Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I appreciate those examples and their nuances, yet the inquiry as framed by PSA itself seems binary: did the player use the bat in a game or not? And the grade captures the degree of likelihood.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I appreciate those examples and their nuances, yet the inquiry as framed by PSA itself seems binary: did the player use the bat in a game or not? And the grade captures the degree of likelihood.

Attached is the letter on the Frank.

Model, weight, and length match H&B factory records and are specific to 1964. The model number was not used for pro stock. Frank's number, heavily faded, is on the knob, the barrel and handle are scored, there is some pine tar, and many ball marks and barrel checking.

Conclusion: "After a thorough examination of this Frank Robinson professional model bat and its player use characteristics, it is our opinion the bat is authentic, and was game used by Robinson during the referenced labeling period. The bat exhibits heavy use and possesses identifiable player use characteristics."

With all this, we should be looking at a pretty nice grade, right? But then.....

Comments: "Mention must be made to the condition of the barrel of this Frank Robinson professional model bat. The numerous abrasions and scuffing indicate the bat was used after it was cracked by Robinson."

And with that, it's bumped down to 6.5 based on condition issues.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I appreciate those examples and their nuances, yet the inquiry as framed by PSA itself seems binary: did the player use the bat in a game or not? And the grade captures the degree of likelihood.

Game Used grades aren't entirely about game use. There are deductions for other aspects. Kind of a strange brew.

[drcy]

"Imagine if every LOA or COA came with the truth printed on it."

I think you unintentionally said a mouthful there.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by drcy

"Imagine if every LOA or COA came with the truth printed on it."

I think you unintentionally said a mouthful there.

It certainly opens up a can of worms, although I'd say my phrasing was intentional. Perhaps the difference from how I see things and how others might view this though would be that I would be ok with the fact that if I had 100 autographed pieces of memorabilia in my collection which required a third-party authentication for them to have any value, then I'd be ok with knowing that ~10 to 15 of them were actually fake (even if I didn't know which ones), whereas if someone else were to learn this about their collection, it might boil their blood. I think I just have a more realistic expectation of what sort of standards the experts can/should be held to than the general public. It seems that most collectors want them to be nearly infallible. I think they're going to make A LOT of mistakes. But I don't think we can expect them to do better. Others will disagree. It is what it is.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It certainly opens up a can of worms, although I'd say my phrasing was intentional. Perhaps the difference from how I see things and how others might view this though would be that I would be ok with the fact that if I had 100 autographed pieces of memorabilia in my collection which required a third-party authentication for them to have any value, then I'd be ok with knowing that ~10 to 15 of them were actually fake (even if I didn't know which ones), whereas if someone else were to learn this about their collection, it might boil their blood. I think I just have a more realistic expectation of what sort of standards the experts can/should be held to than the general public. It seems that most collectors want them to be nearly infallible. I think they're going to make A LOT of mistakes. But I don't think we can expect them to do better. Others will disagree. It is what it is.

It says that a collector should be knowledgeable about what they collect, and not rely only on someone else's opinion.

If someone owns 100 pieces and 10-15 percent of them are fake, that's a problem.