Very, very, interesting...

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by travrosty

The anger at the companies is because they potentially take a forgery and legitimize it! Before it was a forgery that might get by someone, might not.

Now it has been 'deemed authentic', and gets by everyone because there is a sticker on the cert, which has been signed by someone...

Travis:

You make some good points, but part of the logic is flawed in my view.

In essence, your point is that these companies "legitimize" some fakes and create a false sense of security, the collectors don't do their homework, etc. In effect, it is the fault of these companies that these fakes are allowed to flourish.

Following your logic, if these companies didn't exist approving questionable items, collectors would be more educated, they'd all do their homework, go to the proper dealer/experts, have everything reviewed my muliple trusted sources, etc., etc.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Big money will attract fraud. Ruth balls would be selling for big bucks whether PSA existed or not. And collectors would be just as lazy and look to some source of expertise whether PSA existed or not. Instead of trusting the opinion of PSA, they'd be trusting the opinion of some dealer or auction house, who is no less prone to the same shortcomings of a TPA.

I think your view of the hobby sans "alphabet soup" is not realistic.

[David Atkatz]

Can't agree, Steve. We all know to be wary of the seller--that's why TPAs exist. "Don't worry my child, I'm an expert, and I assure you you're not being ripped-off this time."

[Sportsnutcards]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Travis:

You make some good points, but part of the logic is flawed in my view.

In essence, your point is that these companies "legitimize" some fakes and create a false sense of security, the collectors don't do their homework, etc. In effect, it is the fault of these companies that these fakes are allowed to flourish.

Following your logic, if these companies didn't exist approving questionable items, collectors would be more educated, they'd all do their homework, go to the proper dealer/experts, have everything reviewed my muliple trusted sources, etc., etc.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Big money will attract fraud. Ruth balls would be selling for big bucks whether PSA existed or not. And collectors would be just as lazy and look to some source of expertise whether PSA existed or not. Instead of trusting the opinion of PSA, they'd be trusting the opinion of some dealer or auction house, who is no less prone to the same shortcomings of a TPA.

I think your view of the hobby sans "alphabet soup" is not realistic.

That is what I do not understand about those who are so against JSA and PSA. If they didn't exist how would someone find out who to trust? Where would a novice autograph collector start? How would they even find someone whose opinion they could trust? Everyone makes mistakes, even major dealers, auction houses etc, but they are not brought into the spotlight because their mistakes are usually not out there for everyone to see. That is why 3rd part authentication exists, to give you an extra level of comfort when buying something. They are just certifying their opinion just like every other major dealer in this industry. It is then up to the consumer to make a decision how to weight that opinion.

[prewarsports]

Hi

I never said people were stashing Ruth balls away for monetary future value. Here is what I am trying to say for the third time, and I am 100% correct and have researched this extensively.

1. People in general were saving things like Ruth signed balls more in the late 1940's because they recognized them as a keepsakes/heirloom etc more than they were in the 1920's. Absolutely 100% true. Not because "they were going to be worth something someday" but because they recognized that they were collectible items. I am NOT saying everyone did this, but more people were keeping things like this in sock drawers and trying to keep them nice because they were special items by 1947 then they were in 1927. This is an absolute fact and if you dispute this you dont know autograph collecting history.


2. Autographs WERE being collected by the 1940's by larger numbers of people who viewed them as "valuable" but not in the same way we do today. While there was no set value, there are recorded events where things like Babe Ruth signed baseballs sold for money or traded at a premium for other items and this is 100% true as well. Whether you want to admit it or not, there were small groups of people who were buying and selling and trading autographs in clubs by the 1930's and there were lots of them by the 1940's. If you want an education on the autograph clubs of this time period and how they operated I would be happy to give you one, but you are wrong to state that nobody placed monetary value on autographs in the 1940's because SOME people did, the same way they did baseball cards in this era. Maybe only 10 people in the world wanted a T206 Wagner in 1949 but the facts are there to prove that SOME people did even though baseball cards were worthless to 99.9% of America. Just because some Wagners were being sold at yard sales and thrown away in 1950 does not mean they did not already have monetary value to SOME PEOPLE!

Were people getting Ruth to signed baseballs so they could sell them? No. Were people by the 1940's getting Ruth to sign baseballs because they were highly prized collectibles that did have value and should be kept nice and in nice condition? 100% YES and this is the point I was trying to make.

You are speaking in way too many absolutes. All it takes is 1 person that thought their Ruth ball was worth money in 1947 to prove your statement wrong.

Not trying to start something here, but I am right and I have spoken to people who were members of autograph clubs in the 1940's when I bought their collections who have explained to me first hand how they worked and how they would sell some of their autographs (yes for money in the 1940's including Ruth). They did have some monetary value to some people by the 1940's and to deny this entirely is not knowing the history of autograph collecting in America.

[David Atkatz]

To think that sports autographs had any value other than sentimental in the 1940s is to not know the history of autograph collecting. Through the 1960s no autograph dealer--Mary Benjamin, Charles Hamilton, to name the biggest--would touch a sports autograph.

(Don't believe me? Take a look at Hamilton's 1960 book "Collecting Autographs and Manuscripts," or Benjamin's "Autographs: A Key to Collecting.")

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

To think that sports autographs had any value other than sentimental in the 1940s is to not know the history of autograph collecting. Through the 1960s no autograph dealer--Mary Benjamin, Charles Hamilton, to name the biggest--would touch a sports autograph.

(Don't believe me? Take a look at Hamilton's 1960 book "Collecting Autographs and Manuscripts," or Benjamin's "Autographs: A Key to Collecting.")

i would agree.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Sportsnutcards

That is what I do not understand about those who are so against JSA and PSA. If they didn't exist how would someone find out who to trust? Where would a novice autograph collector start? How would they even find someone whose opinion they could trust? Everyone makes mistakes, even major dealers, auction houses etc, but they are not brought into the spotlight because their mistakes are usually not out there for everyone to see. That is why 3rd part authentication exists, to give you an extra level of comfort when buying something. They are just certifying their opinion just like every other major dealer in this industry. It is then up to the consumer to make a decision how to weight that opinion.

The reason is because people dont know these authenticating companies, they just see abc, or xyz and trust them. Who looked at your autograph when you sent it in?

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW, DO YOU? nobody does. how can you gauge trust in an authenticator that is a mystery man to you?

If Richard Simon looked at a ruth ball i was considering buying, i can take richard's opinion for what i value it. But if the ruth ball comes with abc or xyz, just whose opinion am i valuing? Give me a name. They don't tell you who looked at it.

Please answer that question and dont dodge it.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Travis:

You make some good points, but part of the logic is flawed in my view.

In essence, your point is that these companies "legitimize" some fakes and create a false sense of security, the collectors don't do their homework, etc. In effect, it is the fault of these companies that these fakes are allowed to flourish.

Following your logic, if these companies didn't exist approving questionable items, collectors would be more educated, they'd all do their homework, go to the proper dealer/experts, have everything reviewed my muliple trusted sources, etc., etc.

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Big money will attract fraud. Ruth balls would be selling for big bucks whether PSA existed or not. And collectors would be just as lazy and look to some source of expertise whether PSA existed or not. Instead of trusting the opinion of PSA, they'd be trusting the opinion of some dealer or auction house, who is no less prone to the same shortcomings of a TPA.

I think your view of the hobby sans "alphabet soup" is not realistic.

but alphabet soup isnt working. we had no soup before 1999. this isnt any better.

maybe authentication companies would work and be good for the hobby, but they have to operate in a business model that doesnt cut corners.

you cut corners, you get this, and wife signed listons, and manager signed fitzsimmons, and wife signed fitzsimmons, and secretarial signed Sullivan, and wife signed Marciano, and secretarial signed Louis, should I keep going?

They need a lot more experts in all fields, they need to slow down, they need to stop promising instant turnaround, they need to do about 30 other things.

They have known this for years, they implement NO reforms. Sorry, not a big fan of the status quo. I can't wait to see parts 2-10.