Autograph opinions

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

The final thought is that there is NO WAY to KNOW an autograph is real unless you see it signed yourself.

I've seen this line repeated many times here and elsewhere. While this may be technically true, it is a bit deceptive.

You can often ascertain authenticity with an extremely high level of accuracy on items that were not signed in front of you.

Examples include signatures on official documents, signed items with lengthy inscriptions or dedications, etc., etc. I could go on, but looking at the whole picture, a knowledgeable collector can often arrive at an assessment that is highly accurate.

Of course, part of the "whole picture" is a realistic assessment of the risk level of the autograph. For a Babe Ruth item, virtually any type of deception is possible and highly skilled forgers have been pecking away for generations. For items of significant lower value, highly skilled fakes and elaborate deceptions becomes far less likely.

[Duluth Eskimo]

It doesn't really matter to me who has the item, more what the item looks like. I said it looked sloppy and that I wanted to check further. I am not buying the item, he is. I only buy items I feel comfortable with. Knowing that someone I am familiar with on the board is selling it makes me more comfortable with the fact that if I get the item and examine it closer and don't like it they would refund my money. If other people like it and are better with Mantle and Maris than me, that's great. Bottom line is that I buy based on my opinion and experience rather than expecting everyone to agree on everything that is out there.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Duluth Eskimo

It doesn't really matter to me who has the item, more what the item looks like. I said it looked sloppy and that I wanted to check further. I am not buying the item, he is. I only buy items I feel comfortable with. Knowing that someone I am familiar with on the board is selling it makes me more comfortable with the fact that if I get the item and examine it closer and don't like it they would refund my money. If other people like it and are better with Mantle and Maris than me, that's great. Bottom line is that I buy based on my opinion and experience rather than expecting everyone to agree on everything that is out there.

Jason,
My comment wasn't to try and convince you that the photo is authentic. I was merely providing background on it's history, which is part of any assessment of autographed items. You have your opinion and I respect that.
Mark

[btcarfagno]

Those signed Giants snapshots are tremendous.

Tom C

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Those signed Giants snapshots are tremendous.

Tom C

Thanks Tom.

[Duluth Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Jason,
My comment wasn't to try and convince you that the photo is authentic. I was merely providing background on it's history, which is part of any assessment of autographed items. You have your opinion and I respect that.
Mark

I get it. I was commenting more on the fact that I got a request to help with an opinion and I gave it. Then I see there is a thread about disagreement over the item. Then I see two more individual threads about both autographs. It's no big deal.

I would disagree that everyone agrees on "easy" ones as PSA rejects many authentic autographs and many of those I would consider fairly easy. Not to bring another sore subject in, just giving an example.

Bottom line is its not my item and I have not been offered it so I will just watch my own bobber until it involves my money. Hope everyone had a great 4th. Jason

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

I've seen this line repeated many times here and elsewhere. While this may be technically true, it is a bit deceptive.

You can often ascertain authenticity with an extremely high level of accuracy on items that were not signed in front of you.

Examples include signatures on official documents, signed items with lengthy inscriptions or dedications, etc., etc. I could go on, but looking at the whole picture, a knowledgeable collector can often arrive at an assessment that is highly accurate.

Of course, part of the "whole picture" is a realistic assessment of the risk level of the autograph. For a Babe Ruth item, virtually any type of deception is possible and highly skilled forgers have been pecking away for generations. For items of significant lower value, highly skilled fakes and elaborate deceptions becomes far less likely.

Steve,
I agree 100% with everything you say here. My quote is aimed at people who need that black and white answer. As you stated, you can get close to absolutely certain about an autograph's authenticity based upon the preponderance of evidence, including provenance, medium, letter formation,historical context, etc, but even legal documents can be forged, notaries can be bribed, etc. Because of this, the statement is true, but isn't really the end all be all in the world of autographs.
Mark

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

I've seen this line repeated many times here and elsewhere. While this may be technically true, it is a bit deceptive.

You can often ascertain authenticity with an extremely high level of accuracy on items that were not signed in front of you.

Examples include signatures on official documents, signed items with lengthy inscriptions or dedications, etc., etc. I could go on, but looking at the whole picture, a knowledgeable collector can often arrive at an assessment that is highly accurate.

Of course, part of the "whole picture" is a realistic assessment of the risk level of the autograph. For a Babe Ruth item, virtually any type of deception is possible and highly skilled forgers have been pecking away for generations. For items of significant lower value, highly skilled fakes and elaborate deceptions becomes far less likely.

+1