Authenticity question

[drc]

In recent years, I watched the late night HSN sports autographs show starring Kenny Goldin, former President of SB. The autographs were all way overpriced but appeared genuine. So I have no doubt the HSN could be a source for genuine autographs.

[thetruthisoutthere]

We should also note that approximately $750,000 in forgeries were sold by the home shopping shows back in the 1990's.

Rey-2.jpg

Rey-3.jpg

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by drc

In recent years, I watched the late night HSN sports autographs show starring Kenny Goldin, former President of SB. The autographs were all way overpriced but appeared genuine. So I have no doubt the HSN could be a source for genuine autographs.

Correct. There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding Scoreboard. In the late 80s - mid 90s, Scoreboard was the Steiner of its day. I bought several items with ScoreBoard certs through a shopping show and they are as good as gold.

In later years after Paul Goldin (the father died), Ken Goldin (the son) took over and the business started to struggle. They got into a bad deal with DiMaggio for a relatively high fee. After completing his Scoreboard obligations, DiMaggio really screwed them over by then signing a ton of balls at a lesser price for other dealers... completely devaluing all the stuff he signed for ScoreBoard.

In their decline, there were rumors of some questionable stuff coming from Scoreboard, but I have yet to see one iota of evidence other than rumors.

Unfortunately, the ScoreBoard COA was s simple piece of paper that was easily replicated. Chances are bogus material with a "ScoreBoard COA" isn't a real ScoreBoard coa.

[thetruthisoutthere]

I will also echo Richard's comment about the Scoreboard cert; it has been edited and copied over the years in an effort to sell forgeries under the Scoreboard COA.

A good example is a Mickey Mantle autographed bat with a Scoreboard COA; Mantle never signed bats for Scoreboard. Never.

[Runscott]

I find it interesting that, just as with the AJC dag, rather than using our eyeballs , we are first examining provenance.

Backward, my friends.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I find it interesting that, just as with the AJC dag, rather than using our eyeballs , we are first examining provenance.

Backward, my friends.

Please explain exactly what you mean.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Please explain exactly what you mean.

I think that Scott is trying to say that everyone immediately saw Scoreboard, and just wrote it off as a forgery without really looking at the item. While with the AJC Dag, many people looked at it's provenance, rather than the photo itself, and just assume it's AJC(which it still may or may not be)...

He may or may not be right. Anyways, while Scoreboard originally did sell legit autos through HSN. On top of the countless number of reprinted COA's, you also had the problem of people keeping the ball that they received and returning forgeries for a refund, which were assumed to be the original ball and then re-sold by HSN with the original Scoreboard COA..

I myself have a small handful of Scoreboard balls, but I only purchased them after closely examining the signatures.. Some great deals can be gotten on the bay, simply because people assume ALL Scoreboard items are bad..

Hell, one of 'em was a Ripken that I got for under $20...Surprisingly when it came, it had an MLB authentication sticker and one of Cal's stickers as well. I'm sure glad I took a chance on that one, and that the seller mistakenly forgot to mention these stickers in his listing.. Same thing happened with a Feller ball and Bo Jackson ball(neither of which were Scoreboard though). Took a chance, got a dirt cheap price, and then arrived with unmentioned MLB holos.. Lucky me, I guess..

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by novakjr

I think that Scott is trying to say that everyone immediately saw Scoreboard, and just wrote it off as a forgery without really looking at the item. While with the AJC Dag, many people looked at it's provenance, rather than the photo itself, and just assume it's AJC(which it still may or may not be)...
.

I was composing my post while you posted

I was actually thinking the opposite (thought it was real because of the documentation), but either way illustrates my point. It's just a discussion point, no big deal. I think legitimate authenticators sometimes get it wrong, and I think crooks sometimes sell authentic stuff. I've seen examples of both.

Personally, I don't know if this ball is real or not. If I had to guess, I would say the signatures are real. The McCovey and Mantle look great. The odd 'T' in 'Ted Williams' is probably just an aberration. The fact that they look like they were signed by the same person is probably just a coincidence.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Please explain exactly what you mean.

When I'm trying to decide whether or not to buy something, I look at the item first. If it doesn't look right, all the LOA's or COA's in the world aren't going to get me to buy it. I'm not knocking people for taking the backward approach, but I think it's why there are so many forgeries on the market (autographs, game-used stuff, etc.). The forgers know what stock we put in COA's and LOA's - even if 'we' (not me) know an item is likely fake, we know we can sell it because of its associated documentation, so we'll pay for it.

As I've mentioned previously, I had a major auction house take a semi-pro cap of mine and sell it as an authentic Cleveland Indians hat, and I had another offer to sell an unauthenticated football helmet as an authentic Notre Dame one. Both items would have had the LOA's that you all covet so much. Same for trimmed and altered vintage cards with the coveted encapsulation of major grading companies. And we all know about Barry Halper's collection.

All I'm saying is - use your eyeballs first. This ball might be fine, but I wouldn't make that determination based on a LOA or COA.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Runscott

When I'm trying to decide whether or not to buy something, I look at the item first. If it doesn't look right, all the LOA's or COA's in the world aren't going to get me to buy it. I'm not knocking people for taking the backward approach, but I think it's why there are so many forgeries on the market (autographs, game-used stuff, etc.). The forgers know what stock we put in COA's and LOA's - even if 'we' (not me) know an item is likely fake, we know we can sell it because of its associated documentation, so we'll pay for it.

As I've mentioned previously, I had a major auction house take a semi-pro cap of mine and sell it as an authentic Cleveland Indians hat, and I had another offer to sell an unauthenticated football helmet as an authentic Notre Dame one. Both items would have had the LOA's that you all covet so much. Same for trimmed and altered vintage cards with the coveted encapsulation of major grading companies. And we all know about Barry Halper's collection.

All I'm saying is - use your eyeballs first. This ball might be fine, but I wouldn't make that determination based on a LOA or COA.

I knew what you meant, I just wanted you to explain it in detail. When did anyone here state otherwise?

I have never made a decision on a autograph based on a COA; that would be sloppy of me or anyone else to do that. Even if a authentic Mickey Mantle signed bat was accompanied with a COA from Scoreboard, I would know one thing for sure; it didn't come from Scoreboard, even if the Mantle was authentic.

[travrosty]

All coa's are screwed up. I wouldn't trust any coa from any company, we have seen them all faked, forged, doctored up, and misrepresented no matter what company they are from. There needs to be a foolproof coa.

verify any coa from any source that you want to buy from if it comes with a second hand coa. if it cant be verified with photo proof, then it's really worth nothing.

[drc]

I'm not in the market for a signed baseball and I wasn't offering a judgment on the authenticity of the signatures-- so I was allowed to focus on whatever I wanted to focus on

[scyrkin]

Originally Posted by travrosty

All coa's are screwed up. I wouldn't trust any coa from any company, we have seen them all faked, forged, doctored up, and misrepresented no matter what company they are from. There needs to be a foolproof coa.

verify any coa from any source that you want to buy from if it comes with a second hand coa. if it cant be verified with photo proof, then it's really worth nothing.

Travis, I couldn't agree with you more. EVERY COA or LOA should be imaged in the authenticator's online database, but only a small percentage are. PSA/DNA only images LOA'd autographs and I don't think JSA puts images of anything online--am I right?

You should be able to confirm you've got the right piece before you pay for it, or you're at risk of being scammed big time by unscrupulous sellers. Not imaging autographs is short-sighted.

[travrosty]

you are correct, thats why these coa's are in deep trouble. so many times i see on psa;'s website, "no photo available" might as well say " buy at your own risk because we dont know what it is suppose to look like either. whether or not they actually have the picture available to them, i dont know. but that is the impression they are giving off.

EVERY authentication, 5 dollars or 50,000 dollars should have a photo to go with the cert number. Encapsulations arent photographed at all, unless you pay extra and specifically ask for an loa with the encapsulation. The company says that the fact it is encapsulated is proof of it being genuine.

Once someone figures out how to bust open the holder and switch out autographs (think wiwag card grading scandal only with autographs), then what?

[grandstand69]

Back in the 80's and 90's my Dad and Grandfather did a lot of memorabilia business. They commissioned a lot of the tops stars to autograph items. I myself have gone in same direction less the hiring of players. It's just not as easy now as it was back then. They hired the artist and athlete to sign the Original and 550 limited litho's. I'm going to start selling these now but need a few expierenced collector opinion. The item is of Muhammad Ali Litho/transfer titled "The Greatest". The biggest problem is it's a Angelo Marino was the artist they hired back in 1993. I know immediately this piece would be scrutenized if I didn't have proof of the signing session. I do know they made most of their cash back by selling the original painting Marino did of this piece. Fortunately I have photographs of Ali signing these litho's. Due to opersation bullpen every Marino piece is thrown out as junk. So, I ask the members to take a look at these. This piece was broken down into two limited litho's. The one I'm showing is limited to 50 and has an original mock-up of the champ with original pencil auto's of artist and Ali on all 50 pieces. The other 500 were signed in pencil by both with no mock-up.