Fake Signed T206 Cards (Too Many to List in the Title, See First Post for List)

[hank_jp]

I recently won a T206 signed Larry Doyle batting, Lot 809 in Love of the Game Auctions. It was in a PSA/DNA Blue Label holder with an auto grade of Mint 9.
There was also an issue with another card, the Lake/Bender ghost image, authenticated by SGC, that a respected collector thought may be problematic
When the issue of fake T206 autographs started to blow up, Al Crisafulli of LOTG called me and said he was going to resubmit the card to PSA so they could look it over again in order to recertify it's authenticity, rather than just sending it out to me. He was also going to do the same thing with the SGC card.

Here is his email to me below about what transpired:

Hi Hank:

Hope all is well with you.

Just wanted to let you know the status of your items, as I heard back from PSA last night and SGC this morning.

1) PSA is not comfortable with the Doyle. The card was authenticated in 2013, as you know, and they had a different team of authenticators at that time. Their new team, Bill Corcoran and Kevin Keating, feel the signature is a forgery. As such, we are going to need to take that card out of the hobby. I will process a refund for your purchase price on that card right away.

2) On the other hand, SGC IS comfortable with the Lake/Bender. They reviewed it, they feel the same way about it that they did when they first assessed it, and so they’ve given it their blessing once again. They are returning it to me in a brand-new holder with their new flip, and I’ll send it your way ASAP with the rest of your order.

Thanks for being understanding about this. Obviously it’s very important to me that we do not contribute to fraud in this hobby in any way, and when something comes up like this, I think it’s critical to investigate it and get it right, every time.

Thanks, and Happy Holidays!

Regards,
-Al


Al Crisafulli
Love of the Game Auctions

[Peter_Spaeth]

Al is and always has been a stand up guy, IMO.

[gregr2]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Al is and always has been a stand up guy, IMO.

This is the proper handling of a bad situation. Also good to see PSA taking a new and obviously more critical look at these cards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregr2

This is the proper handling of a bad situation. Also good to see PSA taking a new and obviously more critical look at these cards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Greg agree on PSA, but what happens if they start decertifying a whole generation of autographed cards, it will cause utter chaos, no?

[gregr2]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Greg agree on PSA, but what happens if they start decertifying a whole generation of autographed cards, it will cause utter chaos, no?

But isn’t that chaos what is needed? I mean, they need to get it right. Wouldn’t the hobby rather go through a time of chaos but at the end have it correct? To me, that seems like the right way to take it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[deeg23]

Kudos to Al and PSA on that one 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregr2

But isn’t that chaos what is needed? I mean, they need to get it right. Wouldn’t the hobby rather go through a time of chaos but at the end have it correct? To me, that seems like the right way to take it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I suppose it's better than the alternative, but it will very ugly if it happens on a large scale.

[gregr2]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I suppose it's better than the alternative, but it will very ugly if it happens on a large scale.

Agree on that. To call into question every autograph authenticated over the last XX number of years could get very ugly and would be a detriment to the hobby. This is a situation I would enjoy sitting down and talking about for a few hours over drinks with a group of collectors. I would love to hear the various opinions of how to handle this and move forward. The past is the past, now how do we move beyond this and make the hobby better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kaneen]

Originally Posted by gregr2

This is the proper handling of a bad situation. Also good to see PSA taking a new and obviously more critical look at these cards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't know that I see this as such a magnanimous effort on the part of PSA...I mean, they did authenticate it to start with. And with this "house of cards" collapsing, doesn't it seem prudent on their part to get their slabs and flips off as many of these t206s as possible so they don't take the reputation hit that SGC and JSA are currently taking?

I once had an authenticator tell me about an item, "since I'm only rendering an opinion, I'm not saying this is not authentic...I'm just basically saying that I don't feel comfortable enough with it to put it in our holder."

In light of what has unfolded, I can see why PSA would be wise to now quickly become "uncomfortable" with it.

[oldjudge]

Hank-Do you think this means that one of the two autographs was good, or that, even with two chances, SGC can't tell a bad signature from a good one? Who authenticates autographs for SGC?

[daves_resale_shop]

Originally Posted by hank_jp

I recently won a T206 signed Larry Doyle batting, Lot 809 in Love of the Game Auctions. It was in a PSA/DNA Blue Label holder with an auto grade of Mint 9.
There was also an issue with another card, the Lake/Bender ghost image, authenticated by SGC, that a respected collector thought may be problematic
When the issue of fake T206 autographs started to blow up, Al Crisafulli of LOTG called me and said he was going to resubmit the card to PSA so they could look it over again in order to recertify it's authenticity, rather than just sending it out to me. He was also going to do the same thing with the SGC card.

Here is his email to me below about what transpired:

Hi Hank:

Hope all is well with you.

Just wanted to let you know the status of your items, as I heard back from PSA last night and SGC this morning.

1) PSA is not comfortable with the Doyle. The card was authenticated in 2013, as you know, and they had a different team of authenticators at that time. Their new team, Bill Corcoran and Kevin Keating, feel the signature is a forgery. As such, we are going to need to take that card out of the hobby. I will process a refund for your purchase price on that card right away.

2) On the other hand, SGC IS comfortable with the Lake/Bender. They reviewed it, they feel the same way about it that they did when they first assessed it, and so they’ve given it their blessing once again. They are returning it to me in a brand-new holder with their new flip, and I’ll send it your way ASAP with the rest of your order.

Thanks for being understanding about this. Obviously it’s very important to me that we do not contribute to fraud in this hobby in any way, and when something comes up like this, I think it’s critical to investigate it and get it right, every time.

Thanks, and Happy Holidays!

Regards,
-Al


Al Crisafulli
Love of the Game Auctions

Class act.

[RedsFan1941]

it's good to read that lotg once again acted responsibly in response to selling a bad card. last week we read that rea was preemptively issuing refunds. has anyone had experience with hunt and clean sweep as far as being made whole?

[irv]

Originally Posted by whitey19thcentury

I brought this up several days ago on this thread. I have bought and sold thousands of vintage signed cards over the past decade and have never seen such a big quantity of signed 1952 Topps as is out there now.

Because I mainly collect 52 Topps cards, although not signed ones, I have also noticed this lately. Someone on here said, it could be older collectors now selling off their old collections, which could very well be, but it seems odd to me that multiple old collectors would choose to do so at the same time?
I recently saved a random recently signed 52 Topps card just to see if I could find it unsigned somewhere prior but when I went into Worthpoint, there were 23 pgs of this players card so I went no further as I viewed it as a daunting task and without having any dog in the fight myself, a huge time killer.

I have also wondered, since joining this site, even if a signed card was purchased 20, 30, 40 years ago, how does one know, without provenance, if that signature is real? I have also always wondered, if the player had passed on prior to those years, what do TPAs use as their basis for comparison?

In my opinion, if the TPA's don't have/own something that acts as a certified template with undeniable provenance, then how can they 100% guarantee the sig is legit?
I think the only way of going forward from now on, and only if the test can be 100% guaranteed, carbon dating or something similar will now have to be used in order to bring some trust back into the hobby? Just my thoughts anyway.

EDIT: To add further to my thoughts above. Being as thousands and thousands of players have played, say, in just over the last century in all kinds of sports such as baseball, hockey, football and basketball, to name just 4, and you're out at a flea market, for example, and you come across a common, unheard of, forgotten about player's signed card. You purchase said signed card and you send it in to be authenticated. Please tell me what TPAs would use to authenticate the sig is 100% legit? Thinking further, even if we had carbon dating and it was proved the ink was of at least as old as the card, who's to say the sig wasn't signed back then by some kid or adult that was just goofing around playing with their card?

Originally Posted by gregr2

But isn’t that chaos what is needed? I mean, they need to get it right. Wouldn’t the hobby rather go through a time of chaos but at the end have it correct? To me, that seems like the right way to take it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree 100%! Without pain there can be no gain, and if this situation isn't torn down to the very bottom, then there will always be doubt within the hobby and that side of the hobby, imo, will be forever scarred.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by irv

I have also wondered, since joining this site, even if a signed card was purchased 20, 30, 40 years ago, how does one know, without provenance, if that signature is real?

The reality is you can't KNOW that a signature is real unless you see it signed in person. Even if your best friend gives you a signed item, you still can't KNOW, as in absolutely certain. You believe the person is being honest as they are your friend, but you can't know it.

Originally Posted by irv

I have also always wondered, if the player had passed on prior to those years, what do TPAs use as their basis for comparison?

There are many items people use as exemplars based upon the preponderance of evidence. If it's good enough for our court system that can sentence people to life imprisonment or even possibly death, then it should be good enough for vetting autographs.

Originally Posted by irv

In my opinion, if the TPA's don't have/own something that acts as a certified template with undeniable provenance, then how can they 100% guarantee the sig is legit?

TPAs CAN NOT and DO NOT GUARANTEE ANYTHING except for witnessed events. The certification process is about them giving an opinion. That's it. They are no different than anyone on this board. We can all give our opinions based upon each of our own experience and knowledge. The only difference really is that the TPAs have convinced people that their opinion is worth paying for. People pay for them and then sleep better at night.

Originally Posted by irv

I think the only way of going forward from now on, and only if the test can be 100% guaranteed, carbon dating or something similar will now have to be used in order to bring some trust back into the hobby? Just my thoughts anyway.

As I posted earlier, if you are only comfortable with 100% certainty, you should not collect ANYTHING. There is fraud in every single collectible market.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

The reality is you can't KNOW that a signature is real unless you see it signed in person. Even if your best friend gives you a signed item, you still can't KNOW, as in absolutely certain. You believe the person is being honest as they are your friend, but you can't know it.


There are many items people use as exemplars based upon the preponderance of evidence. If it's good enough for our court system that can sentence people to life imprisonment or even possibly death, then it should be good enough for vetting autographs.



TPAs CAN NOT and DO NOT GUARANTEE ANYTHING except for witnessed events. The certification process is about them giving an opinion. That's it. They are no different than anyone on this board. We can all give our opinions based upon each of our own experience and knowledge. The only difference really is that the TPAs have convinced people that their opinion is worth paying for. People pay for them and then sleep better at night.


As I posted earlier, if you are only comfortable with 100% certainty, you should not collect ANYTHING. There is fraud in every single collectible market.

I added this above, Mark.

"EDIT: To add further to my thoughts above. Being as thousands and thousands of players have played, say, in just over the last century in all kinds of sports such as baseball, hockey, football and basketball, to name just 4, and you're out at a flea market, for example, and you come across a common, unheard of, forgotten about player's signed card. You purchase said signed card and you send it in to be authenticated. Please tell me what TPAs would use to authenticate the sig is 100% legit? Thinking further, even if we had carbon dating and it was proved the ink was of at least as old as the card, who's to say the sig wasn't signed back then by some kid or adult that was just goofing around playing with their card?"

I understand what you are saying but I honestly didn't realize there was so much blind faith/hope in the hobby, especially when large amounts of money are being laid down for said cards.

But like me and my sole purchase of a signed 52 Topps card, seeing it in a certified slab was enough for me.

This whole thread/situation has definitely been an eye opener for me even though I don't collect signed cards.

Like I have said numerous times since I joined this site back in 2016, I had no idea, gave it no thought whatsoever, that fraud would be so prevalent in this hobby or that it even existed.
Oh, how I have quickly learned!

[The Nasty Nati]

Oh the irony of this SGC article.

[Hankphenom]

When I used to set up at shows with (my friend) Kevin Keating, the well-known TPAs would frequently bring items over to solicit his opinion of them, and conversely on occasion he would want to know what they thought about pieces. If memory serves correctly, when the autograph side of PSA was first organized 20 years ago, it was a team effort whereby a number of their authenticators would "vote" on submissions to determine whether they got a pass or not. The fact that different authenticators might have different opinions about some autographs shouldn't be surprising to anyone. And it seems to me the fact that the current team at PSA would have the honesty and institutional freedom to reverse a prior authentication of their company should be applauded. What more could you ask of them? As for such divergent opnions on resubmitted items calling into question all opinions rendered by the prior authenticators, anyone is free to resubmit items they think might get a different opinion today.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by irv

I understand what you are saying but I honestly didn't realize there was so much blind faith/hope in the hobby, especially when large amounts of money are being laid down for said cards.

To me this is the biggest reason stuff like this can happen. People abdicated the responsibility for doing their own research and the healthy skepticism needed when vetting any item just because a Third Party Authenticator gave their stamp of approval. As people learned, this goes the same for cards as well as autos.

What having a TPA did was make cards and autos commodities that required no expertise to buy and sell. In the old days, G-VG-Ex-ExMt-Mt could mean widely different things to people. Having a TPA was supposed to make all cards graded a 5 be in roughly the same condition. The likelihood is that card commerce on the internet has been greatly helped by the fact that people don't feel the need to inspect cards as closely before sale when they are slabbed as X grade. We know this does not always work and that is why so many people keep repeating the saying "buy the card, not the holder."

IMO, If all anyone ever looks at, is the slab or cert, it increases the likelihood they can be fooled based on that slab or cert. If you use the TPA opinion as one of MULTIPLE pieces of evidence, this would then have the possibility of increasing your safety margin. More data = opportunity to make a better decision. Now, we still might make an incorrect evaluation, but having more data points allows for higher probability of getting it right.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

In the old days, G-VG-Ex-ExMt-Mt could mean widely different things to people. Having a TPA was supposed to make all cards graded a 5 be in roughly the same condition. The likelihood is that card commerce on the internet has been greatly helped by the fact that people don't feel the need to inspect cards as closely before sale when they are slabbed as X grade. We know this does not always work and that is why so many people keep repeating the saying "buy the card, not the holder."

There was also a time when "tweener" grades like VG-EX, EX-MT, etc. were understood for what they truly were - proper ranges of condition meant to imply that different collectors can have different opinions. It was meant to be a helpful approximation. The result of what happened with the advent of TPG's was that those ranges in the 1980's and even early 90's are now supposedly (straight face here...) pinpoint accurate grades, and at least to some collectors this is taken to be deadly serious. You can even get half-grades "PSA 4.5 VG-EX+". What? That would probably be nonsensical to a 1980's collector if you went back in time. Shouldn't a VG-EX+ card be...um, simply "EX" if it was already on the border of that grade? I understand, I mean I get it should follow logically that what we have done over the last few decades is to make the scale more precise - but the problem with this in hobbies like coins and cards is that the more precision you try to squeeze into the scale, the more you run afoul of what different people think matters or does not matter for eye appeal - hence the controversy you see all the time on sites like this or on other social media sites today (Why didn't this card get an 8!? It's only a 7.5! I got cheated!!!) The move toward more precision streches the line that is already taught between aspects of technical grading that most people can agree with (i.e. any card with a true crease being "VG" or lower) vs. some of the more subtle aspects of eye appeal which can truly be subjective. PSA grading standards for a 5 EX say that "very minor rounding of the corners is becoming evident." Though most who collect graded cards today might actually be somewhat close to being on the same page as to what constitutes "5 corners" - tell me how that statement from PSA is ANYTHING but subjective - still today?

I will agree regretably that it seems like far too many collectors today do trust TPG's like PSA almost as the word of God. It's only when something really obvious like this comes out which is immediately controversial that some actually stop and think about the nature of a grade being an "opinion" and nothing beyond that.

I will also agree that for me personally, reputable TPG's are useful services for buying cards online / that I cannot physically inspect in my hands as if I were in a shop or at a show first. But beyond that - say what you will about collecting a few decades back. Even as kids - we were taught how to grade, what the subtle differences in condition were - why X card was NM and Y card was only EX...etc. etc. Now who today is really more of an expert - the graders at PSA who we cannot seem to get any information on in terms of their qualifications? Or hobbyists who have collected for decades on end and in some cases have literally had their hands on hundreds of thousands of cards?

I digress a bit as I don't collect autos and I'm sure there is another whole realm of TPA controversy over the evolution of the practice there...

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

IMO, If all anyone ever looks at, is the slab or cert, it increases the likelihood they can be fooled based on that slab or cert. If you use the TPA opinion as one of MULTIPLE pieces of evidence, this would then have the possibility of increasing your safety margin. More data = opportunity to make a better decision. Now, we still might make an incorrect evaluation, but having more data points allows for higher probability of getting it right.

+ 1

TPAs are useful independent opinions (It's wrong to say they're useless), but they are only one piece in the puzzle. Sellers and collectors should be using them as second opinions, not as the only opinions.

I think most people on Net54 know and do this, but clearly not everyone in and all segments of the hobby do.

[The Nasty Nati]

Originally Posted by hank_jp

I recently won a T206 signed Larry Doyle batting, Lot 809 in Love of the Game Auctions. It was in a PSA/DNA Blue Label holder with an auto grade of Mint 9.
There was also an issue with another card, the Lake/Bender ghost image, authenticated by SGC, that a respected collector thought may be problematic
When the issue of fake T206 autographs started to blow up, Al Crisafulli of LOTG called me and said he was going to resubmit the card to PSA so they could look it over again in order to recertify it's authenticity, rather than just sending it out to me. He was also going to do the same thing with the SGC card.

Here is his email to me below about what transpired:

Hi Hank:

Hope all is well with you.

Just wanted to let you know the status of your items, as I heard back from PSA last night and SGC this morning.

1) PSA is not comfortable with the Doyle. The card was authenticated in 2013, as you know, and they had a different team of authenticators at that time. Their new team, Bill Corcoran and Kevin Keating, feel the signature is a forgery. As such, we are going to need to take that card out of the hobby. I will process a refund for your purchase price on that card right away.

2) On the other hand, SGC IS comfortable with the Lake/Bender. They reviewed it, they feel the same way about it that they did when they first assessed it, and so they’ve given it their blessing once again. They are returning it to me in a brand-new holder with their new flip, and I’ll send it your way ASAP with the rest of your order.

Thanks for being understanding about this. Obviously it’s very important to me that we do not contribute to fraud in this hobby in any way, and when something comes up like this, I think it’s critical to investigate it and get it right, every time.

Thanks, and Happy Holidays!

Regards,
-Al


Al Crisafulli
Love of the Game Auctions

So is PSA basically saying that their authentication team was rubbish around 2013?

What does that say for all the other autos PSA authenticated at that time? Like Goudeys, Play Balls, '52 Topps, etc? That's a little unsettling that PSA admits that.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

That's a little unsettling that PSA admits that.

When you think about it, no matter what they said would have been unsettling. If they had stood by it despite proof that it's fake (which would not be unprecedented a la Gretzky Wagner), if they admitted they blew it (then how many others did they blow?), or, the easiest route which they seem to taken.... blame it on guys that are no longer there and spin it as "we are continually working to make our team stronger."

[jad22]

Originally Posted by conor912

When you think about it, no matter what they said would have been unsettling. If they had stood by it despite proof that it's fake (which would not be unprecedented a la Gretzky Wagner), if they admitted they blew it (then how many others did they blow?), or, the easiest route which they seem to taken.... blame it on guys that are no longer there and spin it as "we are continually working to make our team stronger."

Aren’t the 2013 guys competition for them now?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by The Nasty Nati

That's a little unsettling that PSA admits that.

I see this a little differently. The reality is that any authenticator can only give their opinion of the item at the time they have it. They gave their opinion based upon what they see now. They are allowed to disagree with previous employees, current employees, or even change their mind. This is what an opinion is. Nothing more nothing less. The people in 2013 gave their opinion. The people now gave theirs. We should be glad that the people doing it now are giving us their honest opinion and not just restating what the previous employees did.

[LOUCARDFAN]

I am curious how the consignor of the Doyle will be compensated in a situation like this.

Originally Posted by hank_jp

I recently won a T206 signed Larry Doyle batting, Lot 809 in Love of the Game Auctions. It was in a PSA/DNA Blue Label holder with an auto grade of Mint 9.
There was also an issue with another card, the Lake/Bender ghost image, authenticated by SGC, that a respected collector thought may be problematic
When the issue of fake T206 autographs started to blow up, Al Crisafulli of LOTG called me and said he was going to resubmit the card to PSA so they could look it over again in order to recertify it's authenticity, rather than just sending it out to me. He was also going to do the same thing with the SGC card.

Here is his email to me below about what transpired:

Hi Hank:

Hope all is well with you.

Just wanted to let you know the status of your items, as I heard back from PSA last night and SGC this morning.

1) PSA is not comfortable with the Doyle. The card was authenticated in 2013, as you know, and they had a different team of authenticators at that time. Their new team, Bill Corcoran and Kevin Keating, feel the signature is a forgery. As such, we are going to need to take that card out of the hobby. I will process a refund for your purchase price on that card right away.

2) On the other hand, SGC IS comfortable with the Lake/Bender. They reviewed it, they feel the same way about it that they did when they first assessed it, and so they’ve given it their blessing once again. They are returning it to me in a brand-new holder with their new flip, and I’ll send it your way ASAP with the rest of your order.

Thanks for being understanding about this. Obviously it’s very important to me that we do not contribute to fraud in this hobby in any way, and when something comes up like this, I think it’s critical to investigate it and get it right, every time.

Thanks, and Happy Holidays!

Regards,
-Al


Al Crisafulli
Love of the Game Auctions