Very, very, interesting...

[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.

[scgaynor]

Leon and David are both correct.

The reason that I made my statement about cards being even more problematic than autographs is because it makes me smile when I read people making comments about how they don't collect autographs because of forgeries and authentication companies that make mistakes.

Both doctored cards and forged autographs are problems in a relatively young hobby with easy money available to somebody who puts in the effort to deceive.

But, in my opinion, The problem of altered cards is much worse than some forged Ruth balls. If you are going to devote 10 articles to forged Ruth balls, you should be devoting 50 articles to doctored cards.

It would take alot of $300,000 Ruth balls to equal the amount spent on cards that used to be 4's and 5's and have been turned into 7's and 8's.

Scott

[RichardSimon]

So Scott you are basically saying the the card graders are really bad, correct?
Shocked, shocked to find that out,,, here are your winnings sir.

[scgaynor]

Long time, no talk, hope that you are doing well Richard. I would be shocked, shocked to hear otherwise!

Some are worse than others, and some are pretty good. That goes for both cards and autographs.

I know that fighting to bring to light autograph forgeries has been your crusade for years and it is a problem that needs to be addressed and fixed.

My point is that there are problems everywhere and I would not have much more confidence in high grade expensive cards than I would in high grade expensive autographs.

Scott

[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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

Well-said. In addition, a forged Ruth autograph is better compared to a forged card. I doubt Leon has any card forgeries. An altered card would be compared to an altered autograph.

(I had an apple this morning and not once confused it with an orange.)

[David Atkatz]

What's an "altered autograph"? No such thing. The only "alteration" is an enhancement, and that is easy to spot. I think paying NM-MT money for a VG card that's been doctored (and therefore should not have been graded at all) is analogous to buying an authenticated forged autograph.

(There's no point in forging cards, when there's no shortage of low-grade genuine examples that can be restored.)

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

What's an "altered autograph"? No such thing. The only "alteration" is an enhancement, and that is easy to spot. I think paying NM-MT money for a VG card that's been doctored (and therefore should not have been graded at all) is analogous to buying an authenticated forged autograph.

(There's no point in forging cards, when there's no shortage of low-grade genuine examples that can be restored.)

David- stick to autographs....... Have you ever tried to alter a vg card into a NRMT-MT one? Yes, there are a very, very few that could have a surface wrinkle but otherwise be NMT-MT, but mainly a vg card, true vg with honest wear, would have to be trimmed down to a toothpick size to make it have pointy corners. I agree about altered autographs and that there wouldn't be many of those either. I will go back to 1000 cards in mid grade vs 1000 autographs? I will take the cards as having less issues. Now if you were to change the question to be "are there more NRMT+ pre-war cards with problems vs pre-war autographs, I think the difference is much closer. We sure don't see the amount of over-sized cards that were around 20+ yrs ago, I wonder why? (so I do understand the point being made)

Even though this is a nice card it could never be made into NRMT-MT, imo....and get pass anyone with any knowledge of the series..

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

What's an "altered autograph"? No such thing.

David - that's my point. There's almost no chance of a halfway knowledgeable card collector buying a forgery; however there's a very good chance of a halfway knowledgeable autograph collector getting stuck with a forgery at some point.

But if I had to choose, I would much rather get stuck with an altered Ruth card than a forged Ruth signature. The former would still have value.