Poll: Is this Cobb legit, or is it a "rotten peach"?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by travrosty

jim,

how did you get that info, is it true?

the dots are in the same spot, and even a master forger can't copy a sig exactly like that. so if that is what psa said, i am dumbfounded. In my mind, it can't be anything other than a reproduced copy by a printer.

He posted it in the thread in the BST

[travrosty]

thanks, I see that now, now i dont know what to think.

it cant be hand drawn, no way. not in my book.


Identical background spots is the dead giveaway for me.

[RichardSimon]

According to what Donovan told us -
PSA Discovers Master Forger!!!
Someone great enough to fool the entire world,,,except for one thing, the master forger is a Hewlett Packard printer and it did not fool some people on Net54.

ps. we should all quit the autograph business now, there is a master forger on the loose,,, A MASTER. Us mere mortals have no chance.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

According to what Donovan told us -
PSA Discovers Master Forger!!!
Someone great enough to fool the entire world,,,except for one thing, the master forger is a Hewlett Packard printer and it did not fool some people on Net54.

ps. we should all quit the autograph business now, there is a master forger on the loose,,, A MASTER. Us mere mortals have no chance.

Richard, I found that peculiar too, ,that psa would use the word MASTER forger, (correction, not psa's words, donavon used the word amazing forger, with a very skilled hand, when relaying what psa said), it might be the only way to explain that they would get fooled is to create a MASTER (amazing) forger, for surely no one could blame them now that this Merlin the magician is out there, we are no match.

The steadiest hands in the world could not create an autograph that exact. Notice on the T in Ty, there is a segment near the top where the ink skips. This master forger would have to quickly make that top of the T to skip in the exact same spot.

He couldn't do it slow as the ink would show signs of pooling and it would be more thick in that spot where he stopped, and where he started again. It would look cruddy, slowly drawn and would be obvious. But that's not what we have, we have a quick skipping of the ink just like ron's example. how do you do that if you are copying it by hand? impossible. there are no differences to the human eye between the two and the human eye is very keen.

[RichardSimon]

Maybe Hewlett Packard, or some printer company, should view this as a great advertising opportunity. "We are selling the Master Forger, for only $99.99 you can have the same machine."
This is so much BS,,, did they really think that we would buy a story like this?
Donovan for educational purposes I would really like to have my hands on that piece for a good look. Do you think you would do that?
I would gladly pay all shipping charges involved and return it to you promptly.

[travrosty]

Donavon,

Richard Simon is a long time hobbyist, authenticator, and very respected in the collecting community. He would give the item a fair inspection, he is willing to do it for free and you have his word he will return it to you.

What could be the reason to not believe him or not take him up on the offer? What do you have to lose? You already got paid for the item. Why such a rush to destroy it when it only looks bad that the evidence will be burnt quickly upon arrival like there is something to hide instead of the hobby learning from it? Why not have another authenticator look at it? You had said previously you would have a document examiner look at it too. Why not get a second opinion instead of only trusting the same people who got it wrong and said it was good in the first place?

When a bridge falls down, do people contract for a new bridge with the same company that built the bridge in the first place?, Or maybe go with someone else this time?

Again, Richard will do a thorough job and he will be fair.

And again, if you write 'forgery' on the back and keep it in your possession and only send it to trusted idividuals for inspection, how can anyone ever sell it or use it? How would it 'escape' back to the general hobby? Destroying it is a way for no one to ever be able to see important evidence of a master forgers or photoshopper's work and learn from it. Is it because it is PSA?

I don't want to seem like I am piling on donavon, but why burn it? There are many times in my life I have thrown something away I was SURE I would never need, use or look at again, and after awhile I really needed it but it was gone. We need to save exemplars, even forgery exemplars for the education of this hobby.

[GrayGhost]

Agreed on Trav' last post

[GrayGhost]

Agreed on Trav' last post

[yanks12025]

David,

I was thinking that the whole time, that he probably hadn't gotten it back. Specially now that he won't even post it with a current newspaper.

And I'm sure that if Richard changed his mind said he'd go, I'm sure Donovan would change his mind and tell Richard that he can't now. Because he knows Richard won't make that trip.

Any one on the board living near the seller?

Originally Posted by RichardSimon
According to what Donovan told us - PSA Discovers Master Forger!!!
Someone great enough to fool the entire world,,,except for one thing, the master forger is a Hewlett Packard printer and it did not fool some people on Net54.

ps. we should all quit the autograph business now, there is a master forger on the loose,,, A MASTER. Us mere mortals have no chance.

Originally Posted by travrosty

Richard, I found that peculiar too, ,that psa would use the word MASTER forger, it might be the only way to explain that they would get fooled is to create a MASTER forger, for surely no one could blame them now that this Merlin the magician is out there, we are no match.

You two keep referring to PSA calling this the work of a Master Forger, and you seem to be taking delight in denigrating their use of that term - but I've read both threads on this matter, and I didn't see where PSA used that term, or was reported to have used that term. Is there a 3rd thread, or did I miss something?