Warning: Disturbing Autograph "Authentication" Material!

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by drc

I agree that a company charging a fee to judge the accuracy of their own LOAs-- and, not only that, but saying this should be done on the LOA-- is, well, a curious concept.

I give quick opinions often-- people send me photos of their items asking for my quick 2 cents--, but I'm hardly going to allow that opinion be printed out as a LOA for an item I've never seen in person.

agreed, many times i give my opinion, but i say that only seeing it in person could i be sure. not going to issue an loa because some scan looked okay.

auction loa was a pig in a poke from the beginning, pay me more to upgrade then i will say it is really real. It is all about revenue streams first and foremost with them.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by travrosty

auction loa was a pig in a poke from the beginning, pay me more to upgrade then i will say it is really real. It is all about revenue streams first and foremost with them.

So if I pay $20,000 for a signed FDC that was given an auction letter by Spence am I pretty much guaranteed I can get a full letter from Spence even if on second look it's an obvious forgery?

[drc]

The basic responsibility and work for choosing authentic autographs for the auctions should be the auction houses themselves. If, in addition, they wish to have outside people give quick opinions, that's perfectly fine if not commendable.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

So if I pay $20,000 for a signed FDC that was given an auction letter by Spence am I pretty much guaranteed I can get a full letter from Spence even if on second look it's an obvious forgery?

well, they said at the time that auction loa was a "preliminary review" and if the inspection for the full loa differed with the auction loa, then you would get some type of credit for another authentication in the future. i guess you would have to take it up with the auction house then, but of course the auction house employs the TPA to avoid that type of liability.

now psa has a pre-certification, which is an auction loa only under another name. but the pre-certification does guarantee that it WILL pass for the full loa, but i dont know that the process they use to issue the pre-certification is any different than what they used for the auction loa's, which in many instances was looking at scans of the items via the computer. probably why jsa issued an auction loa for a mike tyson preprint that sold at heritage auction a couple of months ago with a coveted 'JSA AUCTION LOA'

its all very confusing and i think the companies dont mind it being that way, they are impossible to pin down just as to what an auction loa and precertification really mean.

and we have tried to ask those questions multiple times with a certain auction house, and all we got was circular logic that didn't lead anywhere. we kept asking and asking just what an auction loa was and what is the difference now that they have pre-certification instead of auction loa, and what the deal was, and we got doublespeak, doubletalk and babbling that we couldn't understand.

Can't pin them down on how exactly they inspect each item for an auction loa, pre-certification or full certification for that matter. They don't seem to want to care to explain it either. They all want to push liability onto the other party, with the ultimate excuse is that it is just "their opinion".

[slidekellyslide]

Thanks for the info...it's good to know that auction letters don't mean shinola. And if you get stuck with what turns out to be a forgery nobody is going to take responsibility.

[David Atkatz]

Ain't that the truth!

[slidekellyslide]

David, I had your baseball in mind when I started this line of questions. Hopefully there is some way you will get restitution otherwise it really is just one big racket.

[Leon]

I am not an autograph collector but obviously deal with a lot of folks who are. Here are a few random thoughts I have come up with pertaining to this thread.

1. I can't help but every time I see a Nash article think of the hot water he is in and alleged fraud he has committed. If I am not mistaking there is still an outstanding (large) judgement against him and a civil bench warrant for his arrest. Kind of like Sandusky lecturing on child abuse. That being said I do applaud his work in trying to uncover fraud in the hobby...but I can't help wondering the motive.

2. The quick opinions from TPA's don't seem to be worth the paper they are written on, from what I am reading.

3. TPA's and LOA's don't guarantee anything except an invoice for TPA services.

4. Lastly, I do understand "experience" but I don't think it's right to call into question someone's age in this argument. Casey is an adult and he is putting his money where his mouth is in this hobby. Many of the people who yell the loudest have the least vested interest. Casey isn't one of those guys.

Now back to the card side....at least things are civil over there.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

...
Now back to the card side....at least things are civil over there.

As in 'civil war'.

[HRBAKER]

Good points Leon, especially #1. Assuming the worst as far as a motive, it doesn't make the information any less damning IMO if true.

The reality is this, the only thing that is certain to me about a TPA LOA is that the item is likely to be more "liquid" in today's hobby.
And that my friends is a result of marketing more than anything IMO.

[RichardSimon]

(quote)(Travis)"These TPA's should slow down at least some and make sure they look for erasures on every piece, and really do a good thorough job, even if it takes awhile and the profit on that piece isn't as much as they would like. Integrity of the process to protect the collector should trump profit at ANY cost."

Some of you may know that I was on the first PSA authentication team along with Jimmy Spence, Jim Stinson and Ron Gordon.
We all flew to California for the work. (once a month when authentication first started).
At one point in time we all asked to stay over for an extra day, because we knew the amount of items we had to inspect would not get the time allotted to them that would have been necessary to make the proper decisions for the items.
Our request was denied by a higher up at the company. I don't recall who.
"Get it done by tonite" was the reply.

[johnmh71]

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

1. I think its pretty clear that the items he recently uncovered are online at the auction house archives. that's not taking his word, it is using your own eyes to see that a certified wagner signature wasn't there (very light), and two years later, it was! (added dark signature).

2. I think it is made clear that the autographs that are questioned are Ron K's opinion unless you have something against him I think he is a very good source for an opinion on these autographs.

3. If the item is bad with a TPA cert, then what's the difference, other than people feel more comfortable buying the forgery with the TPA cert. Forgers use the TPA to legitimize their forgeries, that is why it is important to get them right. if the TPA's got them right, i would have nothing to complain about. But they obviously don't.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

IMO, one of the big problems is too many people who feel the way you do. The alphabet boys mistakes keep getting dismissed as just a few mistakes and nobody is ever held responsible for them. In reality, it seems to be a lot of mistakes. Not to mention, is there really any excuse for authenticating a preprint? Absolutely not. Zero reason why that should EVER happen. But it happens over and over.

How many times do these TPA's have to authenticate a preprint, a secretarial, an autograph with no known exemplars, or outright obvious forgeries before people say enough is enough. Instead, they are dismissed as honest mistakes that could happen to anyone. WHy not hold them accountable for these mistakes and quit listening to THEM tell us all how great they are at authenticating. How many times do they have to make these same mistakes to make people realize, something isn't quite right or they just aren't as good as they claim to be.

Whether you have someone intentionally forging and putting items into the marketplace, or you have someone authenticate something without real knowledge or credentials or authenticating in a rush and doing a poor job, the end result is the same. Forgeries hit the market.

Just the face that the TPA's and auction houses don't answer questions about these issues should send up red flags. Sadly, they have done so much marketing that they have convinced the world they are the best.

IMO, it is completely unethical to charge a fee for a preliminary authentication, only to later charge another fee to do a "real" authentication. If people can't see where this is wrong.......

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

John- the viable alternative is to stick with the dealers who know their material and whose knowledge is not second guessed, and IMO have greater knowledge than the TPA's. I have posted names in the past Stinson, Corcoran, Albersheim, Ron Gordon, Keating, Phil Marks and Lelands who authenticates their own stuff. If you stay with them that is the best alternative that I know.

[steve B]

Pushing the schedule that hard seems like a good way to ensure mistakes. I'm not sure I'd be willing to work that way with any of the stuff I do. There are always rush jobs, but not at the expense of quality either for that job or the ones it's putting off till later.

From the APS
http://stamps.org/DisplayPage.aspx?id=197
"12.No item will be accepted if the owner insists upon a deadline date for its return. Owners should allow 90 days before expecting a certificate. Since items are submitted to expert committee members for their opinions by mail, unavoidable delays are often experienced."

Of course their guarantee is a bit better. Not much for very high end stuff, but great for most items.
http://stamps.org/APEX-Guarantee

The certs are atually meaningful, and it's only $8 if they decline to make a decision. Most items get through the system reasonably quickly, but some really special ones can take a while. And controversial ones can take years and still get what's essentially a no decision. One batch of questionable Hawaiian stamps literally took years, and involved actual experts in printing, paper, inks, and probably a few specialties I didn't hear about. The English equivalent to the APS took it on, and ended up writing a book. And they're still controversial, although most likely fake. I've seen them in person, and they're spectacular fakes -assuming they're not actually real.
If you've got time there's lots of info here. delay in certs? These have only been waiting since 1919.....
http://www.hawaiianstamps.com/mi_grinnell.html

Steve B