Seemingly enhanced/altered Harry Truman signed baseball featured on haulsofshame.com

[travrosty]

Anyone have an opinion on how one poor quality and one very high quality truman signed baseball, that went through two different auctions a few months apart can look one way at one auction, and presto chango, now it is a pristine Truman signed ball when it was once a poor quality signature?

How can this happen? Isn't this the type of stuff the hobby should be investigating, or because it has a certain groups name on it, we shall give it a pass?

november 2004, low grade signature, coa john reznikoff psa/dna and rr auction coa.

Feb. 2005, now it's at EAC Gallery, with "Provenance" John Reznikoff.

Isn't this something the hobby watchdogs should dig into and figure out how this can happen to our beloved autograph collecting hobby? Even if it is to clear the authenticators name or auction house of any wrongdoing, especially to do that if they didn't have anything to do with it? And to find out just who did have something to do with it?

What's the authenticators role in this? Was it a fake letter of provenance foisted upon the public without the authenticators knowledge, or did the authenticator give a coa to the "before" ball, and also a letter of provenance to the "after" ball? Let's find out what happened.

Are some things off limits? This is a huge deal, and something tells me if it were up on ebay with Mew Drax coa people would be all over it like jackals?

Where's the emails sent, the rhetorical questions from the hotseat with flashlight shining in eyes, the dragnet interrogation?

Oh, that's right, it's the guys with the free pass so forget it. The person who paid good money and ended up with this gem doesn't deserve our help? I think he does.

[drc]

I think when an autograph comes with a LOA from Company X, EAC calls that the provenance. Just their idiosyncratic way of describing things. At EAC, "PSA provenance" means it has a PSA LOA-- usually nothing more.

I would guess the first auction's COA is the "provenance" in the second auction, and there is no second Reznikoff document. Just my guess.

[travrosty]

It does not seem they would be able to enclose the first coa to the winning bidder on the eac auction because it shows the original faded signature on the ball. plus eac could see for themselves it is not the same faded signature, but a bold one now so how could they auction it off? to me, they didn't have the original coa unless someone took the original coa and changed out photos.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by travrosty

It does not seem they would be able to enclose the first coa to the winning bidder on the eac auction because it shows the original faded signature on the ball. plus eac could see for themselves it is not the same faded signature, but a bold one now so how could they auction it off? to me, they didn't have the original coa unless someone took the original coa and changed out photos.

Sounds like a good question for Larry Rosenbaum...the biggest question here is how did the auction companies sell with the COA's showing different pictures and was the previous COA's even sent to the buyer?

[prewarsports]

Seriously, who would take a vintage piece of history like that and have the BALLS to even attempt to trace over it? I understand the money, but it seems like such a risky move. Clearly the same ball. I would think "tracing" back the chain of title on something like this could be very easily done and the culprit could be found.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Seriously, who would take a vintage piece of history like that and have the BALLS to even attempt to trace over it? I understand the money, but it seems like such a risky move. Clearly the same ball. I would think "tracing" back the chain of title on something like this could be very easily done and the culprit could be found.

But if everyone's pockets are getting bigger, why make the effort...

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Anyone have an opinion on how one poor quality and one very high quality truman signed baseball, that went through two different auctions a few months apart can look one way at one auction, and presto chango, now it is a pristine Truman signed ball when it was once a poor quality signature?

Clearly, something shady going on.

Originally Posted by travrosty

How can this happen? Isn't this the type of stuff the hobby should be investigating, or because it has a certain groups name on it, we shall give it a pass?

Um, I believe it HAS been investigated, as the article quotes from the book "Collecting Signatures of the Presidents of the United States on Baseballs" in which this fraud was pointed out. Doesn't sound like a pass to me.

Originally Posted by travrosty

november 2004, low grade signature, coa john reznikoff psa/dna and rr auction coa.

Feb. 2005, now it's at EAC Gallery, with "Provenance" John Reznikoff.

David explained the wording of EAC Gallery's write-ups and their use of the term "provenance." The R&R Auction write-up reads:

"Official Reach American League (William Harridge) baseball signed in fountain pen on a side panel, 'Harry S. Truman, 4-12-56.' In good condition, with several strokes of signature light, but legible, date a bit harder to see, a light shade of toning to ball and a small application of shellac over signature. COA John Reznikoff/PSA/DNA and RRAuction COA."

http://rrauction.com/past_auction_item.cfm?ID=3091931

It does not state whether it is a full-photo LOA or not, so without seeing the original "pre-enhancement" LOA, we don't know if it could have been passed along with the ball "post-enhancement" or not.

Originally Posted by travrosty

Isn't this something the hobby watchdogs should dig into and figure out how this can happen to our beloved autograph collecting hobby? Even if it is to clear the authenticators name or auction house of any wrongdoing, especially to do that if they didn't have anything to do with it? And to find out just who did have something to do with it?

What's the authenticators role in this? Was it a fake letter of provenance foisted upon the public without the authenticators knowledge, or did the authenticator give a coa to the "before" ball, and also a letter of provenance to the "after" ball? Let's find out what happened.

Again, referring to David's comment on EAC's typical use of the word "provenance," I think the situation is far more easily explained by this take on the situation: The ball was examined and an LOA issued for it when it came to R&R in 2004. I don't know if that was a full-photo LOA, or one which described but did not picture the actual ball. As it appears that the letter continued on with the ball when it came to EAC in 2005, I would assume the latter. It's clear from the photos shown that the signature was somehow "enhanced," whether by physical or chemical processes applied to the ball itself, or by enhancing the digital photo of the ball.

Originally Posted by travrosty

Are some things off limits? This is a huge deal, and something tells me if it were up on ebay with Mew Drax coa people would be all over it like jackals?

Where's the emails sent, the rhetorical questions from the hotseat with flashlight shining in eyes, the dragnet interrogation

Oh, that's right, it's the guys with the free pass so forget it. The person who paid good money and ended up with this gem doesn't deserve our help? I think he does.

Nobody said anything about free passes or whether the buyer deserves help. You consistently make comments like this in your opening post, before anyone even has a chance to make the arguments that you are defending against. If you had been shouting about this for the last 7 years and nobody said anything in response, then you would have a point in screaming "cover-up."

I think the thing to remember is that there are a LOT of auctions with a LOT of signed items in them every year, and tons of items being flipped between them. Thousands and thousands of signatures at all different price levels. There is a reasonable expectation that SOME "enhancements" like this will be caught by someone whose memory is triggered when they see it the second time, but to imply that EVERY such enhancement is spied at the time it is reintroduced to the market and somehow allowed to pass based on the authenticator is a bit far-fetched, don't you think? To me, it screams more of massive "didn't notice" than of massive "cover-up."

Frankly, I find it a bit insulting for you to imply that autograph enthusiasts as a whole just "gave a pass" on something like this, when you yourself didn't mention it either for 7 years, and only brought it up after it appeared in a haulsofshame article.

Besides, you didn't use the term "sacred cow" once in your post, so how do we know it's really you posting this? Now THERE'S a conspiracy theory I'd like to explore

[drc]

If the PSA LOA (some might call it 'provenance') is just the one LOA from the first sale (and that was reused for the second sale), it would appear PSA did nothing errant. All the restoration and resale would have happened after the fact. And there's no evidence PSA issued a second LOA. In fact, my guess is they didn't.

[TyrusRCobb]

Originally Posted by drc

If the PSA LOA (some might call it 'provenance') is just the one LOA from the first sale (and that was reused for the second sale), it would appear PSA did nothing errant. All the restoration and resale would have happened after the fact. And there's no evidence PSA issued a second LOA. In fact, my guess is they didn't.

Again, excuse my ignorance which apparently runs very deep in regards to collecting, are there issues with PSA/DNA as well as JSA authentications?

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by TyrusRCobb

Again, excuse my ignorance which apparently runs very deep in regards to collecting, are there issues with PSA/DNA as well as JSA authentications?

In a word, yes!

[Big Dave]

....are there issues with PSA/DNA as well as JSA authentications?

Quite a few, and new ones come to light every week. Do a search on here in regard to PSA/DNA and JSA and your eyes will be opened.

[TyrusRCobb]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

....are there issues with PSA/DNA as well as JSA authentications?

Quite a few, and new ones come to light every week. Do a search on here in regard to PSA/DNA and JSA and your eyes will be opened.

So...as a new collector who knows next to nothing about legitimate vs non-legitimate signatures which authentication service can be trusted? MLB? Steiner? None?

[toybulldog]

Again, excuse my ignorance which apparently runs very deep in regards to collecting, are there issues with PSA/DNA as well as JSA authentications?

I'd say. Here's a pair of multiple signed gloves in which both are allegedly signed by Rocky Marciano. I just got done going through 350 Marciano exemplars and can not come up with one that comes close to resembling these. Slow and child-like writing, atypical letter formations, the way the "ky" in "Rocky" changes direction and goes upward in both examples. My opinion and other boxing collectors opinions I've talked to have come to an easy and definitive "no" yet it is signed-off on by PSA/DNA, and in particular someone named Joe Orlando who is listed as "President" on their web site.




As an insulted collector of vintage boxing autographs I'd like to invite Joe Orlando to come on here and show us the supporting evidence/exemplars for these two Rocky Marciano autographs. If he has no supporting evidence/exemplars for these two Marciano autographs what are we to assume? Does this company add false value to non-authentic items? At $1,700 with plenty of time remaining!

Mark Ogren
Schenectady, NY

[travrosty]

Mark makes a salient point. I can't find any Marciano's that match that either, and I have studied boxing autographs for over 20 years, like he has.

it looks childish, with no control to the autograph that would put it close to what marciano has been known to sign. We see other gloves signed by Marciano and his glove signature matches very close to his paper signature. But here we have a crazy signature by Marciano.

I don't think they have a problem using the weighscale method of authenticating. which in my view means 51 probability versus 49 percent not, means it get approved. I have to have 100 percent or it would be at least a no opinion, because you have to back that signature up using exemplars and knowledge gained over the years, and they see a Marciano sig on a glove and figure it must be good, but show me another one like that.

but if its signed by joe orlando, he must be the boxing guy there, so his opinion has a lot of weight among the long time boxing collectors with 20, 30, 40 years experience. NOT! Among the old time collectors and dealers, these certs by psa and jsa are considered a joke, they really are. They don't know firpo. they don't know Sullivan, they dont know liston, they dont know Ali, they don't know Dempsey.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by drc

If the PSA LOA (some might call it 'provenance') is just the one LOA from the first sale (and that was reused for the second sale), it would appear PSA did nothing errant. All the restoration and resale would have happened after the fact. And there's no evidence PSA issued a second LOA. In fact, my guess is they didn't.

Sorry, but this does not fit the narrative the OP wishes to convey.

I read the Hauls of Shame article. While rife with innuendo and unrelated red herrings purely meant to embarass, I didn't see a shred of evidence a new LOA was issued since the original.

Incidentally, I continue to see statements implying there will be indictments handed down (wishful thinking) to PSA/DNA in regard to the Mastro case. Do these people realize that the card grading component PSA, is not the same as the autograph authentication division PSA/DNA? Or do they realize that but just throw PSA/DNA into the article to muddy them up?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Sorry, but this does not fit the narrative the OP wishes to convey.

I read the Hauls of Shame article. While rife with innuendo and unrelated red herrings purely meant to embarass, I didn't see a shred of evidence a new LOA was issued since the original.

Incidentally, I continue to see statements implying there will be indictments handed down (wishful thinking) to PSA/DNA in regard to the Mastro case. Do these people realize that the card grading component PSA, is not the same as the autograph authentication division PSA/DNA? Or do they realize that but just throw PSA/DNA into the article to muddy them up?

Steve, you must have been reading my mind. You just saved me a lot of typing.

[David Atkatz]

Steve, is there any connection between Autograph Magazine (published by Steve Cyrkin), and Collectors Universe?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Besides, you didn't use the term "sacred cow" once in your post, so how do we know it's really you posting this? Now THERE'S a conspiracy theory I'd like to explore

Lance, that was funny.