Gehrig JSA

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I think everyone has an opinion, but what is the upside of going on here and saying its good? If you are right people will bitch and disagree, if you are wrong people will call your credentials into question.

It only pays on this forum to call something a fake, you only get into "trouble" when daring to call somethin real.

Rhys

It's impossible to know if you are right or wrong, but the reason we have so many fights here is because there are people on both sides. The green-ink '27 Yankees ball is an example.

Did someone yell at you for saying something was real?

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Did someone yell at you for saying something was real?

In my experience, here and elsewhere, negative opinions tend to be much more contagious than positive opinions.

"If so and so thinks its might be bad, he must see something... I don't want to look like I am missing something..."

[packs]

That's a nice ball.

[Runscott]

With autographs, I think that assuming the best is a dangerous way to collect. If more of us questioned autograph authenticity, and talked about it openly (as a few of us tried to do with 'Babe Ruth' autographs, but were for the most ignored) there would be fewer forgeries.

There isn't enough scrutinization of autographs, and I'm surprised that some of you think there should be even less.

edited to remove a quote of Mr. Zipper - my comments weren't directly related to what he posted.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Runscott

With autographs, I think that assuming the best is a dangerous way to collect. If more of us questioned autograph authenticity, and talked about it openly (as a few of us tried to do with 'Babe Ruth' autographs, but were for the most ignored) there would be fewer forgeries.

There isn't enough scrutinization of autographs, and I'm surprised that some of you think there should be even less.

You completely mischaracterized my statement. Where do I state we should assume something is real and there should be less scrutiny?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

You completely mischaracterized my statement. Where do I state we should assume something is real and there should be less scrutiny?

My apologies. I had just read Rhys' comment and then yours. I shouldn't have included your comment in quotes, and I'll remove it.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Runscott

With autographs, I think that assuming the best is a dangerous way to collect. If more of us questioned autograph authenticity, and talked about it openly (as a few of us tried to do with 'Babe Ruth' autographs, but were for the most ignored) there would be fewer forgeries.

There isn't enough scrutinization of autographs, and I'm surprised that some of you think there should be even less.

Zipper, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Very puzzling comment.

[jgmp123]

If I could ask one thing of Chris and everyone else here...I understand the Gehrig could/is authentic and I also understand that pen manufacturers obviously made many writing instruments. My only concern, and this could only be my lack of knowledge with the ink from that time period, but the seller has a Frank Frisch/Vince DiMaggio ball listed and it looks like it was done with the EXACT same writing instrument. Specifically the Frisch. Also both items were submitted to JSA on same day. Could just be me over-thinking it, but worth a look.

http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewi...id=52845101319

[chaddurbin]

if we believe the backstory the husband could've brought the same pen with him to both games and had the players sign with it.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

If I could ask one thing of Chris and everyone else here...I understand the Gehrig could/is authentic and I also understand that pen manufacturers obviously made many writing instruments. My only concern, and this could only be my lack of knowledge with the ink from that time period, but the seller has a Frank Frisch/Vince DiMaggio ball listed and it looks like it was done with the EXACT same writing instrument. Specifically the Frisch. Also both items were submitted to JSA on same day. Could just be me over-thinking it, but worth a look.

http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewi...id=52845101319

Does anyone have any insight into my comments?

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

Does anyone have any insight into my comments?

James,
Though I am not sure I agree with the comment, and would really want to examine these baseballs in hand before rendering an opinion, see comment #21 above. Your question was answered.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by jgmp123

Does anyone have any insight into my comments?

I think someone touched on this earlier. It could have been done in the same pen( given to the players by the same man as teh story suggests). Both balls were dated 1937 within months of one another. If it was a good pen, there would be a good chance the guy didn't lose it/throw it away ect. They didn't go through pens like we do now.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Runscott

With autographs, I think that assuming the best is a dangerous way to collect. If more of us questioned autograph authenticity, and talked about it openly (as a few of us tried to do with 'Babe Ruth' autographs, but were for the most ignored) there would be fewer forgeries.

There isn't enough scrutinization of autographs, and I'm surprised that some of you think there should be even less.

i agree, not enough scrutinization of autographs and the big co's. get a free pass. It's obvious when the defenders want to shut down a debate, they get all defensive. Let's open it up and put the TPA's on the line, spence should be able to say why this passed. If he has good reasons and good exemplars, then let's see them. If not, then i can see why all the silence. He shouldn't have anyting to hide.

There isn't one boxing autograph I have ever seen Mark Ogren look at where he wasn;t able to produce exemplars and explain why it does or does not pass. when Marciano came up, he posted a couple of hundred exemplars. why is he able to do this and spence and grad can't even show one?

[prewarsports]

You guys misunderstood me.

100% you should scrutinize EVERY autograph, all the time and you CAN NOT over scrutinize.

I was just stating that on this forum, we dont simply pull out random autographs and get opinions. People ask about the ones with at least one small red flag which is what I meant by "questionable" (too bold, ball too white, too nice, etc.) So the assumption is always "Its Bad". Sometimes though (like the Hilton Smith autograph I went against the grain on a few weeks ago) they are fine. It is just hard to get someone willing to say "I think its fine" when the presumptive opinion in THESE CASES is that its bad even before the discussion begins.

I hope you understand me because I agree completely with what Scott and others have said, Question ALL signatures until you cant question them anymore and ONLY buy what you are comfortable with. I am only saying, that the reason that sometimes you hear crickets when help is asked is because you can absolutely tell when someone is really just asking for help and when people are fishing for an opinion when they already know the answer or are just looking for someone to take the bait and get a heated discussion going (usually on Ruth or Gehrig).

Just my opinion, but I 100% agree with you Scott, you just misunderstood me as I was ONLY talking about a few instances on this forum is all.

Rhys

[prewarsports]

Also, I am NOT pro third party authentication as the business model sits today. I have used PSA/DNA and JSA myself about 5 times total in 10 years with one amazing story I could tell of imcompetance but I am not going to share it here. I am 100% positive I know more than both of them combined about vintage (Pre WW2) autographs from baseball, Football, Basketball and Hockey. So for me, it is a total waste of time, and money and I just Guarantee everything I sell for life and dont worry about it unless its a Hall of Famer where the buy s going to demand it anyways (Say a Frank Selee or something like that).

I do think they have helped in some way keep SOME of the bad Ruth/Gehrig/Ott/Foxx/etc. off the market, and that is good, but I also think they do get it wrong a lot. I estimated in another thread that if they are right 60% of the time on Kurt Cobains autograph I would give them a thumbs up and I stick to that. It is just not an exact science and some are easier to nail than others.

What I do have a problem with are the fees. $150-$200 to authenticate a Ruth? $90 to authenticate an obscure pre-war signature that they have to ask you for examples of anyways? It is way too high and their services have priced the average collector who could really benefit from such a service out of the market so they take chances on stuff and get burned. AND of course those auction LOA's which serve about as much purpose as toilet paper.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

What I do have a problem with are the fees. $150-$200 to authenticate a Ruth? $90 to authenticate an obscure pre-war signature that they have to ask you for examples of anyways? It is way too high and their services have priced the average collector who could really benefit from such a service out of the market so they take chances on stuff and get burned. AND of course those auction LOA's which serve about as much purpose as toilet paper.

This tells anyone all they need to know about the alphabets. They are not really authentication companies; they are marketing tools. That is why they want fees correlating to the potential sale price of an auto. Some of their most expensive fees are for the easiest to authenticate, but what they really want is a percentage of the sale price that sellers are going for. Use them or not with this in mind.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

You guys misunderstood me.

100% you should scrutinize EVERY autograph, all the time and you CAN NOT over scrutinize.

I was just stating that on this forum, we dont simply pull out random autographs and get opinions. People ask about the ones with at least one small red flag which is what I meant by "questionable" (too bold, ball too white, too nice, etc.) So the assumption is always "Its Bad". Sometimes though (like the Hilton Smith autograph I went against the grain on a few weeks ago) they are fine. It is just hard to get someone willing to say "I think its fine" when the presumptive opinion in THESE CASES is that its bad even before the discussion begins.

I hope you understand me because I agree completely with what Scott and others have said, Question ALL signatures until you cant question them anymore and ONLY buy what you are comfortable with. I am only saying, that the reason that sometimes you hear crickets when help is asked is because you can absolutely tell when someone is really just asking for help and when people are fishing for an opinion when they already know the answer or are just looking for someone to take the bait and get a heated discussion going (usually on Ruth or Gehrig).

Just my opinion, but I 100% agree with you Scott, you just misunderstood me as I was ONLY talking about a few instances on this forum is all.

Rhys

Rhys, I got off on a tangent with my last response to you. I know that you aren't saying to let fakes slide - I just feel that fakes WILL get by if we don't continue to question autographs the way we do. I also completely agree with your statement about "fishing". Autographs are a messy business - no getting around it.