1927 Yankees team ball forgery

[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.

[David Atkatz]

You're wrong, Travis. Provenance is not BS stories. Provenance is, above all, verifiable. If it can't be proven that, for example, a piece actually did belong to the person or institution claimed (a photo of him with it, a museum or library stamp, etc.), then it ain't provenance. It's a BS story.

[RichardSimon]

Travs, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Though autographs have to stand on their merits and I would certainly never let a provenance story sway me, I still think that provenance matters. It helps if you are a good BS detector and can tell when the provenance is BS.
Of course when I have the guy who forged the Black Sox items I showed above, the same one I believe who forged the 1927 Yankee baseball, when I have him in my apartment and he is trying to sell me stuff, his provenance meant nothing. He claimed to have a hobby store in Forest Hills and this stuff that he was trying to peddle "just walked into the store."
Someone else who used to post here used to say that to me also.

[David Atkatz]

Once again, provenance is not a story. Provenance is the verifiable history of an object; key word here being verifiable. An auction catalog, say, from the 1950s, in which an item appears, proves where that item was at that time. It thus could not have been forged, say, by someone who hadn't even been born then.

Again, provenance is not the word-of-mouth story that a seller tries to hand you. True or not, that's just a story.

Understand what provenance is, before you criticise.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Once again, provenance is not a story. Provenance is the verifiable history of an object; key word here being verifiable. An auction catalog, say, from the 1950s, in which an item appears, proves where that item was at that time. It thus could not have been forged, say, by someone who hadn't even been born then.

Again, provenance is not the word-of-mouth story that a seller tries to hand you. True or not, that's just a story.

Understand what provenance is, before you criticise.

Agreed. By definition provenance is provable history or chain of ownership.

[RichardSimon]

You are correct and the word of mouth story from the young man in my apartment was totally transparent to me and I knew his word of mouth was BS.
He never fooled me nor did his partner fool me when he tried to sell me that 1920's NY Giants ball.
I always judge the autographs on merit but I do find that most of the word of mouth stories I am told, ok I won't call it provenance, are more often than not believable. Certainly not always but more often than not.
I deal a lot with people outside the hobby and have found much success in dealing with them.
When I buy a Roger Maris signed photograph, and totally think the autograph is authentic, and the photo is inscribed To Yvonne who told me she worked in Maris' dentists office, and asked him for an autograph, and I make my payment to Yvonne G------, well, I tend to think that person's word of mouth story is true.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have to agree with the rest provenance is a very important aspect of an item. Sometimes provenance is more important to me than Most of the experts put together. "if it was dead on" as you say dead on to who an autograph expert where it has already been proven time and time again that even the best at the game can and will continue to be fooled at the expense of the poor person who is willing to put down hard earned money on the word of a So called expert! Please as I have said time and time again unless you were there when the item was signed it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that the item was signed by the person who signed it. And that my friend is the real truth.

[David Atkatz]

It may not be possible to say with 100% certainty. But it is possible to say, at times, with, oh, 99.5% certainty. That's good enough for most.

[slidekellyslide]

Hey guys, a simple request - Stop using swear words. Thanks.

[batsballsbases]

David my friend and you know you are 99.5% might be a good average to hang your hat on but that .5% ended up costing you alot of money!

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Hey guys, a simple request - Stop using swear words. Thanks.

Sorry Dan, I thought that particular word was acceptable.
Would you want me to go back and soften it up?

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Please as I have said time and time again unless you were there when the item was signed it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that the item was signed by the person who signed it. And that my friend is the real truth.

That holds for all "collectables," not just autographs. Can anyone prove, with 100% certainty, that the 1934 Goudey Gehrig in front of me is real? Can it be proven that someone hasn't figured out how to just-about-perfectly counterfeit Goudeys? It ain't likely, but it can't be 100% ruled out.

[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.