I was thinking. and its baffling.

[HRBAKER]

I am not in disagreement with anything Rob wrote, the fact of the matter is it is a "best guess' based on the information/exemplars/etc. that they have at that time. Furthermore calling something a Letter of Authenticity if that is indeed what it is called seems to be a misnomer as well. It is actually a "Today, we think it looks good" letter. It is just part of the leap of faith you take with autograph collecting.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

It is just part of the leap of faith you take with autograph collecting.

I just want to try another approach here. I don't think it's a leap of faith, per se, if there is a market for PSA/DNA authenticated autographs.

Put another way -- if 10 people would buy a PSA/DNA autographed Babe Ruth baseball for $1,000, but only 5 people would buy a PSA authenticated Babe Ruth card for $500, then the market for the ball is better and you are more likely -- at least in the short term -- to be able to recover your investment.

That is really how I look at autograph collecting. I am not overly concerned with genuine authentic certainty to 100%. In the end, my opinion of whether a signature is authentic is totally meaningless anyway at the time it comes to part with the item (remember, we're not taking any of this memorabilia with us). As long as there remains a market for what I collect, and I can recoup my investment when its time to sell, then I am quite comfortable collecting autographed items -- signed pre-war cards in particular. PSA/DNA or JSA/BVG basically provide sufficient consumer confidence at this time to make autograph collecting a sustainable pursuit.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by T206Collector

I just want to try another approach here. I don't think it's a leap of faith, per se, if there is a market for PSA/DNA authenticated autographs.

Put another way -- if 10 people would buy a PSA/DNA autographed Babe Ruth baseball for $1,000, but only 5 people would buy a PSA authenticated Babe Ruth card for $500, then the market for the ball is better and you are more likely -- at least in the short term -- to be able to recover your investment.

That is really how I look at autograph collecting. I am not overly concerned with genuine authentic certainty to 100%. In the end, my opinion of whether a signature is authentic is totally meaningless anyway at the time it comes to part with the item (remember, we're not taking any of this memorabilia with us). As long as there remains a market for what I collect, and I can recoup my investment when its time to sell, then I am quite comfortable collecting autographed items -- signed pre-war cards in particular. PSA/DNA or JSA/BVG basically provide sufficient consumer confidence at this time to make autograph collecting a sustainable pursuit.

Are you saying that you really are not concerned if it is real as long as you can get your money back out of it? To follow that line of logic wouldn't one of the major benefits of third party autograph authentication be to make it easier to pass along an auto, real or not? If you did not see it signed but you buy it because based on x, y or z you believe it to be real or at least be sellable/liquid then to me that is a leap of faith. To each his own though.
BTW, I have thousands and thousands of autographs (10,000+) and I have seen only a small portion of them signed personally so I am not coming at this from an uninterested perspective. Autograph authentication seems to be to be a business where you can claim or be regarded as an "expert" but you are really required to have no skin in the game, IOW you are not guaranteeing your expert opinion to be anything other than that, an opinion. Jeff

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

If you did not see it signed but you buy it because based on x, y or z you believe it to be real or at least be sellable/liquid then to me that is a leap of faith.

I think you're saying it is a leap of faith as to whether the autograph is really an actual autograph -- and with that I agree. I am saying as long as you can get your money back then there really is no risk in taking that leap -- there is a huge safety net protecting you in case your leap makes you fall. And really, the only "fall' would be if the credibility of the opinion took a huge hit in the market. Which is why, as I said above, expensive items ought to be protected by more than one market-accepted opinion.