Very, very, interesting...

[RichardSimon]

If Peter Nash and his investigation conclusively prove that PSA and JSA have make these mistakes what does that mean for the autograph hobby?
Who is responsible for refunding the buyers if buyers demand a refund?
If people are holding $50,000 Babe Ruth baseballs and a report comes out, that conclusively proves that those baseballs are forgeries, what happens then?
I have discussed this with several very knowledgable people. Their conclusions, based on the pictures that Peter Nash has shown, are that at least three different people signed those baseballs. These opinions are based on pictures of the baseballs obviously not the actual item, but opinions, based on pictures, in this instance do have value.
I would also think that such prolific forgers, if Peter Nash is correct, who have proven that they can consistently beat PSA and JSA, have forged many other expensive and historic baseballs too. That is where the big money is.

[HRBAKER]

Richard,
Does anybody really believe that there are that many nearly pristine single signed Ruth balls around today?

[David Atkatz]

it is extremely likely that a number--possibly even a large number--of those high-end Ruth singles are forged. But every photo that Peter has posted is taken directly from the catalog of a high-end sports auction house--Mastro, Lelands, SCP, REA, Heritage, etc., and these auctions took place over the past 10-15 years or so.

Where have all the knowledgeable people (myself included) been? Why has no one spoken up before this? We all, to some degree or other, have been found wanting.

That doesn't speak well for the autograph hobby.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Richard,
Does anybody really believe that there are that many nearly pristine single signed Ruth balls around today?

Well, I have my doubts. But so many have been sold I guess not everybody is doubting them the way we do here.
Good ol' P.T. Barnum could have made himself a home in this hobby. He must have been thinking of pristine Babe Ruth signed baseballs when he said "there's a sucker born every minute."

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I would also think that such prolific forgers, if Peter Nash is correct, who have proven that they can consistently beat PSA and JSA, have forged many other expensive and historic baseballs too. That is where the big money is.

You either have to be the second coming of Houdini or have a very friendly croupier dealing you the cards to 'consistently beat' a Casino.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by 19cbb

You either have to be the second coming of Houdini or have a very friendly croupier dealing you the cards to 'consistently beat' a Casino.

Or you have to be an auction house that wants to sell these items with as few questions as possible.
And all of them use the same authenticators except for Lelands.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by 19cbb

You either have to be the second coming of Houdini or have a very friendly croupier dealing you the cards to 'consistently beat' a Casino.

PSA and JSA are most certainly not casinos. Casinos are quite a bit more knowledgeable about their own bread-and-butter (gambling), especially since they would be the ones to lose by making a mistake, rather than their customers.

[drc]

I'm no autograph expert, but even I was struck by the number of Ruth balls that looked as if they were signed yesterday in major auctions. It made me wonder, but I knew Ruth signed a lot and, as I said just once sentence earlier, I'm not an expert on the subject.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by 19cbb

You either have to be the second coming of Houdini or have a very friendly croupier dealing you the cards to 'consistently beat' a Casino.

I don't know the specifics of "authentication" cost versus retail value of the ball after it's checked, but it seems to me that even a Mendoza line success average would add up to a substantial profit, and nobody knows about your strikeouts in these "plate appearances".

Doug

[travrosty]

I am interested in seeing the next part of the investigation. One of these balls went for 300k.

They believe in the ball, it's pasted several places on their website, and they used it for the first item certed with the new LOA.

------------------


'The first item to receive the new LOA is one of the most famous and admired of all sports collectibles, the finest known single-signed Babe Ruth baseball. It is graded PSA/DNA Mint+ 9.5, and is considered the most valuable, single-signed baseball in the hobby.'


------------------

So they are hitching their star to this ball.

[prewarsports]

Two thoughts on this story with full disclosure that do not own a high end Ruth ball and never have.

1. Why do we assume that just because someone is a relative that they are also handwriting experts? I had a lady e mail me about an autograph I had (one of 25 on a MINOR LEAGUE team ball vintage from the 1930's) and she insisted that the autograph of her grandfather on the ball was a forgery. He was a complete common who died in the 1990's, totally worthless autograph. She was REALLY pissed that I would have the audacity to sell a forgery of her grandfather! She was 100% wrong but standing on the soapbox of "I'm his granddaughter and I know for sure!", no amount of evidence was going to prove her wrong, she was the expert by birthright appearantly. We give relatives and descendants WAAAY too much credit in this hobby. Aside from a signed letter of provenance stating that the item comes from the relative or ther persons estate, their opinions shouldn't mean much when evaluating a signature 80 years after it was signed. Unless this Ruth relative was sitting in a room watching Ruth's secretary sign for him or some other intimate first hand knowledge, why would we care what her opinion is?

2. By the end of Ruth's life autograph collecting was pretty big so it makes sense to me that there would be WAY more people getting his autograph and keeping it nice (in the sock drawer or something) as opposed to getting a signed Ruth ball in the 1930's when he was still playing when people did not collect autographs as much and the value was merely intrinsic. By the mid-late 1940's people were already thinking of autographs as "valuable" and "collectible" so it does not surprise me at all that SOME of these would survive in High Grade. How many is a completely different story that I would not dare to even guess at. I bet the optomists will be shocked at how many are fake and I bet the pessimists will be shocked that a large number of them are actually real, but regardless of how this ends, some people will be pissed!

Just my 2 cents worth (1 cent for each thought)

Rhys

[David Atkatz]

You may be correct, Rhys, about the number of balls Ruth may have signed in the 1940s, but I must disagree with your contention that these autographs were regarded as particularly valuable then. Even up to the early 1960s--when I began collecting--widows were still giving away signed checks--Ruth, Cobb, Mathewson... the list goes on. In 1966 I was given a signed and inscribed Gehrig photo by a relative of the original recipient. These autographs held only sentimental value in those days. I can only imagine the situation in the 1940s!

[RichardSimon]

You probably could have bought a Ruth signed ball for a buck in the 1940's, if someone even thought enough of it to sell one.
I don't think money was any kind of influence in the baseball autograph hobby in the 1940's.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by 19cbb

You either have to be the second coming of Houdini or have a very friendly croupier dealing you the cards to 'consistently beat' a Casino.

I think I get what Jimmy is saying and I agree.

[vintagechris]

The sad thing with these authenticators is it is not just the high dollar stuff, is the lower stuff as well. I bought a signed football card lot from a well known auction house, awhile back and the lot had been ok'd by one of the "respected" authenticators.

When I got the lot and started looking through it it took me no more than two minutes to realize it was LITTERED with bad signatures. For example, there were autographs of Charlie Joiner and Harry Carson where it literally looked like a child was just playing around and writing their name.

They looked like whoever did it wasn't even trying to copy those players signatures they were that bad. I am used to getting a small % of bad signatures in autograph lots like this but this was closer to 40 or 50% and that was just the ones I knew for sure.

I will say this, this lot was so littered with forgeries that the only conclusion is the authenticator didn't actually look at the lot or they passed them without caring because the auction house is paying them.

The auction house allowed me to return them for a refund but I wonder if they held that authentication company accountable for that, especially since they still use said authenticator. Does the auction house just not care because they are getting their cut?

These forgeries were so obvious that if they didn't confront the authenticator, I would tend to believe they don't care as long as they get their cut, which is really sad.

[travrosty]

The auction house allowed me to return them for a refund but I wonder if they held that authentication company accountable for that, especially since they still use said authenticator. Does the auction house just not care because they are getting their cut?
These forgeries were so obvious that if they didn't confront the authenticator, I would tend to believe they don't care as long as they get their cut, which is really sad.


People are still trying to figure that out, is it just shoddy work or are they not even trying, or worse yet, they are trying but have different motives. We don't know.

auction houses never hold the authentication companies responsible.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by vintagechris

... where it literally looked like a child was just playing around and writing their name...

Laughing.

I crossed paths with a Cy Young winning all-star pitcher a few times a couple of years back thru my job. As a thank you for the "help" I had provided him, he sent me an autographed baseball from his most recent All Star game. I can barely read any of the autographs on that ball. I think it's a sign of the times.

We will see very few modern autographs in the "nice looking signature" thread.

Doug

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Laughing.

I crossed paths with a Cy Young winning all-star pitcher a few times a couple of years back thru my job. As a thank you for the "help" I had provided him, he sent me an autographed baseball from his most recent All Star game. I can barely read any of the autographs on that ball. I think it's a sign of the times.

We will see very few modern autographs in the "nice looking signature" thread.

Doug

Trust me, I have gotten my share of sloppy sigs, but this is not what this was. None of the letters were even remotely formed the way the players signatures are. Charlie Joiner and Harry Carson have very distinctive sigs that have not changed much if at all in 30 years, and these signs didn't even look like the person who signed them tried to make them look remotely like theirs.

Picture the Joiner signature with a printed capital "J" like we all learned to write in school, now go look at a real Charlie Joiner signature. That is how bad some of these signatures were. That is just one example.

funny thing was, when I called the auction house and told them, they pulled the auction up online and from the few pics they had online, said yea, some don't look right. They literally looked for about 35 seconds. Left me really wondering about this and other auction houses.

[Vintagedegu]

-

[scgaynor]

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: Not really

The thing is, for you guys that don't to buy autographs because you are concerned about authenticity, my guess is that the problem of high end doctored cards sitting in holders is 100X worse than high end forged Ruth signatures that pass 3rd party authenticators.

Actually 100X might be conservative.

It is much easier to doctor a card than do a really good Ruth forgery.

Just sayin.


Scott

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: Not really

The thing is, for you guys that don't to buy autographs because you are concerned about authenticity, my guess is that the problem of high end doctored cards sitting in holders is 100X worse than high end forged Ruth signatures that pass 3rd party authenticators.

Actually 100X might be conservative.

It is much easier to doctor a card than do a really good Ruth forgery.

Just sayin.


Scott

Maybe, even probably, and doesn't make either any less an issue.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: Not really

The thing is, for you guys that don't to buy autographs because you are concerned about authenticity, my guess is that the problem of high end doctored cards sitting in holders is 100X worse than high end forged Ruth signatures that pass 3rd party authenticators.

Actually 100X might be conservative.

It is much easier to doctor a card than do a really good Ruth forgery.

Just sayin.


Scott

I think there are problems with a lot of high grade vintage cards. Other lower grade ones I don't think have as many problems. I own around a thousand lower grade to mid grade vintage baseball cards.
I sleep well at night. If I had a thousand autographs, purchased in the last 15 yrs (as that is when I started) I am not sure I could say the same thing.