Poll: Should a traced over signature get a COA?

[drc]

For me it comes down to is the description on the COA accurate.

There's a difference between the questions of is it an autograph and is the certificate accurate in its description. For example, I don't terribly mind if PSA grades a reprint as long as they label it as a reprint. The label is accurate.

And, by the way, I do see the point that a traced over autograph (where the behind autograph is no longer seen) is not the player's autograph. I'm not disputing that sentiment.

[Leon]

Actually, after a little more thought, and as of what I have read so far, I don't have an issue with any COA'd autograph being sold as what it really is. If someone wants to pay me $5 for a dollar bill I take out of my wallet, and I am not being dishonest and selling it as a 1 dollar bill with my handwritten COA that it is straight from my wallet, then why can't someone spend their 5 bucks on it if they want to? No one is being dishonest and no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Ya'll might recall a Frankencard Just So Burkett....it was only the middle of a card with the whole outside and all lettering taken from another Just So actress card and the Burkett was carefully glued in the middle of it. If I recall correctly it was slabbed as such and still brought 5k-10k in auction. Just some food for thought. AS I said I don't really collect autographs but this question also easily pertains to other collectibles too, in some respects.

[Lordstan]

If an autograph is traced over, it is obscured at least in part.
How does one give an opinion on the authenticity of the underlying item, whether it is painting or autograph, if one can't see it?

I think the wording is the key. If TPA's gave out letters of opinion it would be different. It could say "In our opinion, this is an original autograph that was traced over at a later date". Unfortunately they give "Certificates of Authenticity". You can't say something is authentic if it isn't visible. You can call it semantics if you want, but it's still true.

Would any professional art dealer/appraiser give you an offical letter stating that the painting underneath is a real Van Gogh or would they states it looks like a Van Gogh pending closer inspection after restoration. What happens if they remove the newer painting and the older one isn't real? Not meant sarcastic. I'm just asking.

Also, I think the autograph scenario is different as well in that currently there is no way to remove the newer ink from the top of the old ink.

Mark

[Lordstan]

Leon,
I think your comparison is different.
To me, the comparison of the franked card would be more like if someone took the "Babe" from one sig and the "Ruth" from another and taped them together. If both are real, then I have no problem with someone deciding that's what they want for whatever their reason is.
You can see both parts of the franken card and the franken Ruth(my example), but you can't see the original ink of the underlying auto. How can anyone say it real?
Suppose someone could remove the ink. What if the original is fake as well?
How plausible is this scenario?
Suppose a father gets Ruth's auto on a ball. The pen is weak so he goes over with his pen at home. Later the kid enhances the auto because it's fading. Now we have a trace on trace.

[mighty bombjack]

I have no problem at all with a properly worded LOA to that effect. I won't be buying the item, but issue away, third-party authenticators.

[prewarsports]

I dont have a problem with it because it says so clearly on the COA. If you get into the issue of not authenticating traced signatures then what about a Babe Ruth where JUST the first name is traced? What about if just the large B in Babe is traced? What about just one portion of one letter? It is s lippery slope to start making rules so I say just let it be with full disclosure.

I once had a Cobb single signed ball with PSA/DNA that the signature was "traced" that I bought in a major auction. Once I got it I realized that only a few very small enhancements were made sporadically throughout where there was some wear and the whole thing was not traced, maybe 5% of the signature overall which I did not mind aesthetically. I dont think people have a problem if it is enhanced in a few spots and clearly stated so on the COA.

Just my opinion.

I do wonder how they can tell if it was real to begin with however, seems pretty hard to see when the signature is faded and a new one over the top is in dark ink.

[drc]

The point about how or if one can authenticate a signature that is totally obscured is a good point. I'm not an autograph authentication expert, so cannot offer worthy insight into that.

I might change my answer from yes to know if authenticating the signature under tracing is a significant issue. But I don't have the answer.

[gashouse34]

Just curious...why would they issue an LOA for a Traced over signature but will not even consider authenticating a laminated autograph?