PSA autograph authentication

[bk400]

I've been thinking about this trend to have vintage rookie cards autographed, and I was wondering how often PSA actually comes back and says that an autograph is NOT authentic when it actually is (for instance, a submitter has the autograph done in person, but sends it in, and it comes back as inauthentic).

At the same time, I wonder how often inauthentic autographs make it into slabs. The value increase that an autograph provides for, say, a vintage HOF rookie card, creates a significant incentive for all sorts of shenanigans.

So how good is PSA at this, really?

[marzoumanian]

PSA is only as good as the people it hires and the autograph knowledge they bring with them. So decisions made will ALWAYS be subjective. Back in 1987 when I lived in Cleveland I brought a baseball with me when the Oakland As visited the Indians at big old Municipal Stadium. The place was empty. It was Mark McGuire's rookie year. I walked behind the dugout and asked him to autograph my ball. He said sure and I tossed it to him. He signed it and I kept it for years. When I wanted to sell it I turned it over to Heritage who (I assume) turned it over to PSA for grading. It was rejected as fake. What???? So I turned to Spence, who authenticated it and I sold it. Same thing happened with a Bill Dickey (NY Yankees HOF) baseball that I had signed in person MANY years ago in NYC. Fake, says PSA. What??? I watched him sign it. Spence graded it as authentic and I sold it.
I realize you are talking about signed cards BUT I say the same principle applies. Humans grade and sometimes they will make mistakes.My advice when this happens? Get a second opinion like I did. Peace.

[Baseballcrazy62]

The “Sports Card Madness” podcast (released a couple of days ago) had an interview with Nat Turner regarding PSA/DNA. It’s a good listen. They have done other podcasts about autographed cards. Highly recommend!

[swarmee]

I would say they pass more counterfeits (30%?) than fail items that were witnessed by the submitter (20%?).

Those are my generalized numbers based on the message board posts I've read in the past 10 years.

There have been quite a few threads showing their ineptitude, including T206s being signed within the previous 2 years (because the same card was found in unsigned condition in a recent auction/sale online).

I've found multiple signed cards that were PSA certified that the name of the actress was spelled incorrectly.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1407540

And then I've seen a reasonable number of posts angry that PSA did not pass autos they watched done by the player in person.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Baseballcrazy62

The “Sports Card Madness” podcast (released a couple of days ago) had an interview with Nat Turner regarding PSA/DNA. It’s a good listen. They have done other podcasts about autographed cards. Highly recommend!

Thanks a lot -- very helpful recommendation regarding the podcasts.

[Hankphenom]

Of course they all make mistakes, and the good ones are the first to admit it. What's your line of work, are you 100% perfect? But try selling your autographs these days without authentication from one of the big boys. I dare you. The market speaks much louder than anecdotes or anybody's guess about percentages they get wrong one way or the other.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Of course they all make mistakes, and the good ones are the first to admit it. What's your line of work, are you 100% perfect? But try selling your autographs these days without authentication from one of the big boys. I dare you. The market speaks much louder than anecdotes or anybody's guess about percentages they get wrong one way or the other.

Fair and potentially dispositive point about the market speaking. I'm more of a buyer than a seller as a general matter, so I'm trying to get a sense for the likelihood that I'm buying a fake. If the error rate is indeed 30%, as another poster suggested, that is relevant. I suppose I would never know whether it was a fake, unless there was some exposure event like there was around the T206s or the 1994 Calbee Ichiros. But for me, it is worth considering the odds.

As for my line of work, suffice it to say that it is one where a 30% error rate puts me out of it.

[Rhotchkiss]

PSA sucks at grading cards. I expect they absolutely blow at authenticating signatures. My gut, more than 50% of authenticated signatures are fake. But Hank is 1000% correct - an “authenticated” fake is worth more than an unauthenticated real auto. Thems the facts

“Never get Cheated”

Ryan Hotchkiss

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

PSA sucks at grading cards. I expect they absolutely blow at authenticating signatures. My gut, more than 50% of authenticated signatures are fake. But Hank is 1000% correct - an “authenticated” fake is worth more than an unauthenticated real auto. Thems the facts

“Never get Cheated”

Ryan Hotchkiss

Plus One

[sbfinley]

If pulling random numbers out of thin air were an Olympic sport I would be proud to know that I have posted in the company of Gold Medalists.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

If pulling random numbers out of thin air were an Olympic sport I would be proud to know that I have posted in the company of Gold Medalists.

Mic drop! Who came up with 30%, or 50%--Ryan, I love you, but c'mon, man--and how? Where's the evidence, I want to see it. A story or two doesn't mean sh*t. These guys are the pros from Dover, they've seen and have as exemplars a gazillion good sigs from contracts, checks, letters, etc., and they've also seen a lot of bad ones, too. They all know the great forgers by name, and their distinguishing characteristics. It's what they do all day long, item after item, piece after piece. Don't you think you'd be pretty good at this, too, after a few years of doing it? I'm guessing you could practice on ONE signature for a year, submit it, and it wouldn't stand a chance of getting by them. And no matter what the error rate--probably more on the order of 1% or less, considering the enormous volume they handle--you want to go back to the wild west days pre-authentication? I think you card guys are suffering from PTSD after discovering that most of your cards have been f**ked with one way or another, and are quick to inpute that to the autograph side. Apples and oranges.

[swarmee]

Read a few of the raiderguy10 submission threads over the past 10 years. That's a good way to get approximations, and ground truth from the people that submitted.

Speaking of the card side, I just reported about 20 of the 100 1954 Topps "Gray" Backs in their APR based on them not being gray backs based on photographic imagery (~15) and another 5 just because they sold so low at auction they had to be white backs. But you're right, incompetence on their card side does trickle over to my feelings on the auto side.

And no question that a counterfeit signature with the PSA/DNA stamp of approval is worth more than a real sig. That doesn't mean we should let them off the hook for getting it wrong.

[balltrash]

I don't normally get involved in these sorts of threads but this is a ludicrous statement. I will grant that there are certain tranches of material that I do not have the background to comment on (i.e. entertainment autographs and those of ultra modern football or hockey players) but to state that these guys do their job wrong 50% of the time is, well, ludicrous!

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

PSA sucks at grading cards. I expect they absolutely blow at authenticating signatures. My gut, more than 50% of authenticated signatures are fake. But Hank is 1000% correct - an “authenticated” fake is worth more than an unauthenticated real auto. Thems the facts

“Never get Cheated”

Ryan Hotchkiss

[bk400]

So sometimes I'll see graded, vintage rookie card autos where the player died around 5 years ago, and he was known to be a highly active signer 10-20 years ago. But the cert number on the PSA slab would suggest that the card was graded 2-3 years ago. It strikes me as a bit odd that someone would wait more than 2 years (and probably much longer than that) after getting an already valuable rookie card signed before getting it authenticated. In those situations, I can't help but think that an alternative explanation is plausible, if not more likely.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by bk400

So sometimes I'll see graded, vintage rookie card autos where the player died around 5 years ago, and he was known to a highly active signer 10-20 years ago. But the cert number on the PSA slab would suggest that the card was graded 2-3 years ago. It strikes me as a bit odd that someone would wait more than 2 years (and probably much longer than that) after getting an already valuable rookie card signed before getting it authenticated. In those situations, I can't help but think that an alternative explanation is plausible, if not more likely.

Wha?

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by bk400

So sometimes I'll see graded, vintage rookie card autos where the player died around 5 years ago, and he was known to a highly active signer 10-20 years ago. But the cert number on the PSA slab would suggest that the card was graded 2-3 years ago. It strikes me as a bit odd that someone would wait more than 2 years (and probably much longer than that) after getting an already valuable rookie card signed before getting it authenticated. In those situations, I can't help but think that the alternative explanation is plausible, if not more likely.

Signed cards have only really blew up in popularity in the past 5-10 years. Those guys that were writing letters in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s and hitting the show circuit didn’t have reason to authenticate mid level cards until recently. The majority of the largest collections I’ve seen are raw until it becomes time to sell. As someone who’s sold plenty of signed cards you are going to get less and be holding it longer if it’s not authenticated.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by marzoumanian

Humans grade and sometimes they will make mistakes.

Mark Davis told me this autograph, which I got in person at a Warriors game, was fake.

[insidethewrapper]

I had a Sparky Anderson auto come back as fake and I was there when he signed it .

[Rhotchkiss]

I have no real basis for my 50% statement. It was a bit of hyperbole. I don’t trust their “opinions” very much. And, I do think many autos are fakes. Just like I think many numerically graded cards have been altered. And it’s not just PSA. I think they all mess up, a lot. More than we think. I just don’t like PSA’s hubris with “never get cheated”.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Signed cards have only really blew up in popularity in the past 5-10 years. Those guys that were writing letters in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s and hitting the show circuit didn’t have reason to authenticate mid level cards until recently. The majority of the largest collections I’ve seen are raw until it becomes time to sell. As someone who’s sold plenty of signed cards you are going to get less and be holding it longer if it’s not authenticated.

Very clear and helpful. Thanks for this.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by bk400

So sometimes I'll see graded, vintage rookie card autos where the player died around 5 years ago, and he was known to be a highly active signer 10-20 years ago. But the cert number on the PSA slab would suggest that the card was graded 2-3 years ago. It strikes me as a bit odd that someone would wait more than 2 years (and probably much longer than that) after getting an already valuable rookie card signed before getting it authenticated. In those situations, I can't help but think that an alternative explanation is plausible, if not more likely.

I had 4 Aaron 1954 topps signed RCd and never had graded until I wanted to sell as prices dictated...why are these sitting here

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Mark Davis told me this autograph, which I got in person at a Warriors game, was fake.

Just curious: why would you ask him if he thought it was good? What were the circumstances?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

I had a Sparky Anderson auto come back as fake and I was there when he signed it .

Better to err on the side of caution, no?


100% of coaches coner autos are fake.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I have no real basis for my 50% statement. It was a bit of hyperbole. I don’t trust their “opinions” very much. And, I do think many autos are fakes. Just like I think many numerically graded cards have been altered. And it’s not just PSA. I think they all mess up, a lot. More than we think. I just don’t like PSA’s hubris with “never get cheated”.

That is hubris to say that, no doubt, and it's easy to dislike PSA's imperial position within the hobby, with cards and autographs living and dying by their decisions. But it seems to me, Ryan, that you need more than "I think" to accuse them of slabbing "a lot" of fakes and vice versa. That just doesn't pass muster without being able to back it up with more than an anecdote or two. I don't know about the card side, but "I think" the top handful of vintage autograph guys are very good at what they do and provide a valuable service to collectors and the hobby.