"Vast Majority of HOF Autographs Are Fake"
 

That's the claim of an author of a reference guide I interviewed for my latest Forbes post. He gives you plenty of genuine examples as well as fake.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsei...aph-forgeries/

Very interesting. Thanks for the read.

FYI, you misspelled your source's last name several times throughout the article. :eek:

Interesting, thanks for posting.

Great insight into the collector's world and admitted mishaps along the way. I have read other articles on balls and memorabilia that were forgeries with the intent of making money, as well as the pieces that were signed by clubhouse kids or others like Yankee clubhouse attendant Pete Sheehy or Dodgers' "Chain smoking" Charlie "The Brow" DiGiovanna. To me, the two forgeries are vastly different from one another.

I am particularly intrigued by the old forgeries. Even though they may not be authentic to who the signature portrays (much less worth the "authentic" money), I think they are historically important--especially if it can be presumed or proved that someone like Pete Sheehy did the signing.

There are those who feel that there is no such thing as 'clubhouse' - autographs are either real or forgeries. That thinking probably is the result of auction houses selling balls that have a forged 'Ruth' crammed onto them, as 'authentic' except for a 'clubhouse' Ruth.

Most clubhouse signatures don't look very much like the real thing - if it looks like an attempt was made to copy the signature but it isn't real, then there were probably shenanigans going on and AH's (and/or TPA's) that call such stuff 'clubhouse' should be called out for it.

+++1

Totally agree and think the term "clubhouse" is way over-used and abused. Plus, how do we ever know it was really "clubhouse" (not that it makes it less of a forgery) versus some scumbag adding a forged signature at home (his/her evil lab)?

I also think "secretarial" is misused so that a perceived malicious intent to deceive does not affect the rest of the signed item. No, a forgery is a forgery. Many times I will just stay clear of a team ball that has one "clubhouse" signature because it makes me feel like something has been tainted with (although I must admit that I have bought a few with clubhouse sigs if I felt like the others were really genuine).

exactly the reason why I don't deal with autographs

An actual "clubhouse" signature or a "secretarial" signature is not a forgery. It is a proxy. Proxy signatures are made with the knowledge, consent and authorization of the would-be signer. Forgeries are not.

I've seen old MLB contracts where there is a 'clubhouse' (proxy) signature and just below the signature is written the identity of the person who signed the signature. Once it was a team VP signing the name of the President on the dotted line, then signing his own 'signed by' name underneath. In that case, the VP himself was a well known old time Yankees executive, so it was no major autograph collecting disappointment.

E. G. Barrow signed contracts as Yankee owner Jacob Ruppert quite often. Occasionally he would initial the proxy signature, but most often would not.

+1

I will ask this question on this thread as well.
I feel that there is no such think as a single signed clubhouse ball. Know just pretend there is such a thing. Would a Ruth with a clubhouse signiture be worth more than a forged ball? I am going by how David described the difference between the two.

At least to me as a collector, I wouldn't distinguish between something that was "secretarial" or "clubhouse" versus a flat-out forgery. The proxy or consensual definition doesn't make it any less of a fake signature. So, the ball player knows consents and authorizes somebody else to sign his signature...but it's still not his. I don't want Charlie "The Brow's" scribbling even if Gil Hodges WAS watching him sign the ball. Plus, how do we know if something really was secretarial or clubhouse anyways? (not that it makes any difference to me anyhow)

"after being kicked off a train for drunkenness he was apparently swept over Niagara Falls. A few hand-written letters with his name misspelled, Delehanty, are floating around"

Bravo!

The proxy or consensual definition doesn't make it any less of a fake signature.

Agree with this even though the origin of the signature may not have been meant to defraud.

Agree, the difference between a fake and a forgery is the intent. The intent is always monetary gain with a forgery.

There is quite a difference. An American League contract with a forged Ruppert signature was and is a worthless piece of paper. An American League contract with a proxy Ruppert signature was a valid legal document, binding upon both player and Club.

David, I wrote about a ball player who was given cards to sign for a card company. He then gave them to his brother to sign. They where then placed into packs. When these cards are sold are they forgerys?

David your point is valid as it relates to the legitimacy/authority of the document you mention; nonetheless, it is not an authentic signature.

Topps, I believe, requires the signatures to be witnessed. I happened to have had the opportunity to do this for a couple of players during Spring Training way back when. Player got to keep 5 for himself. Every other card had to be accounted for. They even required the pens to be returned.

No one ever said a proxy is an authentic signature. What's been said is that a proxy is not a forgery. And that's because it's not.

Nope. And they're not forgeries, either. But they are worthless to collectors. And, more to the point, since the player was being paid by the card company to provide his actual signature, in using an authorized proxy the player committed fraud, and could be prosecuted if the card company chose to press charges.

Notice that in this case, Shelly, it's the player (not the signer) who committed fraud. If some unauthorized person signed the cards, and then sold them to the card company as genuine, the signatures would be forgeries, and the signer would be the one committing fraud.