see more of that style from Koufax that they hold off saying its authentic.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by shelly

I just feel that until you see more of that style from Koufax that they hold off saying its authentic.

That's my whole point. Maybe they have seen this style and have plenty of exemplars. Just because it's the first time we've seen it, doesn't mean it's the first time they have seen it.

No service is perfect and the TPAs have taken some hits around here. Some of the criticism is valid. I just don't think this is one of them.

[MikeKam]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

That's my whole point. Maybe they have seen this style and have plenty of exemplars. Just because it's the first time we've seen it, doesn't mean it's the first time they have seen it.

No service is perfect and the TPAs have taken some hits around here. Some of the criticism is valid. I just don't think this is one of them.

Agreed.

To me it's the same as Honus Wagner signatures. His signature was quite elaborate when he was younger but deteriorated with age, yet I feel many here are confident in identifying a later in life Wagner signature.

[Runscott]

never mind.

These discussions always turn into a black and white thing, and the TPA issue is anything but.

[shelly]

Scott, I must admit you are correct. No matter which side you take when it comes down to the the big two no one wins expect the them

[jimjim]

I think the point of my post has gotten a bit lost in the chatter.

I am concerned that unscrupulous people are taking advantage of the influx of IP Koufax autos from Spring Training to forge ones of their own and submit to TPA. Even if he did sign 100 autos a day at Spring Training, he was only there for 5 days and I know he didn't sign each day. Plus take into the account that not everyone gets a baseball autographed, and most people will keep the auto for their own collection etc...

I have seen people selling a dozen (12) sloppy Koufax autos on ebay over and over again with TPA certs. That is what concerns me. Shouldn't a red flag be raised by the TPA when somebody is submitting a couple dozen IP Koufax autos?

Also I agree, I would never purchase this auto. It is ugly, and I still think it shouldn't have been authenticated. But that is my opinion.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jimjim

I think the point of my post has gotten a bit lost in the chatter.

......

Shouldn't a red flag be raised by the TPA when somebody is submitting a couple dozen IP Koufax autos?

You mentioned what you think a TPA action should be, so prepare for more annoying "chatter".

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by MikeKam

Agreed.

To me it's the same as Honus Wagner signatures. His signature was quite elaborate when he was younger but deteriorated with age, yet I feel many here are confident in identifying a later in life Wagner signature.

Yes, and if you look at PSA's site, you'll see exemplars of Wagners "deteriorated" signature - same for any player whose signature changed drastically. They are common knowledge. Not so for this Koufax example.

[MikeKam]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Yes, and if you look at PSA's site, you'll see exemplars of Wagners "deteriorated" signature - same for any player whose signature changed drastically. They are common knowledge. Not so for this Koufax example.

Who is to say these companies have not already compiled exemplars?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by MikeKam

Who is to say these companies have not already compiled exemplars?

I have no idea what kind of hocus-pocus is going on in the TPAs' exemplar compilation area, but you would think that if it is such a well-known "crowd" signature, that there would be publicly-available exemplars.

It certainly is not "just like" what happened with Honus Wagner's signature.

[djson1]

Aside from all this TPA arguing, I just want to say that I would never pay that much for a horrible shaky Koufax signature (assuming that it IS authentic).
As Shelly pointed out in a previous thread, some recent Steiner certed Koufax sigs are showing signs of serious aging (like Aaron's). Up until just a year or so ago, Koufax' signature was really nice and flowing. There are plenty of them to still go around and probably under $300. Go buy one of those before resorting to one of his recent shaky ones.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by djson1

Go buy one of those before resorting to one of his recent shaky ones.

So you know there are recent shaky ones that look like this?

Unless you are the one, I'm surprised there isn't anyone here who has recently gotten Koufax' autograph. At least if we found that it hadn't changed, this could only be, as Steve suggested, a "crowd signature", or bogus.

I agree with others that TPA's should certainly authenticate it if it is legit. The decision to purchase or not is personal.