Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

There would be very, very few authenticated autos out there if this were the criteria…which by the way I fully support. If you don’t know, just say you don’t know.

The problem is that most people don't think probabilistically. They want a thumbs up or a thumbs down. They can't wrap their heads around the confusion matrix output that yields an 83% probability of a signature being authentic. The authenticator can make two different types of errors: they can reject a valid signature, and they can authenticate a forged one. But there's a trade off between these, and where you choose to operate on the ROC curve has consequences in either direction that increase or decrease the likelihood of getting it wrong one way or the other. The truth is, even the best of the best authenticators would be expected to make mistakes at a rate that almost no one in this hobby would find acceptable unless they were a mathematician or a statistician who knows what sort of outcomes to expect and who knows how to see the world through the lens of probability. If I were to say that I would expect the best experts in the world to be wrong something like 15% of the time, most people would probably tell me I'm an idiot, but the ones who don't call me an idiot would almost certainly tell me I'm an idiot when I tell them that they'd probably be wrong something like 30 to 40% of the time. But that's the ballpark of what I would expect to see if we were to set up a test with a sample set of signatures using a mix of authentic and forged examples with no provenance to accompany them. It's just not something that humans are going to be "good" at no matter how much one studies it. This is why provenance is so important. It can drastically increase the likelihood of authenticity.

Imagine if every LOA or COA came with the truth printed on it. "JSA is 91% confident that this baseball has been signed by Mickey Mantle", or "PSA/DNA estimates that there is a 74% probability that this photo has been signed by Willie Mays. However, this does not meet our confidence threshold of 85%, so we are unable to authenticate it at this time." Nobody would pay for their service if this was the end product. So they just give us the thumbs up or thumbs down instead. But the reality is, they're going to get this stuff wrong far more often than most people would expect, and certainly more often than they would be comfortable with if they knew the truth. But the reality is, PSA and JSA are both probably a hell of lot better at it than any of us are.

[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.

[drcy]

"Imagine if every LOA or COA came with the truth printed on it."

I think you unintentionally said a mouthful there.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by drcy

"Imagine if every LOA or COA came with the truth printed on it."

I think you unintentionally said a mouthful there.

It certainly opens up a can of worms, although I'd say my phrasing was intentional. Perhaps the difference from how I see things and how others might view this though would be that I would be ok with the fact that if I had 100 autographed pieces of memorabilia in my collection which required a third-party authentication for them to have any value, then I'd be ok with knowing that ~10 to 15 of them were actually fake (even if I didn't know which ones), whereas if someone else were to learn this about their collection, it might boil their blood. I think I just have a more realistic expectation of what sort of standards the experts can/should be held to than the general public. It seems that most collectors want them to be nearly infallible. I think they're going to make A LOT of mistakes. But I don't think we can expect them to do better. Others will disagree. It is what it is.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The problem is that most people don't think probabilistically. They want a thumbs up or a thumbs down.... It seems that most collectors want them to be nearly infallible.

I think this is a subset of a more general concept that is applicable well beyond autograph authentication. The problem is that most people don't think probabilistically. They want someone to tell them the answer.

[mrreality68]

The Bottom Line is back both in 2015 and present day many people have questions about the autograph and if it is legit or not.

Regardless of the questions, the doubts, etc
Regardless of its trail of "documentation" and the Auction Houses it sold thru

The reality is that it sold for what it sold for and it is not considered the most valuable autographed photo.

Someone paid big money in 2015 and someone paid bigger money in 2021

My guess when it sells again in the future it will sell for big money..

Hopefully it would be nice in the future it can be confirmed either way.

But until then the Debate Goes on

[jason.1969]

If I were to say that I would expect the best experts in the world to be wrong something like 15% of the time, most people would probably tell me I'm an idiot.

Sounds about right to me. It’s more or less like Angel Hernandez or Laz Diaz calling balls and strikes. The only thing I would question is whether anyone involved in authenticating the Jackson deserves the label “best expert in the world.”

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by jason.1969

Sounds about right to me. It’s more or less like Angel Hernandez or Laz Diaz calling balls and strikes. The only thing I would question is whether anyone involved in authenticating the Jackson deserves the label “best expert in the world.”

Nice.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The problem is that most people don't think probabilistically. They want a thumbs up or a thumbs down. They can't wrap their heads around the confusion matrix output that yields an 83% probability of a signature being authentic. The authenticator can make two different types of errors: they can reject a valid signature, and they can authenticate a forged one. But there's a trade off between these, and where you choose to operate on the ROC curve has consequences in either direction that increase or decrease the likelihood of getting it wrong one way or the other. The truth is, even the best of the best authenticators would be expected to make mistakes at a rate that almost no one in this hobby would find acceptable unless they were a mathematician or a statistician who knows what sort of outcomes to expect and who knows how to see the world through the lens of probability. If I were to say that I would expect the best experts in the world to be wrong something like 15% of the time, most people would probably tell me I'm an idiot, but the ones who don't call me an idiot would almost certainly tell me I'm an idiot when I tell them that they'd probably be wrong something like 30 to 40% of the time. But that's the ballpark of what I would expect to see if we were to set up a test with a sample set of signatures using a mix of authentic and forged examples with no provenance to accompany them. It's just not something that humans are going to be "good" at no matter how much one studies it. This is why provenance is so important. It can drastically increase the likelihood of authenticity.

Imagine if every LOA or COA came with the truth printed on it. "JSA is 91% confident that this baseball has been signed by Mickey Mantle", or "PSA/DNA estimates that there is a 74% probability that this photo has been signed by Willie Mays. However, this does not meet our confidence threshold of 85%, so we are unable to authenticate it at this time." Nobody would pay for their service if this was the end product. So they just give us the thumbs up or thumbs down instead. But the reality is, they're going to get this stuff wrong far more often than most people would expect, and certainly more often than they would be comfortable with if they knew the truth. But the reality is, PSA and JSA are both probably a hell of lot better at it than any of us are.

In other fields a cert stating "we decline to render an opinion" does occasionally happen especially on very rare items.

And the experts when confronted with evidence showing that an earlier opinion was wrong will correct the opinion.
A writeup of an item accepted as genuine since at least the 1950's.
https://www.rfrajola.com/opinions/klep.htm

And the auction listing that prompted the examination. (Lot 68)
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php?...r+8-10%2C+1998

Yes, experts will make mistakes, but real experts fix them when they're wrong. And are wrong a lot less than PSA etc on expensive items.

For some reason our hobby generally accepts an opinion from some experts as written in stone, and the companies do the same.
I'm unsure about the Jackson photo, but am inclined to think it's not his signature.
For a million plus, I'd want way more convincing than "well, PSA says so" And to be entirely clear, I believe the hobby in general deserves better than that.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It certainly opens up a can of worms, although I'd say my phrasing was intentional. Perhaps the difference from how I see things and how others might view this though would be that I would be ok with the fact that if I had 100 autographed pieces of memorabilia in my collection which required a third-party authentication for them to have any value, then I'd be ok with knowing that ~10 to 15 of them were actually fake (even if I didn't know which ones), whereas if someone else were to learn this about their collection, it might boil their blood. I think I just have a more realistic expectation of what sort of standards the experts can/should be held to than the general public. It seems that most collectors want them to be nearly infallible. I think they're going to make A LOT of mistakes. But I don't think we can expect them to do better. Others will disagree. It is what it is.

It says that a collector should be knowledgeable about what they collect, and not rely only on someone else's opinion.

If someone owns 100 pieces and 10-15 percent of them are fake, that's a problem.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

In other fields a cert stating "we decline to render an opinion" does occasionally happen especially on very rare items.

And the experts when confronted with evidence showing that an earlier opinion was wrong will correct the opinion.
A writeup of an item accepted as genuine since at least the 1950's.
https://www.rfrajola.com/opinions/klep.htm

And the auction listing that prompted the examination. (Lot 68)
https://siegelauctions.com/lots.php?...r+8-10%2C+1998

Yes, experts will make mistakes, but real experts fix them when they're wrong. And are wrong a lot less than PSA etc on expensive items.

For some reason our hobby generally accepts an opinion from some experts as written in stone, and the companies do the same.
I'm unsure about the Jackson photo, but am inclined to think it's not his signature.
For a million plus, I'd want way more convincing than "well, PSA says so" And to be entirely clear, I believe the hobby in general deserves better than that.

As these expensive items migrate from collectibles to investments, the focus migrates from the item itself to the flip/certification. IMO.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As these expensive items migrate from collectibles to investments, the focus migrates from the item itself to the flip/certification. IMO.

They're investing in the "market value"

[drcy]

The problem is when authentication and grading companies "financially insure" the items.

They are giving their opinions, and the way to corrupt the process, and that has corrupted the process, when they are "financially backing the items." The opinion, and reluctance to correct the opinion, due to $$ considerations says the system is corrupt and bad.

That the T206 Wagner still has a PSA 8 label is all you have to know. Everyone knows it's not a PSA 8-- Mastro said that he himself trimmed it, and that card is trimmed has been the hobby's worst kept secret for years. The "opinion" is not about facts or accuracy or truth, it's about money.

However, the grading and authentication companies explicitly state that they are only giving imperfect and fallible opinions. If buyers and sellers treat an opinion as more than that that's the buyers' and sellers' fault. Collectors can't logically and with straight faces treat grades as 'written in stone' while resubmitting cards to get different grades.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by drcy

The problem is when authentication and grading companies "financially insure" the items.

They are giving their opinions, and the way to corrupt the process, and that has corrupted the process, when they are "financially backing the items." The opinion, and reluctance to correct the opinion, due to $$ considerations says the system is corrupt and bad.

That the T206 Wagner still has a PSA 8 label is all you have to know. Everyone knows it's not a PSA 8-- Mastro said that he himself trimmed it, and that card is trimmed has been the hobby's worst kept secret for years. The "opinion" is not about facts or accuracy or truth, it's about money.

However, the grading and authentication companies explicitly state that they are only giving imperfect and fallible opinions. If buyers and sellers treat an opinion as more than that that's the buyers' and sellers' fault. Collectors can't logically and with straight faces treat grades as 'written in stone' while resubmitting cards to get different grades.

I suspect there is also an unconscious (at least) bias when authenticating or grading an item for a major client, in this case Heritage, who stands to make a lot of money if the item is deemed good or the cards grade high. The publicity isn't so bad for the authenticator either. I've seen/heard lots of anecdotal evidence over the years that convinces me all submitters are not treated the same. And yes, I understand the limitations of anecdotal evidence blah blah.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I suspect there is also an unconscious (at least) bias when authenticating or grading an item for a major client, in this case Heritage, who stands to make a lot of money if the item is deemed good or the cards grade high. The publicity isn't so bad for the authenticator either. I've seen/heard lots of anecdotal evidence over the years that convinces me all submitters are not treated the same. And yes, I understand the limitations of anecdotal evidence blah blah.

That is so groupthink of you. Show proof or do not post.

[steve B]

The "big customer" politics happens in other fields, but in slightly different ways.

In another hobby I have a variety that's a pretty big deal. If I got a cert, it would as far as I know be only the second one certified.
BUT....

The first was found by a very well connected very well known collector. His got a certificate, and ones sent in after were declined. Not because they weren't real, but because he convinced the experts (He was also an expert) That ones that didn't closely match his couldn't be true double impressions.

When I sent scans of mine to another collector who wrote a monograph on plate varieties and really knows the printing end of things he said it was totally legit, but like his would never get a cert because it didn't exactly match the first one. And indicated that he'd seen something like 4-5 of them and all had been rejected.
He also gave me the technical reasons why it shouldn't match. (Probably way too boring for here)

So the real/not real wasn't influenced for his, and there was no grading at the time. But he did influence other peoples getting certified so that his remained unique.

I might actually give it a try at some point, because he died a few years ago.