Colossal Auctions?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

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

One of the dumbest things i have ever heard.

It's not gropo the robot, it's luis firpo. you are practicing elitism.

Put the exact quotes where people defend morales. show me. Don't just talk in generalities.

you are right, there is little comparison to the two issues. what the huge comapnies are doing will drag down the hobby. Morales is a known quantity.
How many Morales autos do you own, how many psa or jsa? answer it.

'Tighten it up'. Really? That's all they need to do, tighten it up a bit?

Tighten up the lug nuts? The wheel fell off 9 miles ago and we have been sparking on the rims since then gouging up the asphalt. But hey, they are doing great, right? Just tighten it up a bit. How about a total revamp from the top down?

You really don't know what's going on do you? You can't see past Morales. As long as there is Morales, other companies can't anything wrong? Where do I defend Morales? go ahead and show me.

Why are you turning my post above into a mueller and koschal discussion? it was my post about these companies and Morales, not theirs. All the sudden mueller and koschal come up. what's that have to do with anything? I don't speak on ANL's behalf, not here or when i post on ANL. It's a place to go and blog. There is no ANL view on things. It's a blog, just like there is no net54 view on things. I see you have posted on ANL. Are you a skirt boy too? Or do you have your own independent views and voice. Just like me, just like Mueller, just like Koschal, just like anybody. Show me a specific quote. You don't have one.

Did you see my other thread about a Tom Sayers boxing autograph with LOA's written up then pulled by these companies because I guess you need exemplars to issue an LOA?

10 dollar mantle photos are a problem but not the big fish. Why do you need judgments from other people on morales? Everybody knows Morales and his work. Morales is used as a smokescreen to take the heat off of other entities.

Criticism for abc, xyz companies. "MORALES"!!!! Total up all questionable items you have seen from morales and put a $ amount on them. then do the same with abc, xyz.
Compare the two numbers, not even close.

gropo the robot (elitism) had nearly a 400 dollar bid. It didn't have a morales cert.

[travrosty]

Maybe fudd would actually like to read autographalert instead of just bashing it.

http://www.autographalert.com/2007-1-6.html

looks like to me he takes a certain fde to task. About 80 percent down the page, titled 'following the authenticators".

how is that being a skirt boy, not commenting on this fde as you put it, when he clearly did.

apology accepted.

[Vintagedegu]

-

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Vintagedegu

http://www.colossalauctions.net/Certification.html

This makes no sense whatsoever. The whole thing is goofy, but here's a sample-

"These authenticators may certify only 5% to 10% of all high end items that are submitted to them by customers. That means that on the other hand, between 90 to 95% of all high end items that are submitted to them are forgeries. Even if the odds were substancially lower, it would be highly unlikely that the large volume of items that pass through these authenticator's hands are forgeries. Surely these so called forgeries would have to be done on an assembly line by experts. There are not that many expert forgers around that could produce such a high volume of individual and unique forgeries anyway. It can't be that lucrative of a business nowadays, to forge items that wouldn't pass close examination, it just doesn't make sense. Maybe at one time in the past it was lucrative, but now there is a much better quality of reputable authentication services that can detect these forgeries."

I don't like the good-ol-boy autograph network with the big auction houses and alphabet soup companies, but pointing out the other guys' faults doesn't say anything about your own position.

Out of curiosity I clicked through to their "Certification and Authenticity" page, and aside from the many grammatical errors and laughable statements like "it can't be that lucrative of a business nowadays," I find it odd that in the 4 hours or so since the quote above was made, as of 5:28 PM CST, the percentages were changed in that paragraph to:

"These authenticators may only certify up to 20% of all high end items that are submitted to them by individuals. So in their mind, the other 80% are forgeries."

Are they re-writing their in-house CoA rant in response to postings on this board? Or is the timing of that re-write merely a coincidence? Makes me wonder what else changed in the meantime, but since that was the only paragraph quoted, I'll never know.

[RichardSimon]

These people at Colossal are very aware of this board.
After they removed their pictures from their last auction I wrote to them, under a pseudonym, requesting pictures of a few lots.
After figuring out that it was me, one of their principals started writing to me.
Along with other statements he has mentioned in his correspondence that he "gets a kick out of my blogger friends and finds them entertaining."
I guess that means you guys .
He also said that putting photos of his items on the internet drew too much negative attention.
Wonder what he meant by that?

[mighty bombjack]

It was very soon after this thread started that the photos started coming down. Seems it was a response to some of the obvious criticism that was being lobbed.

In the end, if you're going to pay 150 bucks for a Hughie Jennings autograph, why would you need a photo before doing so?

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

"gets a kick out of my blogger friends and finds them entertaining." I guess that means you guys .

When will some people learn that posting on a message board is not the same as "blogging"?!?!? Some knuckleheads on another dubious site consistently refer to message board participants as "bloggers" as well.

He also said that putting photos of his items on the internet drew too much negative attention.

With a defense like that, who needs a prosecution?

[RichardSimon]

This is now on the Colossal website:

"Many bloggers believe most everything is a forgery, and everyone is a forger or conspirator unless proven otherwise. Many of these same people, whom are collectors and sellers themselves, also believe everything they have is 100% authentic and everything you have is not. Some are independant authenticators who think they know everything and may have worked for some of these authentication companies or auction houses in the past. They consider themselves autograph experts and continuously disperage authenticators, sellers, and collectors alike. These bloggers are self proclaimed experts who regularly post on forums because they have nothing better to do. They don't have a real job.

But excuuse me, they don't like the term "Bloggers", they like to be called "Posters"....because they're so special. We'll just call them 'Poster Boys" for lack of a better term. These poster boys will try to do anything in their power to stir up controversy and discredit anyone who doesn't agree with there narrow minded way of thinking. On their forums, they will try to discredit, and refute everything written on this web page. Their attitude also helps perpetuate the status of the most well known authenticators, and the notion that if these well known authenticators authenticate anything it's got to be real, whether it is or not. It's like wrestling with an 800 pound gorilla, you can't win. So if you choose to use a 3rd party authenticator, consider their reputation, your options, and choose wisely."

[steve B]

Leaving the other points aside, this point

Originally Posted by travrosty

Did you see my other thread about a Tom Sayers boxing autograph with LOA's written up then pulled by these companies because I guess you need exemplars to issue an LOA?

Is unfairly made. The comments you refer to were made well before the thread about the Sayers was started.


I was also somewhat amused by the link. The article about the churchill "rubber stamp" pictures a metal and wood typography block. NO rubber involved. (And no correction/addendum since 2007! That says a lot about attention the to detail of a whole lot of people)

If they're going to - and it appears rightly so in many cases- take people to task for issuing LOAs while making very basic errors........You know, the whole glass houses thing.

Steve B

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by steve B

Leaving the other points aside, this point


Is unfairly made. The comments you refer to were made well before the thread about the Sayers was started.


I was also somewhat amused by the link. The article about the churchill "rubber stamp" pictures a metal and wood typography block. NO rubber involved. (And no correction/addendum since 2007! That says a lot about attention the to detail of a whole lot of people)

If they're going to - and it appears rightly so in many cases- take people to task for issuing LOAs while making very basic errors........You know, the whole glass houses thing.

Steve B

Steve - granted the term rubber stamp is an error, but the metal and wood block had the same purpose as a rubber stamp and I would not really take him to task for that misuse of the words rubber stamp. We all understand what he meant.

[Scott Garner]

Sorry for hijacking this thread, but I have to share this one with you all.
As I've mentioned previously, one of the things I collect is the signatures of all no-hit pitchers.

A few months ago I purchased this supposedly signed 3 x 5 index card of Dwight "Doc" Gooden with a JSA sticker. The eBay scan was somewhat poor quality. When I received it in the mail I had to laugh as there is no question that this is a Gooden rubber stamped 3 x 5 from the mid 1980's.

How in the world did this ever get passed by JSA? LOL

[Runscott]

Autograph scandals. How odd.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Steve - granted the term rubber stamp is an error, but the metal and wood block had the same purpose as a rubber stamp and I would not really take him to task for that misuse of the words rubber stamp. We all understand what he meant.

I agree Richard. I was maybe a bit over the top on that one. The block was likely used to print some of the various "signed" form letters Churchill used.

My poorly made point was that everyone makes mistakes, sometimes they're minor, sometimes they're more obvious to someone more familiar with an object. I do think that how those mistakes are handled matters, and there's an appearance of unwillingness to correct a minor technical issue. (My wife and I "discuss" this somewhat regularly, if someone doesn't get the easy stuff right I have little faith in them getting the big stuff right.)

Sadly I have the feeling that the underlying argument is one of how to best correct problems. One group believes that the authentication industry as a whole is fatally flawed and that going after the biggest names is the best way to force some adjustments. The other side thinks the overall industry is needed and workable, and that the most productive path is eliminating those who are either totally incompetent or deliberately authenticating fakes.
I think both have their place.

I'd like to see LOAs changed to be more like the certs given for stamps. For those, you tell them what you believe the stamp is and the certs gives the correct identification, with a statement like "it is genuine, with a sealed tear 1mm from the left corner" or " it is genuine, reperforated on the right side" and less commonly, "we render no opinion" (For the card Scott shows it would call it a genuine rubber stamp of Goodens signature)
The stamp certs of course have their own problems and scandals, as well as incompetent expertisers.

I do have a question about how the larger companies work. Does the signer of the LOA actually do all the authenticating for a company like PSA/DNA? Or is it more like cards where there are multiple people working under supervision?

Steve B

[RichardSimon]

Steve - I believe that no general public customer actually knows who authenticates anything that is submitted to PSA.
You can make educated guesses based on the item itself, but there are only multiple facsimile signatures at the bottom of their COA, and it is anyone's guess who actually examined the item.