Warning: Disturbing Autograph "Authentication" Material!

[Vintagedegu]

-

[johnmh71]

Originally Posted by Vintagedegu

It's been talked about many times here (and I believe in the card forum) in the past. If we reject out of hand everything someone says because they may have a dirty nose, then we'd never be able to learn much about the dirt in this hobby. Unfortunate but true. You just have to take the info you get and digest it the best you can.

This is such a dirty business, it's really depressing...

It isn't necessarily the material but the motive behind sharing it that I question. Do your own research and judge for yourself. I just happen to believe that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

John Hatcher

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

It isn't necessarily the material but the motive behind sharing it that I question. Do your own research and judge for yourself. I just happen to believe that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

John Hatcher

John,

Understand your point fully, but as for me, I could care less about the motive as long as it exposes the material. Just my .02 cents worth.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

I just happen to believe that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Ah, but it can be such an amazing spectacle when they do...

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

It isn't necessarily the material but the motive behind sharing it that I question. Do your own research and judge for yourself. I just happen to believe that those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

John Hatcher

There is no denying the TPAs have made some mistakes and I think reasoned criticism is completely valid.

However, what I find interesting is that the two sites dedicated to dredging up every mistake made in the past decade and utterly destroying the TPAs, are run by people who are anonymous and/or would not hold up well themselves if a bright light was trained on them.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

However, what I find interesting is that the two sites dedicated to dredging up every mistake made in the past decade and utterly destroying the TPAs, are run by people who are anonymous and/or would not hold up well themselves if a bright light was trained on them.

Steve,

Maybe, but does that matter with respect to the fact that TPA's get it wrong many times?

[thetruthisoutthere]

"Are run by people who are anonymous and/or would not hold up well themselves if a bright light was trained on them."

Well written, Mr. Zipper.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

"Are run by people who are anonymous and/or would not hold up well themselves if a bright light was trained on them."

Well written, Mr. Zipper.

So what? If what they are writing is true, it's true.

The owner/operator of a large sports auction house, renowned for his ethics, was caught ripping off the New York Public Library.

All seems to be forgiven, there, however.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Steve,

Maybe, but does that matter with respect to the fact that TPA's get it wrong many times?

Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.

I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.

But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.

Would we need to say the same? I doubt it.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.

I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.

But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.

agree wholeheartedly and therein lies the PROBLEM with the autograph industry...the saga continues

[johnmh71]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.

I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.

But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.

Amen Steve. I couldn't have put it any better myself.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.

I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.

But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.

Again, well written, Mr. Zipper.

First there is the "forensic" authenticator who issues generic COAs and doesn't seem to reject anything.

Then there is the authenticator with the "God Complex." When you point out one of his mistakes, he will never admit to it. Instead, he will ramble on and on about "How his COA has been forged." And when you do point out one of his mistakes, he always has a story as to how he acquired that autograph; and the story itself, is also just not believable.

Then there is the authenticator who claims he gets physically ill when he reads about one of his "mistakes."

And now there is a new authentication service, whose work is showing up on a particular auction site, and yet when you go to their website, there is absolutely no way to contact them, whether it be via email or telephone. They list various prices, but no menus that allow you to print a submission form.

Wow!!!

[David Atkatz]

And then there are the authenticators who say:

“Certification and authentication involves an individual judgment that is subjective and requires the exercise of professional opinion, which can change from time to time. Therefore, JSA makes no warranty or representation and shall have no liability whatsoever to the customer for the opinion rendered by JSA on any submission.”

“Certification and authentication involves an individual judgment that is subjective and requires the exercise of professional opinion, which can change from time to time. Therefore, PSADNA makes no warranty or representation and shall have no liability whatsoever to the customer for the opinion rendered by PSADNA on any submission.”

i.e., "I might be wrong, but if I am, we'll just chalk that up as a learning experience. Thanks for paying my tuition!"

Wow. And "wow" again.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.

I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.

But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.

Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.

How do you know its only a small percentage?

hundreds and hundreds of good ones for every goof?

i can give you cert numbers that you can check online at psa for 75 bad muhammad ali signed photos, all in a row, that they won't cert anymore. 75 goofs in a row.

So hundreds (200) of good ali's for every bad ones means they can't make a mistake the next 15,000 muhammad ali signatures in a row? do you really think that is going to happen?

Of course many, many of the people defending these companies say 1000 to 1 good to bad, so where is the 75,000 muhammad ali good signatures without a mistake?

and a prominent authenticator who is a consultant for them even says 10,000 to 1 good to bad, so where are the three quarter of a million good ali's without a mistake?

[drc]

A question is can a critique more reliable than the source? If you don't trust the author, how can you trust what is written?

Bias, misinformation and propaganda doesn't always mean that the individual information is incorrect, but that often correct information is cherry picked to meet an agenda or pre-determined outcome. In these critiques, threre is no doubt that the conclusion was picked first, then the data was gathered to support it. Don't just ask what was included in the report, but what was excluded and why.

That's why I think following critiques with predetermined conclusions written by authors with questionable ethics is at best a dubious exercise. Whether or not the individual tidbits of information are accurate, the whole exercise is unreliable, because of the authors' biases the size of Lake Michigan.

If these types of sites and essays and critiques are important for the hobby-- and they probably should--, they should be being written by entirely different people. For example, people who are not writing them to get back at companies these have vendettas against and/or as methods to subvert competition for the author's own company.

[A2000]

Originally Posted by travrosty

i can give you cert numbers that you can check online at psa for 75 bad muhammad ali signed photos, all in a row, that they won't cert anymore. 75 goofs in a row.

Can you post the cert number of the fake Ali signatures? If they no longer certify these as being real, I'm sure these bad examples would be useful so collectors know at least what to stay away from.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

There is no denying the TPAs have made some mistakes and I think reasoned criticism is completely valid.

However, what I find interesting is that the two sites dedicated to dredging up every mistake made in the past decade and utterly destroying the TPAs, are run by people who are anonymous and/or would not hold up well themselves if a bright light was trained on them.

like