I am in 100% agreement... They have everything we've been complaining about... a guarantee that puts them somewhat on the hook (depending on their 3rd party examiner) and the same auth fees regardless of the signature. I am just anxious to see how thorough their exams are for the comparably low rates. I think the biggest way for them to survive is to do their own signings for athletes that they witness and authenticate and turn around and sell-- and I think I read that is what they are doing. No exams needed that way and they can still turn profits.

Stephen Rocchi GFA
 

From the GFA website:

To properly authenticate a signature you must have numerous exemplars to do side by side comparisons. That is why at GFA we only authenticate a limited number of autographs and have experts specialized in these signatures.

I guess they have a forensic expert who specializes in Colm Meaney's autograph.

I wonder if they have someone who specializes in the signature of Phil Linz?

Attachment 55105

Attachment 55106

I think it's the whole re-submission process for bad authentications that has people concerned/scratching their heads. Seeing a list of their "authorized 3rd party forensic authenticator"(s) would probably go a long way to easing (or confirming) people's concerns. Since I don't see any such list on their website, that may be up in the air until someone has first-hand experience and can relate it here on the board.

To my mind, their whole "guarantee" hinges on that one factor. If they use a reputable 3rd party authenticator for disputed certs and actually follow through on their guarantee, then they darn sure better not make any high-profile mistakes as it would only take 1 bad Ruth settlement to wipe out a whole pile of those $10 authentications. (Which, incidentally, is the kind of hard-line self-imposed regulation/penalty system many have been wishing for from other companies).

If, however, their authorized 3rd party authenticator is Chris M, well, that's a loophole big enough to drive a truckload of bad certs through...

The COA of company that does well-documented in person signings can get a strong reputation.

Well, is it his autograph or not? It very well could be an in person and it certainly can't be a hard autograph to find exemplars on.

I just hope they have actual "handwriting analysis" experts, and not simply "forensic" experts.

Chris. The COA doesn't state it, but I have a good feeling that those are probably from in-person signings.. Either that, or they are bunch of Trekkies who originally wanted to call the company "Galactic Ferengal Alliance".

Tri-star is the first one that comes to mind.

Isn't that what the Internet is for? :confused:

:D

+1
Their claim is that a forensic authenticator will reexamine the item.
The whole thing then comes down to who will that be.
One simple statement of fact, who is their forensic/alternate?
Right now the forensic field, in the autograph hobby, is very limited.
And if they submit the item to a forensic, where do the exemplars come from? What type of forensic exam does it then get?
An elaborate real forensic exam, or a $10-$30 exam?
I look forward to seeing their work, let us hope they do a good job.

FYI, I wrote an email today to Mr. Rocchi voicing my concerns and suggestions for GFA and tried to send the email to the email address listed for him and also the generic info email address that was listed, and both emails bounced as an unknown email address. I eventually used the contact form on the Contact Us page and cut and pasted my email into it, but I am still not sure if it will ever reach them.

Just an FYI to anyone else that thought about writing them.

Thanks,
Matt

Moral ass has paved the way to this dubious distinction.... :(

I think the word forensic is a word the average person on the street understands, even if he can't literally define. Kind of like authentic. Both words have a ring to them. We know what they mean even if we don't know what the mean.

A common meaning is forensic scientist-- in any area, medicine to psychology-- is someone trained and certified to provide evidence in a court of a law. So supposedly, a forensic expert in autographs is certified by whatever forensic body and is able to testify in court.

There are looser definitions.

Actually, to be come certified as a forensic autograph expert by the governing bodies, you have to do a lot of stuff. You need at least a BS, often take addition education in the area, pass tests and I think intern with an other certified expert for two years. So, whatever you think of the status, it isn't like sending in two box tops and $5.

However, if you aren't certified by any forensic board but clearly are an expert/knowledgeable in your field-- a Ph.d. microbiology professor asked by a lawyer to testify in a suit about hospital cleanliness--, you may be allowed to testify in court as an expert. Who's allowed to be an expert witness in a case is up to the judge, and the certification may not be deemed necessary for Professor Smith. In the eyes of a judge, the Ph.d. in microbiology may be worth a lot more than some forensic board certificate.

One thing is a judge may be a learned and sharp guy, but he has a J.D. and hasn't studied in all the forensic areas. He's not an MD or biochemist or a civil engineer. Thus, he'll look at tangible outside indications that person is qualified to testify-- Ph.d., certified by a forensic, board, has been okayed as expert witness in other cases, etc. In the topic of this thread, the judge may have an MENSA IQ, a law degree from Yale and on his free time wrote a history of New Haven, but chances are he's not an avid autograph collector and knows the heart the loops in Mickey Mantle's signature. In fact, you may be relieved the judge in your civil suit isn't the type who places bids on eBay autographs during his lunch break and posts comments on an autograph board.

It should be noted that some judges are wary of those so-called those certified forensic autograph experts, and don't allow them to testify as experts. The judges consider their opinions unreliable and/or scientifically questionable. They likely experienced where expert opinions were later clearly demonstrated to be errors, too many dueling opinions, and also likely grew to question the whole methodology/logic used by experts. So, in cases, a judge may share opinion with many members of this board about the folks.

Interestingly, I saw Judge Judy where the person brought in a forensic document expert to testify about writing on a document and Judge Judy said she thought the expert was wrong. He even showed her how he analyzed the writing on the document, and she didn't buy it.

But, as I said, in a company title it's just a word that people seem to understand, as they've watched those law and crime shows.

I believe that Texas A & M has a new masters program in forensic document examination. As Texas A & M is a good science and research school, the masters degree may mean something.

I agree. Crude comments about the lady may be one of the reasons the Board does not seem to have female members.

With all due respect, I don't think the crude comments are driving the ladies off. Its more likely the sports cards and memorabilia that do that... :)

Well said Eric.

Rawn

+1 ...our comments haven't run any women off, guaranteed. There would have to be some here already, which there aren't. WE have had a few women on the board before, and they were usually pretty good sports about stuff. But ask yourself this, how many times in the last 2 yrs have I bought vintage memorabilia or pre-war cards from a woman that was running the business? (there are a few but the percentage is less than 1% from what I have seen)

There are a number of well respected women in the autograph field but not in the sports autograph field.

I did a Google search for the forensic document examiner that is listed on the team page of GFA.

This is what I got:

"Your search - John Goraczyk forensic document examiner - did not match any documents."

A search for the other examiner Roger Fenton showed a number of listings for a man who was a photographer in the Crimean War. But no listing for the man listed on the GFA site, unless I missed it somehow.

My favorite part of the website was listing that one guy testified in 127 court cases as a cop. I guess that helps him authenticate huge names like Willie Stargell.

From their website, Service Level III Extras:

"Ink analysis, Document analysis (when possible), Chain of custody of the item, background of when the item was signed (if possible). It will also include a Letter of Authenticity, describing the item, the signature, what type of ink was used, a biography of the signer, a photograph, and GFA’s full guarantee of authenticity"

I'd be curious to know what their "chain of custody" investigation entails? Is that just asking the submitter where they got it and making phone calls back up the line? Or does it only go as far as a line on the submission form of "where did you get this?" How far back do they go with that? May be another one of those things that experience will show, but it's got me curious.

If you can show you got it from a good dealer or auction house that is relevant info.

All this for $30??
Something is very different with this company but I cannot put my finger on it yet.
Forensic examiners that you cannot find on Google, investigators? for what purpose?, no ability to communicate with them, COA's showing up on a website with no ability to discern the COA number or no place to check it even if you could see the number.

Another "Forensic" authentication company. You gotta be kidding me!!!

When I first found them I was like "Holy crap!!!" Then I tried to contact them via their website, but to no avail. Then I tried to print out a "submission" form, but there's no option for that.

But yet their "authenticated" items show up on a particular auction site with blurry photographs ans serial numbers on the COAs that read "GFAA-####."

Wow!!!

The verbiage doesn't matter, whether they say forensics or not, it's whether or not they are good at authenticating autographs. The bar is already set pretty low so they can't do much worse than what is already out there.

J. Spence touts his forensics credentials (mail order correspondence course), so either forensics is bad for spence and everyone, or is a credit to jsa and everyone, but not selective good for one guy and bad for another.

I see Spence didn't have flattering things to say about forensics when he participated in an autograph authentiction forum, but then he likes to say he has forensic credentials himself, so which is it? Even PSA's self-describing paragraphs say that they are trained in and use forensics too. So shame on them too I guess.

It's the result of their work that matters, we haven't seen enough of GFA work to make a determination. I couldn't endorse or not endorse them based on the work I have seen. To be fair we would have to see a quantity of their work over a good period of time.

We are watching for that.

Travis writes "The verbiage doesn't matter, whether they say forensics or not, it's whether or not they are good at authenticating autographs. The bar is already set pretty low so they can't do much worse than what is already out there."

The below was certed by Todd Mueller and sold on his website. A pitiful Derek Jeter forgery. When confronted about certing the below Jeter, Mr. Mueller replies "That was obtained in person by Danny Tuliebitz. His cousin is the New York Yankee's travelling secretary." Really?

So, Travis, when you write "The bar is already set pretty low so they can't do much worse than what is already out there." you are absolutely correct. This is a great example of "the bar is already set pretty low."

Attachment 55748

you cant impugn a whole company like gfa if you havent seen quantity of their work, just becuase forensics are in the title.

The low bar is by independent third party authenticators, who offer to cert your item that you send in for money, which is the what GFA is competing against. I haven't seen your example that fits into that category.

I think they just misspelled the name on the web site - try again using John Gorajczyk.

I include ANYONE who calls themselves an authenticator. That includes Mueller. He doesn't get a free pass.

Great. They can't even spell their own names, and we're supposed to expect them to correctly authenticate an autograph...

Pretty sure the website programmers who put the site together are not the same folks doing the authentication. As someone with a weird last name, I can relate to folks misspelling it more often than not. :D

I was just joking. But yes, I can relate to the misspellings and mispronunciations as well..

Well, he's a dealer that backs up his own items. That would make any dealer who issues their own coa an authenticator. Every booth at the national has an authenticator behind the desk. There are 600 authenticators at the national.

Here's my definition: An authenticator is an authenticator.


i would have to see a letter of rejection from abc, or xyz on that ballplayers signature as i guess only those companies are qualified to tell people whose sigantures are real and who are not?

Our mutual friend is the only one with the expertise to call out the al ruddy/al pacino mistake on pawn stars, even though many people on the blogs said "what a wonderful job mr. wonderful did on the authentication."

so our mutual friend mr. mueller is terrible and the company who asked him to join, to which he said 'no' to many times is good. i finally got it now.

While I think Todd has a great business model, this is HIS BIGGEST PROBLEM...he won't return anything despite offering completely worthless "lifetime guarantee" and will fight tooth & nail how he is so much smarter than you citing BS "providence" or stating his COA is forged??? LOLOLOLOLOLOOLOO. :D:D:D:D:D

He is an complete idiot and anyone buying a thing from him or listening to his gibberish are complete morons. I base my opinion when the guy went on for 3 pages on that pathetic website, Autograph New Live last year how this Mantle was real. The thread has since been deleted by Steve Koschal, the festering boil on the ass of the autograph industry who runs that site of the stupid.

Yeah right Todd, and Pete Nash has a bridge to sell you. For sake of clarification, I post this FORGED MICKEY MANTLE signed photo (yet again)as Exhibit A into this boobs stupidity. This was sold on his website last April. Why don't you explain your stupidity on "this Forum" and see how far it gets you....CRICKETS CRICKETS that's what I thought. When you admit you are wrong about this photo and refund the poor sap who bought it, I'll ease up. Until then you have ZERO CREDIBILITY and all your ventures should be treated as such.

First of all, Mueller is not a friend of mine.

So your friend Mueller called out the Al Ruddy/Al Pacino mistake on the Pawn Stars show. Wow, does that make him some kind of hero?

But yet I didn't hear a peep from Mueller about the Drew Max and the FDR Letter To Clergy joke. Nor did I hear Mueller call out Drew Max and that Bram Stoker mess on the Pawn Stars.

You're right, Travis, I finally got it now. It's called a double-standard. I got it.

BINGO!!!WE HAVE A WINNER. The double standards are astounding.....I give him credit for his business model, but standing behind KNOWN forgeries does not endear me to him one iota, like some who sees him as a shining knight.

I give him credit for breaking the Pawn Stars fiasco (1 of many fiascoes on that show) It just goes to show, if these guys worked together the industry would be much better off for it instead of being irreparably fractured.

Mr. Pacino didnt exactly get called out by you either for making the biggest pawn stars blunder of all. Where were you on that one? You call out all the fakes on that show and denigrate each one by who the authenticator is except for one conspicuous instance in which your scrutiny was absent? hmmmmmm.

John makes one mistake on the Pawn Stars and I'm suppose to call him out? You serious, Travis? Are you also aware that John admitted to his mistake in public? John acknowledged the mistake he made.

Has Drew Max ever admitted to his numerous mistakes on Pawn Stars? Never!!!

Forensic may just be something for the company title.

I have looked everywhere and have not seen him admit his mistake.

Please go wherever you want on the billions of pages on the web, and copy and paste once instance in which he admits the al pacino mistake. You can't do it because it's not there. I am sure you know where to look too. I will help you out though. The las vegas sun articles, the jewish magazine article, and autograph magazine live website.

You are correct Karl , that spelling does bring up several pages about him.
Unusual in that Google usually corrects spelling errors but did not in his case.
Sorry to GFA for that, but we are still watching.

Here, please read this story everyone.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011...s-bigger-offe/

Another item that I want to add, Travis, is that the Al Ruddy signature wasn't a forgery, but a mis-identification from John. The signature was not a forgery. The signature of Al Ruddy was incorrectly identified by John as Al Pacino. That's a fact.

exactly,


everyone, please read it and you wont see an admission anywhere.

the interviewer admits it, and reznikoff simply says 'everyone makes mistakes"

where is reznikoff's admission?

many people have admitted it for him, but when it comes time for his turn, he puts up a link to a jewish magazine article he penned in which a general statement of mistakes comes up but nowhere will anyone find where he says he made a mistake on the pawn stars autograph out of john's own mouth.

on autograph magazine live, the one passage where he comes closest is actually not there anymore, (available on google search though)

Now presumably the only person that could remove the passage is reznikoff himself, why was it removed? you can see he only mentions he may have made a mistake, and he needs a few days to research it, because he is on the beach. so he hasnt seen the proof yet, and wont admit to a mistake, just maybe a mistake based on what others have told him.


Here is the passage that is deleted,

Jul 24, 2011 – Yup maybe I made a mistake and it is not Pacino . Need a few days to look into it.. ..last days on the beach with my kids.


that's still not an admission as 'maybe' isn't an admission. "needs a few days to look into it" means he isn't admitting a mistake. And no one can post a passage where he admits to the pacino error. why doesn't he want people to see this passage anymore?


he let''s other say it and then makes a statement about mistakes in general. not an admission!

try again.

Geez, Travis, you sound exactly like Mueller. He teaches his pupils well.

you just admitted i was right, because if you had evidence otherwise, you would have posted it, not just said that you give up, that i am a good debater.

Let's see the specific passage where john, out of his own mouth and with his own words says he made a mistake on the pacino?

I just told the truth. I am just interested in the truth regarding this pawn stars mistake. Don't shoot the messenger, if he didn't admit it, and he should have, people should ask him to admit it. I would have respect for that if he admitted it.

It's when people don't admit something, but piggyback others comment in vague terms to give the impression that he actually admitted it that points to his acumen at psychology. A lot of people have it in their mind that he must have admitted it, because it's right there in the record, right? Wrong, it's still not an admission.

Thank you, Todd.

The link to the story:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011...s-bigger-offe/

Here is John's apology and he made a $1,000.00 donation to the charity.

Turns out that Ruddy writes in a similar fashion, and when Reznikoff realized he was wrong in his assessment, he not only apologized to Catholic Charities but donated $1,000 to the organization.

“Everyone makes mistakes,” he said Wednesday. “The issue is what you do after you make the mistake.”

And in the final analysis, he said, “the charity has benefited from the screenplay, so I’m happy.”

To the members here, I won't apologize for going a bit off-track here, but I am done with this subject. I have made my points.

Done.