 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
03-10-2012, 06:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Why?
While your point seems valid, this is not the first time you have written a thinly veiled attack on Spence while mentioning Morales. I sometimes wonder what your real purpose of doing this is? I don't think that any of the authenticators always get it right and I don't personally collect autographs, so I don't have any horse in this race. However, as long as Morales is associated with the crap that is put out by Coaches Corner, he shouldn't even be mentioned in a post with Spence. Just my 2¢.
Jeff 
|
|
#2
03-10-2012, 07:33 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Does anyone think it was actually taken out of the frame?
Ken
|
|
#3
03-10-2012, 07:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I can't disagree w Trav's constant attacks on JSA, meaning that he is taking every chance to attack them. His novella here on the Negro league print makes a LOT of sense, as does his statement of taking LOA's at "face value". But, constantly pointing out weaknesses in JSA or anyone else just seems like whining at times.
I would overall still take JSA or PSA , or Richard Simon, Stinson, or someone like that over Drew Mucks, Preddy, or Moorales any time. Yes, it is because of "reputation and advertising" to a large degree. In the end, I still feel they get more right by a LARGE PCTG than the FDA's I named. In the end tho, if not comftorable w the Alphabet guys, Richard, Stinson or FDA's opinions, then do NOT buy the item, WITHOUT researching the signature(s) if possible. This part of the Hobby has taken a HUGE hit lately, and its now time for the COLLECTOR and HONEST DEALER to start being more proactive and less reactive to someone else's opinions Scott Roberts
|
|
#4
03-10-2012, 08:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Jetroe or Jethroe
Spence's letter lists Jetroe as a key.
I thought it was Jethroe. Is there an h is his exemplar? Whose proofreading at JSA? I guess they don't have time. I spent 2 minutes searching for Jetroe and came up with the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNl3_ncbdzU The guy seems to be pleasing his audience, but I'm not sure why.
|
|
#6
03-10-2012, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Again, the argument surfaces that someone shouldn't be held to standards as long as they are better than "this guy" over here. As long as there exists this guy over here, the bogeyman, then someone who may be better than him only has to be better, not the best they can be. Its the old addage, that if we are on a camping trip, it seems futile for me to put on running shoes to outrun a grizzly bear. my response would be that I don't have to outrun the grizzly, I only have to outrun YOU! Last edited by travrosty; 03-10-2012 at 09:35 PM.
|
|
#7
03-12-2012, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Regarding OP's thoughts on the Buck Leonard 150 autograph piece, I have some thoughts as well.
It's a limited edition of 1000, but it's not clear if it's a signed edition of 1000. I would guess that it's a signed edition of 1,000 as the signatures are just too organized. They were probably signed in the same place by each person. Given that, it was most likely signed at an organized event. Should take about a minute to find a possibility. http://buckoneil.com/articles/one-la...eball-history/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_Awards_%28NLBM%29 Why would anyone want or need JSA, or anyone else for that matter, to provide an additional "opinion", rather than rely on the "fact" of who and who was not there? BTW, http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Au...item4cfc8db6b0 seems more of a secretarial signature. It's more likely to be an actual game used ball than a signed Ruth.
|
|
#8
03-12-2012, 06:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here's one I love!
 Heritage did the right thing and pulled it. Ball wasn't made until the 1970s, but somehow signed in1959. Looks like both PSA and JSA missed that.
__________________
For information on baseball-related cigarette and tobacco packs, visit www.baseballandtobacco.com. Instagram: @vintage_cigarette_packs
|
|
#9
03-12-2012, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
missed it by that much. you would think they check the ball out first before they even looked at the auto. but what concerns me just as much is that they thought the auto was good. any auto that looks like that they were willing to pass, and we know its no good as wilson said it is a 70's ball. so back to the drawing board for Cobb, but what do I know, the pre-eminent Cobb opinionators took their shot at it, and struck out I guess. I'm just a lowly boxing guy. Mr. Zipper told me what for. Last edited by travrosty; 03-12-2012 at 07:14 PM.
|
|
#10
03-10-2012, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Why is holding Spence to his word an 'attack' on him? Do you believe he authenticated all 150 signatures on this piece signature by signature? If not, why do you accept the authentication as something that is alright to do, Morales nonwithstanding? You are changing the subject. Like I said, why are there sacred cows? What's everyone afraid of? I think when people question Morales ability to authenticate 75 items on a piece, wondering how he can authenticate it in a presumably quick turn around timeframe, and for a price that is reasonable, why it is not fair to ask the same question of Spence when this piece is 150 autographs, all of the autographs claimed to be consistent with pen pressure, slant, flow, letter sizing and formation? Why let Spence slide? That's all I am asking. Should anyone hold him to do what his LOA's claim they are doing? The funny part about your post is that you say at the beginning, "While your point seems valid" then you totally abandon that point, and it's an important point. Why drop the point when that is the big deal here. Even you agree the point is valid, if the point is valid, then why shy away from asking questions as how this can happen? Why bury it and bring up ME? Unless you just don't if anyone was to do it this way? It doesn't bother you. What's next? It always no big deal unless it happens to you I suppose. I didn't authenticate the thing and I never would or could without doing it the way I pointed out it should be done if one wanted to follow the procedures set out in the LOA, that is matching ALL the signatures with exemplars and checking the slant, flow, pen pressure, sizing, and formation. If someone is not doing that, then an LOA is lip service and totally doublespeak with no meaning. And if that is the case, why is that okay with you? That is the most important question anyone can ask. Why is that okay? I won't get an answer other than, well, he's seems to be better than the other guys. Is that a get out trouble free card? Go buy a guitar that you like because the wood is from Brazil, pay a bunch of money, bring it home, then find out the wood is from tijuana, and when the person says no big deal, still plays good, do you then say - 'well okay' I won't hold you to what you said in your description. If it says the autographs have matched exemplars with pen pressure, flow, slant, sizing and formation, then the autographs should do that, and not anything else. Otherwise a letter of authenticity is really a letter of provenance, taking someone elses word that the players signed it at a show and not knowing it for sure. If one of the players signing had to go to the restroom, and the guy next to him signed his name for awhile, how would you know if you didn't check each autograph but took a guys word for it that the lesser known guys just signed them all so no need to check them out like the bigger names. IT'S AUTOGRAPH AUTHENTICATION, NOT- AUTOGRAPH - I TRUST YOU! I give Spence the benefit of the doubt although I would like to see all 150 plus exemplars for all of these players, a lot of which probably haven't had an item with their signature on it submitted before due to their obscurity, but I can't see how the authenticator could make a business model out of authenticating pieces like this without charging several thousand dollars if indeed they did authenticate it due to how the LOA states they did, something that probably wouldn't make the piece worthwhile to get authenticated. The pieces aren't quite fitting together for me but if Spence can clear it up I would believe him if he said he painstakingly sourced out and checked out each autograph with proper multiple exemplars for each of the 150 negro league players on this piece. Last edited by travrosty; 03-10-2012 at 09:27 PM.
|
|
#11
03-10-2012, 10:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
You Missed the Point
It is clear that you have an agenda with Spence and I could care less. BUT, in many threads you use Spence as a launching pad to somehow defend Morales. That is my whole point, plain and simple. Morales is scum because of his association with Coaches Corner. As I said before...Just my opinion.
Jeff
|
|
#12
03-11-2012, 12:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Jeff, I respect your opinion, but please give me an example of how I 'somehow' defend morales. Just do a plain cut and paste and put any paragraph of mine you can find anywhere that defends morales either at spence's expense or not. When people say things like that, I expect them to back it up with proof, not just fuzzy memories. thanks. Last edited by travrosty; 03-11-2012 at 12:12 AM.
|
|
#13
03-11-2012, 12:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Below is from Spence's website. In the standard authentication process, EACH member of spence's team individually inspects each piece to verify and concur with the other members, and each LETTER that composes each signature is carefully inspected for characteristics.
So seeing as this is a 150 plus signature piece, how long would it take for each member of spence's team to independently review and inspect this piece? Then they employ a scoring system to figure out if it passes muster. They are scoring 150 plus autographs over several authenticators and it takes how long to do this at what cost? At the very end they say they have strict examination standards for certification. Good to know for a 150 athlete signed piece. ------------------------------ The Standard Certification Process Each item is methodically examined and reviewed individually by each of our authenticators to ensure their expert instinctive impressions are in agreement. This intuitive sense has been developed after many years of examining thousands of autographs. The expert is extremely familiar with many different variations and evolution of an individual's signature and can quickly identify irregularities evident in a clubhouse, secretarial, or forged signature. Second, the expert more closely examines each and every component and letter of an autograph, paying close attention to characteristics such as signature flow, style, spontaneity, letter angle, etc. In most cases, this process performed separately by each authenticator will quickly eliminate the vast majority of non-authenticate autographs. In cases where closer examination is required, James Spence Authentication employs a high-technology authentication tool to reinforce the expert's findings. The Video Spectral Comparator is a powerful workstation designed to examine questionable documents and autographs using sophisticated color and infrared imaging, magnification, coaxial lighting, side lighting, and on-screen, side-by-side or overlaid autograph comparisons. The VSC detects erasures, reveals masked and obliterated signatures, differences in ink types, and several other features useful for autograph forgery detection. The authenticators then collaborate and employ a scoring system for the final determination of an item's authenticity. Certified items are then given a registration number and the tamper-evident label is applied to either the item itself or the Letter of Authenticity (customer preference). Items that fail our strict examination standards for certification are returned with a failure letter detailing the inconsistencies. Last edited by travrosty; 03-11-2012 at 12:18 AM.
|
|
#14
03-11-2012, 01:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think you should first find a mistake in their opinion before criticizing their method at arriving at it. If their opinion of that many signatures is accurate, it's a lot tougher to say their methodology was bad.
Last edited by drc; 03-11-2012 at 01:19 AM.
|
|
#15
03-11-2012, 01:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I am pointing out that their method at arriving at their conclusion does not seem to match the method that they explain they use to arrive at their conclusion as written out on the LOA. that is a huge problem regardless if they ended up getting it right or not. I said before if they say on their LOA that it is an Letter of provenance instead of a letter of authentication, and they are taking the word of someone that the lesser known players signed the piece and they put that on the Letter of provenance, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all as it is truth in advertising. If they promise a process to authenticate the autographs, shouldn't they be held accountable to that process? That's what you bargained for. Otherwise they could state on their LOA that they arrive at their conclusion anyway they want to and trust them, they will get it right. but they don't say that. You want the autographs authenticated, don't you? Authenticated means inspected. Otherwise it's the trust game. I never said they got the piece wrong, I said how can they authenticate according to their process that they promise with over 150 signatures on this piece? And shouldn't they have to do what they promise? Otherwise an LOA with a promise that doesn't get followed is what? Integrity of the process is no big deal if it happens to turn out okay anyway? That's an incredible statement. Take the safety guide off of a power saw for ease of operation and if you didn't chop off any hands today, you can't argue with that decision to forego the safety process which is suppose to ensure everything goes right because it's the end result that matters. And today everyone came out alive, so let's keep doing that. And if someone criticizes that decision, tell them to point to an amputee in the shop before their criticisms can have any weight? Pay the post office for registered, insured mail, for a very important piece you are sending, and if they turn around and send it just regular mail, and it still gets there, would you be happy at how they sent it vs. how they said they were going to send it and the process you paid for vs. the process you got? Still got there, so how can you be mad if you paid for registered and insured like they promised? Still got there. They got it there. They got the desired result for you. What's the problem? You have no right to complain and expect them to follow the procedures they advertised they will use to move your piece of mail. After all, who are you? Only the paying customer. If it still got there, then no problem, But keep paying for the registered and insured route like they promise. See how that works? Last edited by travrosty; 03-11-2012 at 03:09 AM.
|
|
#16
03-11-2012, 08:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You had the opportunity to denounce Morales and you never did, but you certainly called out all of the alphabet boys. I was glad to see that my memory and impressions were correct. Jeff
|
|
#17
03-11-2012, 10:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You had a chance to post any statement I have made DEFENDING Morales. You posted nothing. Guess I have never defended Morales then. My question which hasnt been answered by anyone yet, is why are their sacred cows? Why would Spence be above criticism? Why are people scared? I could say the absence of most people posting and saying this type of practice of authenticating 150 plus signatures wouldn't be kosher would be a defense of Spence. Well if you are defending Spence, then DEFEND him! Just like if I wanted to defend Morales, I would. I don't see anything. I have never called Spence scum, and idiot, a criminal, etc. yet when I bring up valid criticism, not just name calling, it's "Bashing". Go start a Morales thread, I don't mind. I assume people don't want to wade into the debate when it concerns JSA or PSA, and that's fine, and I make no assumptions if they are for/against someone or their practices of authentication when they make no statement, because I am fair when I assess people's views. You know I am critical of Spence and PSA, and you don't like it, so you have to change the debate, and change it quick to something else, because criticism of JSA or PSA just cannot be tolerated. Look for anything I have said that calls psa or jsa names on a personal level, then look at my criticism, then look if the criticism is valid. You would think I shot Santa Claus on how some react negatively to VALID criticism (and most of the time they cannot defend the practices, but dislike me for pointing it out, why?) but most say nothing, But I don't castigate them for saying nothing. It's everyone's right, and when the day comes when we have to read off a prepared sheet in order to comply with the law, would be a sad day in America indeed. Last edited by travrosty; 03-11-2012 at 10:45 AM.
|
|
#18
03-11-2012, 11:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would only assume that they only looked at the names listed on the LOA.
Steve B As an aside, if the brazilian wood on that guitar is rosewood it's big trouble. (Endangered species) Second aside - My saw has none of the factory safety guides. Quite honestly of the three it came with one damaged the work, and the other two were so poorly made as to be less safe than no guard at all. I add safeties as needed and work carefuly.
|
|
#19
03-11-2012, 11:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Jeff
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Jimmy Claxton Autograph Question... | tlwise12 | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 0 | 10-01-2011 07:42 PM |
| Vintage Game Worn Jersey Authentication Question | btcarfagno | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 2 | 01-31-2011 05:32 PM |
| Question on Autograph Authentication | IronHorse2130 | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 3 | 05-06-2009 04:41 AM |
| Oliver Optics Magazine question | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 0 | 02-17-2008 01:17 PM |
| The Sad Tale of Jimmy O'Connell | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 01-15-2004 05:31 PM |
Hybrid Mode
