Colossal Auctions?

[travrosty]

Case in point.

http://www.fighttoys.com/Firpononauthentic.htm

If it ever goes to ebay, good luck getting it off. And I heard but can't confirm that all the authenticators at JSA look at each item and they all have to pass it for it to pass. What is going on? When you click on the link, the firpo on the bottom left (circa 1958) is one i obtained myself from a friend who lives in Buenos Aires, Argentina, so it's directly from Firpo's stomping grounds. Show us your exemplars you used to authenticate this item, Mr. Spence. I want to see your Firpo signatures. Please discontinue boxing.

When I first saw this Firpo, I figured it had to be an April Fools joke, or a Halloween prank. But it has a valid JSA cert, which is equivalent to getting a passport and visa, ready to travel the world.

It's insulting to people who study boxing signatures and it would look the same to baseball collectors as calling the following Babe Ruth "authentic." When i see this Firpo, that's what I see, the boxing equivalent to this Ruth ball. Why do they bother with boxing?

I don't know. They don't seem to have the phone number of someone who can figure out this Luis Firpo, which ends up going to auction. And they aren't autographs on the fence in my opinion, not questionables that could go either way. They are obviously no good, but how can you get this through to Spence so he can understand the gravity and width, depth, and breadth of the situation?

Now if Morales name were in place of Spence, all the guys would pile on and say "yeah, get him!" (That's fine, I don't have a problem with that), but evidently JSA is above reproach. The third rail of autograph authentication? Why is it so sacrosanct to ignore the criticism and NOT hold these guys feet to the fire and demand explanations when they authenticate like this, and instead just make excuses for them? (My favorite is that "hey they just make a few mistakes like anybody else. They authenticate a lot of autographs. If you only knew how many autographs they cert.") Maybe they should do a little less then.

That's attitude seems fine if you don't collect boxing, but if they start doing this to YOUR favorite sport, then you might think different.

They don't even make excuses for themselves. They just say nothing and hope it goes away?

This is all my opinion, and if people want to use JSA, more power to you. I think people are scared to say anything about the top two authentication outfits because they think they need their certs to sell.



(I didn't make the ruth ball, it came off the internet, looks like the sig is computer generated.)



Travis Roste

[perezfan]

The difference is that 99 - 100% of Morales' stuff is bad. No one in their right mind (on this board) would buy a piece that he's authenticated.

What you presented represents a tiny fraction of what PSA and Spence have authenticated. Most would estimate that they are right 95% of the time (give or take a few percentage points). Granted that 5% potential error rate represents a large number of items. And I am sure you are all over this 5% segment, as you have an apparent "axe to grind".

But to answer your question, the outrage you're seeking doesn't occur- because the vast majority of PSA/Spence authentications are correct. There is a massive difference between 5% (PSA/Spence) and 100% (Morales).

Nobody is above reproach... Spence's Firpo authentication is awful. No argument there. But for you to compare the two outfits in the same breath is preposterous. Best of luck with this interesting mission

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by perezfan

The difference is that 99 - 100% of Morales' stuff is bad. No one in their right mind (on this board) would buy a piece that he's authenticated.

What you presented represents a tiny fraction of what PSA and Spence have authenticated. Most would estimate that they are right 95% of the time (give or take a few percentage points). Granted that 5% potential error rate represents a large number of items. And I am sure you are all over this 5% segment, as you have an apparent "axe to grind".

But to answer your question, the outrage you're seeking doesn't occur- because the vast majority of PSA/Spence authentications are correct. There is a massive difference between 5% (PSA/Spence) and 100% (Morales).

Nobody is above reproach... Spence's Firpo authentication is awful. No argument there. But for you to compare the two outfits in the same breath is preposterous. Best of luck with this interesting mission

I am not comparing the two in the same breath, i am just pointing out the hypocrisy. Should I not have shown the Firpo? Is showing the Firpo an axe to grind and nothing else? Maybe they should be RESPONSIBLE for their authentications. Novel idea I know.


You admit that no one here will buy a morales piece, so morales isnt that big of a problem, is he? You wouldnt have known about the firpo authentication if i hadnt shown it, and if you thought it was a cool autograph, might have even bought it based on spences opinion. THAT'S the problem.

People buy all the time with a spence loa trusting it is good because it is signed off by spence. If no morales piece is ever good in your mind, you will never buy one. Morales can never harm you.

What I am trying to say is that people are buying COA's, not autographs, and if what spence is doing to boxing is the best he can do, then in my opinion we are all in trouble, because people are buying his coa's by the peck and bushel, and Morales doesn't have anything to do with that.

Everytime there is criticism of spence, people bring up morales, and they keep saying "well, at least he isn't THIS guy." That's the fools argument that is brought up every time spence is put on the hot seat to explain and be responsible for his authentications. Morales is put out there to get him off the hook again.

I noticed another member say that jsa and psa are the closest thing we have to reputable authenticators. Notice he didnt say they were reputable authenticators, he said "closest thing we have to reputable". Even he didnt believe they were reputable. That's a problem. Shouldn't we have an authentication outfit that is reputable, not "the closest thing we have to reputable?" it's their opinion when they make an opinion on authenticity, it's not their fact. you can believe them or not, or you can believe me or not. it's up to people to decide whether what i say holds water in my opinion, or what they do and say holds water.

Everyone has an opinion as to whether psa or jsa is reputable. but if someone brings up an opinion that questions their authentications, all of the sudden it is "Morales" just like "THIRD BASE" on the abbot and costello baseball routine.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Maybe they should be RESPONSIBLE for their authentications. Novel idea I know.

How would you suggest an authenticator take responsibility for this or any other mistake when it's discovered after-the-fact? I'm not meaning that to be an attack, but a genuine question. Of course, ideally the mistake would be caught in-house before the LOA was printed up in the first place. Failing that, if the person paying for the authentication discovered the mistake, I suppose they could get their money back (though I'm sure most would just keep the LOA and pass it on down the line). But when a mistake is discovered two or three links down the chain of custody, what can an authenticator do at that point?

I'm thinking in particular of a situation Richard Simon posted about recently in which an item was brought to his attention that he had previously passed, but now revised his opinion on. Much to his credit, he contacted the current owner and encouraged them to go back up the chain and get his money back from whoever he bought it from, but the current owner declined to do so. In a situation like that, I'm not sure what else the authenticator could do to "be responsible." He can't break into the guy's house and destroy the fraudulent item, he can't force the guy to tear up the LOA, he can't even force the current owner to disclose the identity of the next buyer so that he can let them know the situation. It seems like once the LOA goes back with the item, the authenticator's hands are tied unless the owner notices the mistake (in which case, why is he having it authenticated in the first place).

Again, not an attack on anybody, authenticator or otherwise. Also, this question is presented with the understanding that mistakes do happen, so answers like "they shouldn't ever make mistakes in the first place" aren't particularly helpful.

[travrosty]

being responsible means owning up to the mistake (never saw them ever do that yet), then put procedures in place to tighten up that area of authentication they are having problems with (never saw them do that with boxing either). then refund money whenever and wherever possible.

The problem is that it is not just an occasional mistake that exasperates me. We can all make mistakes. But it is the level of mistake that is made.

That firpo mistake could NEVER, EVER be made by anybody i know that i consider to really know boxing. Can't be done. Impossible, not possible.

So what is going on? That's the question. The question is, show the exemplar you used to prove it was a mistake. Because if you don't have an exemplar that looks anything like the bogus Firpo autograph, then the question becomes, "How did you authenticate it without an exemplar. i cant answer that and I am not accusing him of not using exemplars, but I really would like to see that funky firpo exemplar he must have used if people hold him to his word that he uses exemplars. that's all.

If you type in the firpo cert number, it STILL COMES UP AS A VALID FIRPO AUTOGRAPH.

That is not taking responsibility. it should read "Luis Firpo- cert cancelled, call customer service.

THAT is taking responsibility.

We showed the george chuvalo that was called a julio cesar chavez by psa a long time ago, and it STILL shows up in their database as a George Chuvalo.

Some companies databases show bad Joe Louis' that stgill show up as Joe Louis, the bad Muhammad Ali's show up as Ali, the bad Max Schmeling, Marciano, etc. list goes on and on and on and on and on.

WHy? Why? Why? Why? Why?

[travrosty]

They can admit it, they can say they were wrong, they can cancel the cert in their database. they can refund money for the authentication, they can refund money for the bad item. It's whoever gets stuck with it last that is out the money. Write a check if it was your opinion that gave the buyer confidence to buy it only to find out it is not real. They cash checks, try writing one out.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by travrosty

They can admit it, they can say they were wrong, they can cancel the cert in their database. they can refund money for the authentication, they can refund money for the bad item. It's whoever gets stuck with it last that is out the money. Write a check if it was your opinion that gave the buyer confidence to buy it only to find out it is not real. They cash checks, try writing one out.

It would be great if these top authenticators would do this. They think they above reproach, but they are wrong. If the whack jobs that are ANL are interested in a fix, they ought to go back to their rising son Christopher Moral Less and get him to fix his exemplar files too, don't you think.....or is he just a scammer himself? Agree whole heartedly that JSA and PSA should do better at correcting their horrendous mistakes. I have stated in the past, if they don't get better, they will go the way of The GAI Global Bird. They’re almost there, but Moral Ass has jumped the shark so far he is above repair.

What makes me laugh like hell, is when industry giants like Muellar & Koschall say that "they have never seen Morales work” to judge if he is a walking boob or not? Or “good for Chris”, like he’s magical Chris Kringel or something. They are sticking up for a guy who has rarely got an autograph right. He has never had Mickey Mantle correct. I bet dollars to donunts more people are looking to buy Mantle than Gropo the robot or whoever that boxing guy is?

I have an idea....how about checking it out and knowing your industry completely as you state you do (Muellar & Koschal), instead of being skirt boys and skirting the issue? Or they love to use the same line Fryingpangiani used to use..."someone stole my certs or they are fake certs". LOLOLOLOLOLOL

The whole industry is a laughing joke and will continue to be so until guys like Moral Less is in jail or at least done with his rubber stamping everything fake as genuine. Maybe he should admit his mistakes? JSA & PSA need to tighten up their business model too or they will falter and go out of business, but there is little comparison to the 2 issues. Both are bad. When ANL and their wack job band of 3 get on board they might actually have some credibility, until then not so much

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

If you type in the firpo cert number, it STILL COMES UP AS A VALID FIRPO AUTOGRAPH.

Have you or someone you know contacted JSA about this mistake and shown them the exemplars you posted here?

Again, not trying to question whether you're right. I'm just wondering what their response, if any, was.

The suggestion that the cert be invalidated on the website certainly sounds like a reasonable suggestion if the signature can be shown to be a forgery. As far as writing checks though, I would assume they have some fine print limiting their indemnity to the fees charged for the service, not the value of the item itself. If that is the case though, who would they make the check out to? The person who submitted the item originally, or the one who has it now? Is there a policy/process in place with any of the major groups for rectifying mistakes? (whether it actually works or not)

Here's a suggestion: What if there were a sort of "bounty" in place for authenticated items that were proven to be faulty? Something like 1) show us the proof that the sig is not authentic 2) send in the cert card, loa or whatever 3) the authenticator either sends back the cert/letter with their own proof (copy of exemplars, etc) or cancels out the cert and sends back a check for the original authentication fees (regardless of whether the current owner was the one who submitted it or not)

Any other ideas?

I really don't think that "refund the money for the bad item" would ever really be a possibility unless the value of the item was less than the cert fees. If it were, someone would pick up the aforementioned Firpo auto, flip it to a friend for $1million, then claim a refund on the $1million. Even if they're backed by cert insurance or something, the insurance company's lawyers would never allow a loophole like that.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Case in point.

http://www.fighttoys.com/Firpononauthentic.htm

If it ever goes to ebay, good luck getting it off. And I heard but can't confirm that all the authenticators at JSA look at each item and they all have to pass it for it to pass. What is going on? When you click on the link, the firpo on the bottom left (circa 1958) is one i obtained myself from a friend who lives in Buenos Aires, Argentina, so it's directly from Firpo's stomping grounds. Show us your exemplars you used to authenticate this item, Mr. Spence. I want to see your Firpo signatures. Please discontinue boxing.

When I first saw this Firpo, I figured it had to be an April Fools joke, or a Halloween prank. But it has a valid JSA cert, which is equivalent to getting a passport and visa, ready to travel the world.

It's insulting to people who study boxing signatures and it would look the same to baseball collectors as calling the following Babe Ruth "authentic." When i see this Firpo, that's what I see, the boxing equivalent to this Ruth ball. Why do they bother with boxing?

I don't know. They don't seem to have the phone number of someone who can figure out this Luis Firpo, which ends up going to auction. And they aren't autographs on the fence in my opinion, not questionables that could go either way. They are obviously no good, but how can you get this through to Spence so he can understand the gravity and width, depth, and breadth of the situation?

Now if Morales name were in place of Spence, all the guys would pile on and say "yeah, get him!" (That's fine, I don't have a problem with that), but evidently JSA is above reproach. The third rail of autograph authentication? Why is it so sacrosanct to ignore the criticism and NOT hold these guys feet to the fire and demand explanations when they authenticate like this, and instead just make excuses for them? (My favorite is that "hey they just make a few mistakes like anybody else. They authenticate a lot of autographs. If you only knew how many autographs they cert.") Maybe they should do a little less then.

That's attitude seems fine if you don't collect boxing, but if they start doing this to YOUR favorite sport, then you might think different.

They don't even make excuses for themselves. They just say nothing and hope it goes away?

This is all my opinion, and if people want to use JSA, more power to you. I think people are scared to say anything about the top two authentication outfits because they think they need their certs to sell.



(I didn't make the ruth ball, it came off the internet, looks like the sig is computer generated.)



Travis Roste

Travis, as if your JSA example isn't bad enough, I just spotted this PSA slabbed HORRIBLE Nolan Ryan on eBay this morning. This is so far off, it's not even funny. Please note the inscription "5 K K's"??. This would insinuate that Ryan signed this 1979 Topps card after he struck out his 5000th batter in 1989. This signature does not look like a Ryan signature from any era, and especially one signed post 1989. Ryan would never have written the inscription that way; he would have used "5,000 K's". Give me a break! I saved the photo just to remind myself how far off authenticators can sometimes be.

Another example: JSA signed off on this clubhouse signed Ryan ball that is in a current auction.
Another mistake on a very common signature. BTW, this ball was actually signed by one of the Angels bat boys during the 1970's, which was a pretty common practice back then.

Both are examples of pretty bad detective work, IMHO.

[travrosty]

What I find interesting is that it seems to be okay by many if jsa or psa makes horrendous mistakes, (not tough mistakes, that could go either way, but simple, glaring, obvious errors), it seems to be okay as long as they didnt TRY to make the mistake.

As long as they tried to do it right, then its fine. why?

If a towing company tows your car by mistake, it's okay as long as they didn't try to do it on purpose? Wouldn't you be mad if the towing order said red lamborghini and you drive a silver vw beetle?


I don't get it. If you bought a 30,000 signed letter by a certain hall of famer, and they got it wrong but they "tried", do you feel better now? Is it worth more now because they tried? No, it's still worth zero.

Think of a mythical authentication company.

They cert 100 babe ruth baseballs, get 50 wrong, for an error rate of 50% on Ruth.

They then cert a stack of 9900 Josh Hamilton signed photos that took place at a signing session with photo proof, and a representative present with documentation. (no brainer). Error rate 0%.

They then claim they certed 10,000 autographs that week, and if 50 were found wrong, then they had a weekly error rate of only .5 percent, so come get your Babe Ruth ball certed with us because we get 99.5% of our autographs right!


If they have a 5% error rate, and if some autographs are no brainers (which many, many are) that doesn't require an expert authenticator, or they are certed from signing sessions "in the presence" (0% error rate,) then the error rate for the others is higher to even it out at the 5%, now isn't it? And a so called error rate of 5% doesn't take into account the autographs that were good that they called bad, because no one tries to sell them one ebay or elsewhere with the rejection letter, do they? Those are the hidden errors so you can take the 5% and practically double it.

The tough ones are much higher than the 5%. We all know it. BUT THE TOUGH ONES ARE THE REASON A LOT OF US SEND IT IN, because we don't know!

Firpo isn't particularly tough!

All I want to see is the Firpo exemplar he compared that one to, to make his "authentic" decision. Show the exemplar, go ahead. Me and the guys with 20, 30, 40 years experience each can't find an exemplar anything close to that and we do boxing 24/7/365 for our entire lives. Spence can't call a boxing guy?

But good thing this is a mythical company, because in real life it is all gumdrops and lollipops.

People can send their autographs in to psa or spence if they want and that's their choice, I advise people to do what they want to do. They can trust who they want. But the system is broken in my opinion.

But people keep defending a system that is broken because they want the certs, because it is the certs that sell. Someday collectors might have the certs displayed on the wall that represent autographs, proudly looking at a cert that shows that an autograph of Al Hbrosky is out there somewhere and it is "authentic".

I am not against 3rd party authentication, just the way it is being done now, but I am against the status quo, so I have an axe to grind? A lot of people want silence to reign supreme. Chirp, chirp goes the crickets.

I once gave a `15-20 point reform post with suggestions that I know the companies saw, and 3 years later, NONE implemented. Guess my suggestions, all built on responsibility, transparency, and accuracy, check and balances, and a customers bill of rights is just too radical.