Colossal Auctions?

[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.