Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

+1

This is why I have never collected autographs and never will. I can't imagine the feeling I'd have, to build a nice collection of vintage signatures, but always knowing that some percentage of them were, in fact, fakes. Further, not knowing which ones they were.

Look at how many times people post on the autograph forum asking if a signature is good, and some respond "yes" and some "no." It isn't enough to just say: "Know what you are buying," or: "Only buy from trusted sources." With autographs, establishing authenticity is often impossible.

Cards may be altered and GU jerseys or bats might be restored, but at least their authenticity is usually easy to determine.

Unless of course you get autographs signed in person yourself. That way you know they're legit.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

Unless of course you get autographs signed in person yourself. That way you know they're legit.

You do. The next owner of it doesn't.

And that doesn't work for the vintage guys, regardless.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You do. The next owner of it doesn't.

And that doesn't work for the vintage guys, regardless.

And that is exactly why someone earlier brought up provenance as a contributing factor.

For example, what if your Grandfather had gotten a card signed by Babe Ruth in person, and then years down the road told you the story and then gave it to you. Now would that make a difference to you?

[SteveS]

Going back to the early-'70s, I've always taken a camera to signings. Many of those pix are posted in another thread here, and in some of them you can see the actual item being signed. Even with that, if I ever tried to sell them I can totally see someone saying, "Yeah, but how do I know that's the EXACT SAME 1973 Topps Mays that Willie is signing in that picture?"

[Peter_Spaeth]

For game used bats, don't they assign a grade based on probability it is what it purports to be? Why not something similar for autographs?

The PSA/DNA grading standards for professional model bats are best described in the following manner:

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being best, what is the degree of likelihood that the player in question actually used the professional model bat. After determining that the particular bat is indeed authentic, our experts then consider a host of factors in evaluating the quality of a professional model bat. The core of the grading criteria is based on the strength or weakness of player use characteristics and/or the documentation that accompanies the bat .

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For game used bats, don't they assign a grade based on probability it is what it purports to be? Why not something similar for autographs?

The PSA/DNA grading standards for professional model bats are best described in the following manner:

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being best, what is the degree of likelihood that the player in question actually used the professional model bat. After determining that the particular bat is indeed authentic, our experts then consider a host of factors in evaluating the quality of a professional model bat. The core of the grading criteria is based on the strength or weakness of player use characteristics and/or the documentation that accompanies the bat .

Or a letter of opinion, where you write about your opinion.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For game used bats, don't they assign a grade based on probability it is what it purports to be? Why not something similar for autographs?

The PSA/DNA grading standards for professional model bats are best described in the following manner:

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being best, what is the degree of likelihood that the player in question actually used the professional model bat. After determining that the particular bat is indeed authentic, our experts then consider a host of factors in evaluating the quality of a professional model bat. The core of the grading criteria is based on the strength or weakness of player use characteristics and/or the documentation that accompanies the bat .

It makes sense with GU bats to have such a grading scale, because there are degrees of player use. For starters, a bat can match factory shipping records (model and date of labeling period matching the H&B records for a specific player) but have no evidence of game use. Or, it can have no use but the player may have taped the handle or written his uniform number on the knob. This is known as "game ready."

It was common for players to use each others' bats. I've owned several bats that were ordered by one player, but clearly used by another. For example, the markings Bob Allison put on the knob of his bats was highly distinctive - his number and bat weight inside of parenthesis. I once owned a bat ordered by Vic Power, with Power's signature name on the barrel, and Allison's knob writing and Allison's typical pine tar application on the handle.

I once had a Johnny Bench bat that was ordered by him, matched factory records, had his number on the knob in his distinctive style, genuine in every respect, but PSA/DNA only graded it an 8 because there weren't enough ball and stitch marks. Not enough use. I also had a 1964 Frank Robinson bat, matched factory records, had his number on the knob, heavy use, genuine all the way, but the handle had been cracked and tape repared, and there were small scratches on the barrel. It was determined the bat had been used after being cracked, probably by kids, where it got scuffed up a bit. It graded a 6.5.

Then there are "team index" bats, which were ordered by the teams for general use by any player. Sometimes a player would claim one of these, put his number on the knob, and use it regularly. So the bat might have the name of a star player on the barrel, but evident use by another player.

And so on. A scale from 1 to 10 can be constructed with actual scenarios that have been encountered for each of those grades. I have always believed there should've been 2 grades given - one for authenticity (did it belong to the player) and one for game usage/condition. Instead, those 2 elements are combined into one number.

Anyway, my point is, with GU bats (and to a lesser degree, GU jerseys) there are degrees that are real and legitimate. These degrees exist with the item itself. With an autograph, it is either authentic or it isn't. There might be degrees with condition, like fading and so on, but are no degrees with the item's authenticity.

If you put a scale on the authenticity of an autograph, what you are actually doing is simply creating a fudge factor for the authenticator. In other words, it would be a grade not of the item, but of the grader's skill/confidence level.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I appreciate those examples and their nuances, yet the inquiry as framed by PSA itself seems binary: did the player use the bat in a game or not? And the grade captures the degree of likelihood.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I appreciate those examples and their nuances, yet the inquiry as framed by PSA itself seems binary: did the player use the bat in a game or not? And the grade captures the degree of likelihood.

Attached is the letter on the Frank.

Model, weight, and length match H&B factory records and are specific to 1964. The model number was not used for pro stock. Frank's number, heavily faded, is on the knob, the barrel and handle are scored, there is some pine tar, and many ball marks and barrel checking.

Conclusion: "After a thorough examination of this Frank Robinson professional model bat and its player use characteristics, it is our opinion the bat is authentic, and was game used by Robinson during the referenced labeling period. The bat exhibits heavy use and possesses identifiable player use characteristics."

With all this, we should be looking at a pretty nice grade, right? But then.....

Comments: "Mention must be made to the condition of the barrel of this Frank Robinson professional model bat. The numerous abrasions and scuffing indicate the bat was used after it was cracked by Robinson."

And with that, it's bumped down to 6.5 based on condition issues.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I appreciate those examples and their nuances, yet the inquiry as framed by PSA itself seems binary: did the player use the bat in a game or not? And the grade captures the degree of likelihood.

Game Used grades aren't entirely about game use. There are deductions for other aspects. Kind of a strange brew.