Shoeless Joe Jackson Auto- Fake?

[packs]

Totally agree but I also think it's important to remember authentication is an opinion and will always be. I'm not asking anyone to find a way to create fact out of something you can't know.

I do think there are instances, like this one, where an opinion should not be given one way or the other. But I do think it's appropriate for a buyer to hear the story associated with an item and make their own decision. I just don't think that story should be taken as fact by the authenticator no matter how trustworthy the source. And I don't say that because people shouldn't be believed. I say that because the opinion is supposed to be unbiased and about the item being examined.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

Totally agree but I also think it's important to remember authentication is an opinion and will always be. I'm not asking anyone to find a way to create fact out of something you can't know.

I do think there are instances, like this one, where an opinion should not be given one way or the other. But I do think it's appropriate for a buyer to hear the story associated with an item and make their own decision. I just don't think that story should be taken as fact by the authenticator no matter how trustworthy the source. And I don't say that because people shouldn't be believed. I say that because the opinion is supposed to be unbiased and about the item being examined.

You are right, but the problem is that there is always going to be some level of bias, no matter what anyone says or does. And I also said the "experts" only give opinions, just as you're saying. And that is also why it is the public that decides if they'll accept something as authentic or not. And the public taking into consideration the overt and hidden biases that may exist in opinions and stories around an item are all just part of the process, and can be wrong or right. I think that a large part of the public itself wants to believe rare items and autos are real and do exist, and because of that can thus possibly add an additional bias on top of everything else.

Here's what I'm 100% certain of when it comes to autographs, that there are many autographs out there that are deemed fakes, but in actuality are real, and there are also many that are recognized as real that are actually fakes.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

Here's what I'm 100% certain of when it comes to autographs, that there are many autographs out there that are deemed fakes, but in actuality are real, and there are also many that are recognized as real that are actually fakes.

+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.

[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 .