Warning: Disturbing Autograph "Authentication" Material!

[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.......

[HRBAKER]

Chris,

It's an uphill climb, not many collectors want to consider the possibility that some of what they have may be bogus. And many dealers have become very reliant on the TPAs as a "sales tool" and price enhancer.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Chris,

It's an uphill climb, not many collectors want to consider the possibility that some of what they have may be bogus. And many dealers have become very reliant on the TPAs as a "sales tool" and price enhancer.

You are right Jeff and it is a very unfortunate situation for collectors. I can't imagine how David Atkatz must feel. He seems to be taking it much better than I would.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by vintagechris

You are right Jeff and it is a very unfortunate situation for collectors. I can't imagine how David Atkatz must feel. He seems to be taking it much better than I would.

It's not the end of the world, Chris. There are far more important things in life than a signed baseball, or even the money it cost.

[vintagechris]

BTW, I might add that I don't believe a person's age means anything in regards to their knowledge. I know a lot of young guys under 30, some well under 30, who have done their homework and have way more knowledge than some older guys.

The number of years you have been on this earth means nothing compared to the total number of hours you have studied something.

For an example, I saw a story on 60 minutes about this 12 year old math genius in college and I would venture to say there are few people in this world at any age who can match his knowledge.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by vintagechris

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.......

This is exactly right. its the advertising that has told the masses what to believe in regards to these tpa's. They don't give interviews and answer any hard questions, only softball interviews that let them crow about how great they are.

[Bilko G]

One thing i have to ask after reading the Haulsofshame.com article and this thread, is are we sure that the original auctions only contained "auction loa's" and NOT full loa's? No where in the Haulofshames article does it say that only auction loa's were given for each item. In Fact the article only says “Offered with LOAs by James Spence and Mike Gutierrez.”, it does not say that they were only auction loa's offered, yet when someone mentioned it in this thread, it seems everyone took it for fact that it was only auction loa's offered in both auctions in 1999 and 2 years later in 2001. In fact when someone mentioned that they were only "auction loa's", it seems that the thread turned focus and only centered mainly around these "auction loa's" when really the article does not even mention if it was full or just auction loa's offered for these two auctions.

Now my next question is, would JSA offer ONLY an "auction loa" on a high profile item like this? An item that has 11 signatures of the original HOF inductees? An item like this, that has some of the most forged signatures in the history of autograph collecting? Would JSA only give a "auction loa" on an item that sells for tens of thousands of dollars? It would be interesting to talk to JSA and ask them this because i can not see them offering only an "auction loa" on an item of this magnitude, that nowadays sells for $40K+++!! An auction loa just basically means "that we believe this item could be authentic, but we would have to examine it further to be sure". Now i can see JSA giving these letters for lower priced items, but would they do that on a big priced item like this? On an item that would basically be an auction "center piece" in most auctions???

[J.McMurry]

My question in regards to the article and comments on this thread center on Spence himself. Taking out the TPG aspect of the situation,what is the opinion of James Spence the person? is he considered to be a crook? incompetent? untrustworthy? unknowledgeable? I noticed Richard did not list him among the names that were reliable,but about 10 years back,Spence fell into the category of "dealer who authenticates his own material". Just curious to hear opinions.

[drc]

I'm not an autograph expert and won't comment on expertise, but I dealt with Spence a few times several years ago when he was at PSA. I thought he was a nice guy and he was very helpful to me, including when I was not a customer. Had nothing bad to say about him.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by J.McMurry

My question in regards to the article and comments on this thread center on Spence himself. Taking out the TPG aspect of the situation,what is the opinion of James Spence the person? is he considered to be a crook? incompetent? untrustworthy? unknowledgeable? I noticed Richard did not list him among the names that were reliable,but about 10 years back,Spence fell into the category of "dealer who authenticates his own material". Just curious to hear opinions.

Jody - the people I listed are autograph dealers who buy and sell.
Spence is not a dealer.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by J.McMurry

My question in regards to the article and comments on this thread center on Spence himself. Taking out the TPG aspect of the situation,what is the opinion of James Spence the person? is he considered to be a crook? incompetent? untrustworthy? unknowledgeable? I noticed Richard did not list him among the names that were reliable,but about 10 years back,Spence fell into the category of "dealer who authenticates his own material". Just curious to hear opinions.

I had heard that, and didn't know for sure either way, then I saw this.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...px?lotid=17131

This sure looks like a Spence created display, certed by Spence, so going by this description, it looked like he certed what was or what once was his own item., He should have recused himself.



An absolutely phenomenal signed display that features the autographs of 10 of the 11 living members (at the time) of the 1939 Hall of Fame dedication ceremonies during baseball's centennial year (Ty Cobb arrived too late to be in the famous photo). The piece was crafted by the inimitable James Spence, whose signed displays are the "cream of the crop". Includes: Babe Ruth (personal check); Walter Johnson (check); J. Honus Wagner (cut); George Sisler (cut); Eddie Collins (cut); Connie Mack (cut); Tris Speaker (cut); Cy Young (cut); Grover Cleveland Alexander (index card); Larry Lajoie (index card). Every one of the vintage ink signatures rate a solid "9-10" in strength, and each of the "cuts" are large examples. Accompanying the signed items are... an 11" x 14" black & white photo of the 11 Hall of Famers; seven original black & white Hall of Fame postcards (Wagner, Ruth, Collins, Young, Johnson, Alexander & Lajoie); copies of the other three postcards (Sisler, Mack & Speaker); a reproduction of the colorful 1939 Baseball Centennial program. Majestically framed & matted to 33 x 41 inches. LOA from James Spence/PSA DNA.

[travrosty]

I think it should be mentioned that auction loa's and quick opinions are more of a recent concept.

I don't see these auction listings for 10, 12 years ago mentioning auction loa's, because I don't believe the concept didn't exist back then, the concept of giving an item a lesser, quick, preliminary, cursory review and then trying to get the buyer to send in the item for the full loa after they give in a full inspection to certifying that it is "really" real.

if it had an loa from spence/guttierez or whoever, then it had an loa from them.

[RichardSimon]

Ya gotta just laugh and cry about the balls, the gonads not the baseballs , of the auction COA con.
The alphabets charge an auction house thousands of dollars when they visit them, they issue an auction COA, then they stick the collector with another $100+ or whatever jab, to actually examine the item.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

One thing i have to ask after reading the Haulsofshame.com article and this thread, is are we sure that the original auctions only contained "auction loa's" and NOT full loa's? No where in the Haulofshames article does it say that only auction loa's were given for each item. In Fact the article only says “Offered with LOAs by James Spence and Mike Gutierrez.”, it does not say that they were only auction loa's offered, yet when someone mentioned it in this thread, it seems everyone took it for fact that it was only auction loa's offered in both auctions in 1999 and 2 years later in 2001. In fact when someone mentioned that they were only "auction loa's", it seems that the thread turned focus and only centered mainly around these "auction loa's" when really the article does not even mention if it was full or just auction loa's offered for these two auctions.

Now my next question is, would JSA offer ONLY an "auction loa" on a high profile item like this? An item that has 11 signatures of the original HOF inductees? An item like this, that has some of the most forged signatures in the history of autograph collecting? Would JSA only give a "auction loa" on an item that sells for tens of thousands of dollars? It would be interesting to talk to JSA and ask them this because i can not see them offering only an "auction loa" on an item of this magnitude, that nowadays sells for $40K+++!! An auction loa just basically means "that we believe this item could be authentic, but we would have to examine it further to be sure". Now i can see JSA giving these letters for lower priced items, but would they do that on a big priced item like this? On an item that would basically be an auction "center piece" in most auctions???

Bilko,

That is exactly right. Someone threw out the 'auction loa' out there as speculation to try to lessen the blow of the story and cause a diversion from the issues at hand.

No where in the auction listings did it say 'auction loa'. It said it had Loa's by spence/guttierez. that's it. not auction loa. So I think spence/guttierez need to explain themselves, there is no hiding behind an auction loa that was only was bandied about as speculation. We have to go by the information we know like the original auction listings.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...px?lotid=20189