PSA autograph authentication

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

If pulling random numbers out of thin air were an Olympic sport I would be proud to know that I have posted in the company of Gold Medalists.

Mic drop! Who came up with 30%, or 50%--Ryan, I love you, but c'mon, man--and how? Where's the evidence, I want to see it. A story or two doesn't mean sh*t. These guys are the pros from Dover, they've seen and have as exemplars a gazillion good sigs from contracts, checks, letters, etc., and they've also seen a lot of bad ones, too. They all know the great forgers by name, and their distinguishing characteristics. It's what they do all day long, item after item, piece after piece. Don't you think you'd be pretty good at this, too, after a few years of doing it? I'm guessing you could practice on ONE signature for a year, submit it, and it wouldn't stand a chance of getting by them. And no matter what the error rate--probably more on the order of 1% or less, considering the enormous volume they handle--you want to go back to the wild west days pre-authentication? I think you card guys are suffering from PTSD after discovering that most of your cards have been f**ked with one way or another, and are quick to inpute that to the autograph side. Apples and oranges.

[swarmee]

Read a few of the raiderguy10 submission threads over the past 10 years. That's a good way to get approximations, and ground truth from the people that submitted.

Speaking of the card side, I just reported about 20 of the 100 1954 Topps "Gray" Backs in their APR based on them not being gray backs based on photographic imagery (~15) and another 5 just because they sold so low at auction they had to be white backs. But you're right, incompetence on their card side does trickle over to my feelings on the auto side.

And no question that a counterfeit signature with the PSA/DNA stamp of approval is worth more than a real sig. That doesn't mean we should let them off the hook for getting it wrong.