1927 Yankees team ball forgery

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by mr2686

First off, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with the following, but am really curious to what other's think. What I'm wondering is this - On this thread I've read that the ball would not pass now because 3rd party authenticators have become aware and have learned from their previous mistake. On past threads over the last few months, 3rd party authenticators have been bashed for making constant stupid mistakes, obviously unable or unwilling to learn. So what do we think:
1. TPA's are pretty good but make mistakes like everyone else?
2. TPA's have become too big and too busy to give each individual item their due?
3. TPA's are becoming Morales types and blanket authenticating?
4. Are TPA's leaning more and more to passing items that they should be
giving "no opinion" to?

Any thoughts?

1, 2, and 4.
1) PSA and JSA are "pretty good." They are nowhere near as good, however, as they advertise themselves to be--but what product is? Everybody makes mistakes--it's part of being human. the problem, however, is that the TPAs would have us trust them implicitly, while at the same time indemnifying themselves against all liability and responsibility for their mistakes.
2) Often we see mistakes that just should not have been made. Pure carelessness is the most likely explanation.
4) We see far too many instances of items being passed when no--or too few--actual exemplars exist.

[travrosty]

Someone said psa wouldn't pass it 5 years ago, well spence was psa's top guy just a little over 5 years ago, and look what spence is passing now. It is in my opinion, no good.

http://catalog.greyflannelauctions.c...px?lotid=26104

Does anyone think this is real?

These companies pass them then, now and whenever.

Whose says they have gotten better. They both passed a Thomas Sayers boxing autograph from the 1860's with no exemplars.

Here are some pics from the jsa ruth ball that sold north of 85,000 dollars in the grey flannel auction. Some of the sigs are shaky, the Dutch Reuther, really? Are we really going to defend these companies come heck or high water? It's insanity multiplied.

Lot more to come, not even close to being done here. Let's get opinions on this one. Whaddya think? Full JSA LOA.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Travis, with all due respect, please don't call me "someone." I also believe Steve Grad was the main authenticator for PSA five years ago and I do believe he would not pass that. Do I think that Spence would have passed it five years ago; possibly. Please note that I am basing my opinion that Steve Grad was the main authenticator for PSA five years ago (I could be wrong).

[travrosty]

Fair enough, sorry, so you are bailing on Spence then, only a PSA guy. Okay. So Grad is good and Spence is not. PSA good, JSA no good then?

Here are two 1927 Yankees spring training signed photos both certed by PSA.

The first one sold in 2004, the second one in 2009. If Grad didn't think it was real in 2009, why didn't he stop the sale at SCP?

Hooks Wiltsie isn't even in the same writing on both photos. Myles Thomas is different, Reuther is different, a lot of them are different, so is PSA still good? The Johnny Nee is way different, but these photos only went for 50k+ and 90k+ so its really nitpicking I suppose.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/sold-...o-yankees.html

[thetruthisoutthere]

I'm not "bailing" on anyone, just stated my opinion on that particular instance.

It's unfortunate but there are honest mistakes. Travis, you have every right to your opinion, whatever it may be. But I will take a person (or a company) that makes honest mistakes over a person (or a company) that blatantly authenticates every autograph that crosses their desk.

I don't know about you, Travis, but I learn something new every day about autographs. I am also certain that the honest authenticators continue to learn about autographs every day.

This thread has turned into a very educational and productive thread, I would hope that you don't turn this into one of your tirades about PSA and JSA. I am sure many of the members here reading this thread are interested in all of our opinions and I think that's great.

[perezfan]

Well said!

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I'm not "bailing" on anyone, just stated my opinion on that particular instance.

It's unfortunate but there are honest mistakes. Travis, you have every right to your opinion, whatever it may be. But I will take a person (or a company) that makes honest mistakes over a person (or a company) that blatantly authenticates every autograph that crosses their desk.

I don't know about you, Travis, but I learn something new every day about autographs. I am also certain that the honest authenticators continue to learn about autographs every day.

This thread has turned into a very educational and productive thread, I would hope that you don't turn this into one of your tirades about PSA and JSA. I am sure many of the members here reading this thread are interested in all of our opinions and I think that's great.

Spot on, Chris.

[RichardSimon]

I think it would help people on the board if they saw vintage signatures of Dempsey, so they can compare them to the one that Travis is showing. Obviously my photos and the one that Travis is showing were not signed by the same person, yet the auction I sold one of them in, the one on the left, uses PSA and it was given a PSA auction cert.

[yanks12025]

It does say three sigs were traced over. Would a forger really go that far?


How is the 2009 one fake?? It sounds like it came with provenance.. And is the hooks even his writing? Maybe someone different did it both times. I doubt these would have been signed the same day.

Just give my thoughts, I don't know anything about autos.

[travrosty]

Here is a fresh one I have NEVER shown before.

Legendary auctions, signed photos of Jack Dempsey and Jack Sharkey.

In the opinions of the top experts in boxing, myself and fighttoys.com along with others, these are no good.

The Sharkey is considered a secretarial, and the Dempsey was signed by his manager Jack Kearns, not Dempsey himself. Where are their exemplars they used to certify these?

But this lot has an LOA from PSA/DNA.

The first E in dempsey is the #3 style like his manager Kearns signed for him, Dempsey didnt use the #3 style E. Plus there are 4 other #3 style E's in the inscription also, that is Kearns' style.

The Sharkey is in a totally different style than his vintage signatures.

Is Grad still good? Just asking.

So when PSA/DNA says that you can rest easy knowing it is an authentic autograph, do you believe them? When is the insanity going to stop? \

When they are not certifying a James Jeffries boxing autograph as "James Jeffers" they are doing stuff like this.

Travis Roste


http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...x?lotid=118583

[yanks12025]

Delete

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

It does say three sigs were traced over. Would a forger really go that far?


How is the 2009 one fake?? It sounds like it came with provenance.. And is the hooks even his writing? Maybe someone different did it both times. I doubt these would have been signed the same day.

Just give my thoughts, I don't know anything about autos.

They both came with provenance, provenance doesnt mean anything, they are obviously different. Most bogus stuff at auctions has some romantic backstory to it. Backstory means nothing.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by travrosty

They both came with provenance, provenance doesnt mean anything, they are obviously different. Most bogus stuff at auctions has some romantic backstory to it. Backstory means nothing.

I would not agree with that statement.
Even the FBI in some of their published statements has stated (paraphrasing here) that provenance has value.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I would not agree with that statement.
Even the FBI in some of their published statements has stated (paraphrasing here) that provenance has value.

very few provenance stories are verifiable. most are stories that grandpa got it when babe ruth made a train stop in peoria, then they show an old article in a newspaper that anyone could have gotten anywhere, then that's provenance. It's really nothing.

out of the two photos i have shown of the 1927 spring training yankees, both had so called 'good' provenance, one was from henry Johnson's girlfriend, the other was suppose to have been given by ruppert to a hotel owner, well at least one of these stories is bogus. probably both.

A good autograph doesnt need provenance, so provenance is not important.

way too many of these authenticators are bamboozled by the backstory, we have seen the luis firpo that was as bogus as a three dollar bill certed by spence, and it came from the famous so and so collection. that was probably the provenance, that a famous collector had it in his collection, well halper did that too, (it's from the famous halper collection, so it must be good) and halper had all sorts of far flung stories that were bogus.

If psa or jsa starts authenticating by provenance, then they going down a slippery road. You either authenticate the autograph on its own merits, or you don't, or advertise the company as a 'provenance authentication company'

[travrosty]

Provenance stories just cloud better judgment, all provenance stories do is push a questionable or bogus autograph over the edge to the good side. if it was dead on, no need for provenance, it only helps the so-so autographs gain legs when they shouldn't.

These companies are afraid to give 'no opinions' , or 'unable to authenticate' is what the problem is.

Halper had Ruth hair with provenance3 signed on an envelope by Ruth himself. That provenance really helped, didn't it? It probably pushed it over the edge from "who the heck can know for sure it's ruth hair', to 'well it must be good, it has ruth provenance.'

Provenance is only for the weak autographs. Only one million percent lock solid verifiable provenance helps, and that is almost zero percent of the provenance we see in these auction listings, and in those miniscule cases, the autograph stands up for itself anyway.

I would rather have a dead-on autograph with no provenance, than a shaky looking autograph with good provenance, because the provenance story will fall through way before the dead-on autograph will. Because when it comes down to it, you have to collect autographs, not stories or certs.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by travrosty

very few provenance stories are verifiable. most are stories that grandpa got it when babe ruth made a train stop in peoria, then they show an old article in a newspaper that anyone could have gotten anywhere, then that's provenance. It's really nothing.

out of the two photos i have shown of the 1927 spring training yankees, both had so called 'good' provenance, one was from henry Johnson's girlfriend, the other was suppose to have been given by ruppert to a hotel owner, well at least one of these stories is bogus. probably both.

A good autograph doesnt need provenance, so provenance is not important.

way too many of these authenticators are bamboozled by the backstory, we have seen the luis firpo that was as bogus as a three dollar bill certed by spence, and it came from the famous so and so collection. that was probably the provenance, that a famous collector had it in his collection, well halper did that too, (it's from the famous halper collection, so it must be good) and halper had all sorts of far flung stories that were bogus.

If psa or jsa starts authenticating by provenance, then they going down a slippery road. You either authenticate the autograph on its own merits, or you don't, or advertise the company as a 'provenance authentication company'

Just for the record as to why I disagree with Travis on why Provanence is so important or why provanence does play a role in a story, here is one for you. I have worked for many famous people in my lifetime. I was given this picture and many others by a great man whos name is George George. Google him and you will see who he was. Since we have been talking about Jack Dempsey. Here is a picture of him ,Standing next to him is Rube Goldberg. George George was Rube Goldbergs son. Changed his name for professional reasons. Like I said google him and you will find out why. I have no COAs no letters,no nothing . There is no way you would ever convince me that I would need one as this picture was given to me by his son. I dont think Jack would ever taken the picture with Rube then gave the man a fake signature! Do you! George died in I believe 2008at the age of 88,a great friend. Who knows this story other that me well up until now no one. But now you all do. Provanence? You tell me.