Opinions on Value/Authenticity

[shelly]

Originally Posted by MooseDog

Nice piece, absolutely authentic.

Do you still think it is absolutely authentic.

[parker1b2]

Not to go off topic here, but I want to again thank everyone on this board as I am learning a ton, and getting better at spotting fakes. When I first saw this posting the Grove stuck out to me as looking off, but I didn't post anything. I have been collecting for about 25 years now since I was 11 years old, but until about the last 5 years most of my autos came from signings at shows. Since joining the boards I have really taken my collecting to another level for myself, as really getting into more vintage stuff ( I'm addicted now). So just wanted to say thanks, sorry for going off the topic.

[GrayGhost]

I'm not an expert by far, but several signatures on that sheet look off to me, esp the Grove. I also don't care for the C in Joe Cronin or some of the Jimmie Foxx.

[Runscott]

I only examined 6-7 of them before posting initially, and because all were bad, I didn't look at the rest.

My initial post in this thread was intended to get Jeff to go through the same exercise I did.

[MooseDog]

Originally Posted by shelly

Do you still think it is absolutely authentic.

In light of other learned opinions, I suppose not, but I'm not going to get into arguments about it.

It would appear I could have been wrong with my initial assessment.

[jbsports33]

Well, I guess there was some confusion to what I said and there seems to be no trust in the COA companies on this board or at least some of the members from this post. Sorry if my statement was mis-leading and I thought the COA companies had some credit in the Autograph hobby. I will be honest, I am mostly a card guy and always have been, but over the years have had my experiences with autographs. Something needs to change in the autograph business if there are things going on that I am learning from this post – sorry I came off strong at times, but the fact is sometimes it can be hard to say anything on this board. I guess you learn from participating as Leon said in his post, I think next time – my responses will not be as long and confusing. I fully understand the comments Mark mentioned and it was not my intention to say to everyone – they need to blow their money on a COA

Jimmy

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jbsports33

Well, I guess there was some confusion to what I said and there seems to be no trust in the COA companies on this board or at least some of the members from this post. Sorry if my statement was mis-leading and I thought the COA companies had some credit in the Autograph hobby. I will be honest, I am mostly a card guy and always have been, but over the years have had my experiences with autographs. Something needs to change in the autograph business if there are things going on that I am learning from this post – sorry I came off strong at times, but the fact is sometimes it can be hard to say anything on this board. I guess you learn from participating as Leon said in his post, I think next time – my responses will not be as long and confusing. I fully understand the comments Mark mentioned and it was not my intention to say to everyone – they need to blow their money on a COA

Jimmy

Jimmy, I don't think you come off too strong, or that you need to worry about responding. If you think it's "hard to say anything on this board" and don't feel like putting out the effort, that's up to you, but the only thing difficult that you have to worry about is analyzing your audience prior to speaking. If you don't feel like doing that, then just realize that you might get some strong disagreement if you are in the minority, but that, like the rest of us, it's the internet and unless things devolve into a battle of name-calling, most of us will forget it.

I also think that there was Zero confusion about what you said. You simply stated things that astounded some of us.

And finally, your black-or-white statement that there "there seems to be no trust in the COA companies on this board or at least some of the members from this post" is a distortion of what we have said. A truer statement would be that YOU seem to place complete trust in the COA companies to do your thinking for you. To sum up succinctly: sending this garbage to a TPA would be a waste of time and money. Going to the TPA's before you go here is your option. Going to the TPA's after reading this thread would be just plain stupid - yes, they might put a COA on it (but I doubt it), but it WILL NOT MAKE IT REAL.

Talk with you soon, I'm sure.

[Runscott]

...and not having trust in the TPA's is a lot different from thinking they have no place in the hobby. Most of us just want to see improvements. Until they are willing to spend more time studying autographs and doing the research that some of us do, we are going to have to rely on forums like this. If you don't think that is wise, then spin the roulette wheel.

In addition, some of the people who come here asking authenticity questions are doing it for items that already have TPA approval - they want a real autograph, not a pretty certificate. The people who buy more expensive vintage autographs from me almost never ask about COA's. I frequently find COA's from JSA or PSA lying around months after I sold an autograph (yes, I save them), then email the customer and ask if they want it.

That should tell you something.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by MooseDog

In light of other learned opinions, I suppose not, but I'm not going to get into arguments about it.

It would appear I could have been wrong with my initial assessment.

My apologies for responding so strongly. These items exist for a reason and a lot of very intelligent collectors have owned some of them.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by MooseDog

In light of other learned opinions, I suppose not, but I'm not going to get into arguments about it.

It would appear I could have been wrong with my initial assessment.

It takes a strong person to admit they where mistaken

[nolemmings]

I'm not an autograph guy and have no problems with the opinions expressed in this thread, but was still wondering a couple of things.

1. Is it the consensus that all of these signatures are bogus? I too saw the similarity of several signatures--Mellilo and Higgins, the F's in Foxx and Fritz, most of the capital "J's" etc, but wondered if any of them are legit.

2. Suppose some are legit on a piece like this, and that even if some were ghost signed it was not done for any real malevolent purpose (like Pinky saying "hey Oscar sign for me too, I'm eating"). Does the presence of some or even mostly all bad sigs torpedo the value of the entire item? Would it be better from a value statement to just salvage and cut out the good signatures?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

1. Is it the consensus that all of these signatures are bogus? I too saw the similarity of several signatures--Mellilo and Higgins, the F's in Foxx and Fritz, most of the capital "J's" etc, but wondered if any of them are legit.

Yes.

Originally Posted by nolemmings

2. Suppose some are legit on a piece like this, and that even if some were ghost signed it was not done for any real malevolent purpose (like Pinky saying "hey Oscar sign for me too, I'm eating"). Does the presence of some or even mostly all bad sigs torpedo the value of the entire item? Would it be better from a value statement to just salvage and cut out the good signatures?

I think it depends on several variables....
1) how many are real vs not. - The more that are real the more valuable as a group.

2) is the item in question historically significant to the signers(like a program from a game they all played or a testimonial program) - The more significant the item, the more valuable as a group.

3) perhaps most importantly which are real and which aren't. If the only real ones are the lesser guys, it's possible the separated cuts would be worth more. If most of the big names were real, I think leaving it together might be better.

[Runscott]

I looked at 6 or 7 and they were all bad. I then looked at similarities in writing and it confirmed to me that the piece was bad, and that it was probably that all signatures were bad (6-7 bad ones on a piece like this is not normal secretarial work).

There were a couple I looked at that I could not find a similar exemplar, but they did have similarities to real ones, so I didn't rule out that the signature was an anomaly;e.g-Bing Miller. In general, it didn't look like the forger spent that much time trying to make any of them close to a real signature - he seemed more concerned with getting the right overall look to the piece;e.g-signature placement, some light-some dark,some large-some small, pinholes, lots of folds.

When I was a kid we used to create forged sheets like this, using Topps baseball card signatures. It was kind of fun. It could be that this was created way back when, for fun - not malicious.

[nolemmings]

Thanks. Probably better that I just stay away from this stuff, but I appreciate the education.