Chris Morales appears in court for an autograph case, read about the results.

[Big Dave]

For all the complaints against Mr. Morales, there really isn't anything that can be done legally. After all is said and done, he is only offering his opinion on items, right or wrong, which is the same as all authenticators do. When nobody does business with him anymore, then that is when he will close up shop.

Take Donald Frangipani in comparison. His COAs were on so many of the items sold and confiscated in regard to Operation Bullpen, yet he is still in business and did not get into any trouble in regard to Operation Bullpen. The reason being, he was only stating his opinion, which we all have, and which is still, not against the law.

Pretty much is the same in regard to Coach's Corner. They are auctioning items that people send in, and these items are being sold based on opinions as to the authenticity, the same as all auction houses do.

CC has been in the auction business since 1996 - 15 years - and will probably be around a lot longer.

Being as Mr. Morales or Coach's Corner don't actually create these questionable items, there really isn't anything legally that can be done. Now if it were to be a fact that they did create these items, then that would be a different story.

Everything is based on opinions and money. The bidders know who the authenticators are on pretty much everything, and there is a wealth of information on the Internet for them to make a judgment in regard to purchasing from CC.

It is what you believe, or want to believe, that makes an item real.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

It is what you believe, or want to believe, that makes an item real.

Uhhh... No.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

For all the complaints against Mr. Morales, there really isn't anything that can be done legally. After all is said and done, he is only offering his opinion on items, right or wrong, which is the same as all authenticators do.

I don't believe this is accurate. It wouldn't take much of an investigation or a very clever prosecutor to link him as a key component of a criminal conspiracy.

"It's my opinion" may be a valid defense for errors that fall within an acceptable margin of error. When you are wrong almost all the time, and there is a criminal pattern to your "errors," this defense will not hold up.

Take Donald Frangipani in comparison. His COAs were on so many of the items sold and confiscated in regard to Operation Bullpen, yet he is still in business and did not get into any trouble in regard to Operation Bullpen. The reason being, he was only stating his opinion, which we all have, and which is still, not against the law.

Actually, the only reason Frangipani wiggled off the hook is that he played dumb and claimed that someone forged his COAs. The irony!

Unlike other players in the Marino crime syndicate, Frangipani was smart enough to not say anything incriminating when he was being recorded. But he was definitely a person of interest to the FBI.

I believe this is a reason why these "Forensic Document Examiners" do not include photographs of the item on their COAs. It preserves the defense that an item could have been swapped out or some other variation of "That's not the item I examined!"

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

I don't believe this is accurate. It wouldn't take much of an investigation or a very clever prosecutor to link him as a key component of a criminal conspiracy.

"It's my opinion" may be a valid defense for errors that fall within an acceptable margin of error. When you are wrong almost all the time, and there is a criminal pattern to your "errors," this defense will not hold up.



Actually, the only reason Frangipani wiggled off the hook is that he played dumb and claimed that someone forged his COAs. The irony!

Unlike other players in the Marino crime syndicate, Frangipani was smart enough to not say anything incriminating when he was being recorded. But he was definitely a person of interest to the FBI.

I believe this is a reason why these "Forensic Document Examiners" do not include photographs of the item on their COAs. It preserves the defense that an item could have been swapped out or some other variation of "That's not the item I examined!"

Frangipani made himself look real bad during that HBO show. Then he had the nerve to sue a bunch of people.

Look at the newest Morales COA. It doesn't even include the name of the signer or a description of the item.

The only reason that Morales might get it right once-in-awhile is because he gets lucky. I'd love to see proof that he physically examines anything.

[mdschulze]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

The only reason that Morales might get it right once-in-awhile is because he gets lucky. I'd love to see proof that he physically examines anything.

There's a photo of him on his website looking through a microscope... what more proof could anyone ask for?

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by mdschulze

There's a photo of him on his website looking through a microscope... what more proof could anyone ask for?

Drew Max (AAU) has a magnifying glass with the biggest lens this side of the Hubble telescope.

He MUST be good!!

[thetruthisoutthere]

Hey, Morales, did you actually physically examine the below autographs of Paul and Lloyd Waner? Did you happen to look at the "R" on both signatures? Both sigs were penned by the same person, Morales.

http://www.myccsa.com/Lot.aspx?LotID=275389

WanerBrothers.jpg

[perezfan]

That Waner Bros. piece is something else. I was actually conflicted over whether to laugh or cry when I saw it posted.

Hard to believe even the forger would actually be content with that one.