REA Gary Cooper
 

What is enough proof to take down a questionable piece.


Gary Cooper’s daughter, Maria Cooper-Janis, responded to our inquiry and said, “I, of course, have seen that photograph in our family archives, (and) have several shots of Gary Cooper and Babe Ruth at some moment, but none of them are autographed and the picture you refer to was never in our possession.”


Would you buy that piece now?

Well-done

It's a shame given how many characteristics of a genuine Ruth-signed piece it possesses, especially the straight-edge-like writing, which was a trademark of Ruth's more 'carefully-signed' pieces :roll eyes:

Why are you rolling your eyes? The piece is not bad because it was written straight.. It is bad because it was bad. There were plenty of good examples given of geniune Ruth's written straight Scott. That is nice work on this one I must say.

Ben, all bad items are bad because they are bad. But the characteristics of bad items are what allow us to figure out that they are bad - this bad item looked bad before we had the non-provenance. It has other bad characteristics other than it's 'too neat' aspect, but if I began listing them, I'd have do debate those points with people I have no desire to discuss anything with (I'm not talking about you). I hate to sound like an elitist, but when I know something is a fact, arguing with people who argue simply because they like to fight, isn't the least bit appealing (again, I'm not talking about you).

If you want to discuss, just give me a call.

JimStinson
 

Well there you go ! when I was asked about that photo , I suggested contacting Gary Coopers daughter and even posted her name ....BEFORE I even looked at the autograph. Which I was almost certain anyone would have done before authenticating a photo of that magnitute and historical importance. You mean they didn't ???? I'm shocked !!!!
_______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

I do not know which is more inaccurate:
the authenticity of the autograph
or the manner in which this was reported to all of us.
"probe nabs" - it makes it sound criminal.
The spirit, and accuracy, of this reporting is far worse than the subject it tackles.
I was really put off by this write-up.
and if this autograph would have fooled many, or all of us - and fooled PSA - and fooled JSA, then why in the world, would you write "probe nabs" with regard to the auctioneer.
The positives of someone bringing inaccuracies to light - must be weighed against the negatives in the manner in which they do it.
On the whole, this report creates more inaccuracies than it resolves.

JimStinson
 

Autograph authentication for DUMMIES ! Look at the autograph LAST do your research FIRST
_____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

That reminds me of the Ruth autograph, from a board member touting his authenticator's superior ability, on a 1953 Silver Certificate.

And I am not commenting on the Cooper item, I know nothing about it.

.

I understand what you are saying but I think the straight line comment(rolling eyes) was a a little personal nudge you have to admit? :) I like the objective Scott..:) Poking a bear can ruin one's day. "Only you can prevent Forrest Fires" So says Smokey.

Dude... I just made that up... it was not intended to be a dig at all...had to post it. haha:) I was going to call you anyway to discuss a couple photos.

A personal nudge at who? :confused: I'm honestly confused - I mentioned the straight line thing the first time this piece was brought up, and other than a rebuke by David that did not involve his presenting anything similar that WAS real, I got no response from anyone.

What you probably don't know is that I've discussed this piece with others, over the phone, so I'm rolling my eyes based on several characteristics of the piece that we've discussed, plus at the fact that it's even up for auction.

That was ridiculous. The same seller had a bunch of babe Ruth "type 1" photos that were not even close to type 1s that were bgs slabbed that he was selling. A couple still pop up on ebay(they are usually buy it nows or best offers and have a brown tint/heavy paper stock). and are worth about as much as kindling. There was one 8x10 bain image that was thick stock.. so fake. PRIME example of get what you can get authenticated and sell rather than being concerned if it is good or not.

No worries.. I figured you have been talking to others on the board with your strong aligned beliefs.

I believe you pointed out the straight edge line originally... and there were examples shown of authentic examples of straigh edge looking sigs. Idk.. I could be wrong.. my memory is not as good as it once was. And.. it really doesn't matter at this point anyway. The stupid Forger should have totally mixed it up a bit and made the signature uneven.. then it would have passed everyone's "sniff test". Stupid forger.... haha:)

Please forgive me BUT forget the straight lines signature formation, slant , comparisons to known examplars etc argument..... These guys are SO good they will BLOW YOUR SIGNATURE COMPARISIONS OUT OF THE WATER ! Its gone beyond comparing to known examples simiply because the guys that USED to make money doing fake passports, currency etc have moved into the realm of autographs ......listen to me please , there is tremendous finincial reward in comparison and virtually NO legal consequenses .... So it is the "PERFECT STORM" for these guys ......So STOP comparing signature anaylisis because these guys draw $20.00 bills FREEHAND so easy to replicate a Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig ???? Don't underestimate their skill level as it is far beyond what you percieve ...or could even attempt to guess
_______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Agreed.... I think I will stay dumb and collect photos with the occasional legal document, ck, letter and/or gpc :)

So you're saying that both items I showed--one of the signed and numbered special edition 1929 Ruth's Own Book of Baseball, and the "To Mary Keegan" photo were both forged?

JimStinson
 

I am OTTA here ...forgive me BUT color me GONE.....Bye , Hasta Manana or whatever the F anyone says I'm...............................LONG GONE ...ADIOS AMIGOS
____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

JimStinson
 

Will see you in the B/S/T forum otherwise ..bye
_________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

What in the world is going on?

No idea...other than..the Gray Cooper is bad so says a group who listened to Jim and contacted the estate. Also, autograph forgers are so good that you should be scared to collect them and form your own opinions. Oh and Babe Ruth sigs in straight lines can be both good and bad :)

Ben, I think it comes down to one simple thing. When people try to help each other and understand what might be wrong or right. There are a few people that attack because you might question there knowledge. Jim, and many other people don't need the BS. That is a fact.
I can tell you it has nothing to do what you said.:)

I think that they feel once you get rid of the people that are smarter than them they win. I am only talking about a couple of people and Travis it is not you.

Shelly,

I think a lot of what Ben wrote was meant with sarcasm...

James, if was, it still doesn't change my mind. What I wrote is what I feel. It just gave me a chance to say it.

I know you know this, Jim, but not every autographed photo's provenance can be checked by asking the signee's daughter. If what you're saying is true, no "common" Ruth or Gehrig or... autograph can ever be trusted.

("common" Any authentic item the supposed signor could have signed, showing a period-appropriate inscription and/or signature.)

I'm not following why the daughter's comment is proof of anything - I'm not a celebrity, but I own quite a few personalized autographs from celebrities, and my daughter wouldn't have any clue about what I have or have owned. Is Cooper's daughter saying the family kept some kind of itemized inventory of his memorabilia? If so, for how long?

The daughter was only 5 years old when the Ruth photo was allegedly signed, and she was only in her early twenties when Cooper died. Is she saying she's been in charge of the estate since then (1961), and the photo was never recorded in a formal inventory done for the estate?

Ben, where in the world did that statement come from? No one said that the straight lines were the only thing wrong with this item; in fact, I specifically stated that they were NOT.

Also, if anyone presented an example that had several straight lines and this many words, they deleted it - I doubt any such exemplar exists.

I'm with you. Discussing Babe Ruth signatures in a public forum is largely a waste of time.

The question is do you trust the faimly or Jim? Read her book and come back and tell me if you would buy it.

:confused:

Ben, you've confused the hell out of me three times in one thread. Where did this statement come from?

All I can make of this is that you think the writing on this photo was by Ruth, and that there is some sort of conspiracy to discredit the authenticator. Quite frankly, without going back and looking, I couldn't tell you if it was JSA, PSA or both who authenticated it. So whatever group you have me 'strongly aligned' with in your head - please remove me.

What really is happening is that this site is loosing a lot of people that really know what they are doing . Instead we are reading opinions from people that have little or no knowledge. I can not blame Jim from walking away. He does not need this crap. I do blame the people that have never helped but just attack, attack and attack.
If ther is anyone that thinks that Cooper piece is authentic please say why. No pictures no BS just tell anyone on here why it is a authentic.

Shelly, Jim stated that there are forgers who can create Ruth autographs that are perfect. As David pointed out, if Jim is correct, then without provenance, what do you do? I can't blame either David or Ben for responding the way they did.

I also felt that it was a curious statement for Jim to make, but he's perhaps the most knowledgeable person participating in the autograph forum, and I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for running him off. Besides, Ben and David already responded.

I am always tempted to 'run' from this forum and not look back, but all in all it is a lot of free entertainment - besides, it's the best way to learn about Ruth and Gehrig autographs. If you were starting at square one, you certainly couldn't learn anything by gathering a bunch of PSA and JSA examples and studying them.

there is an old story of a guy who goes to an old church in europe and sees a skull sitting there, and the person in charge says it is john the baptists skull.

the man then walks to a church a few miles down the road and goes inside and sees a skull again. he asks the caretaker about it and this guy too says that it is john the baptists skull.

the man says "but i was just at the previous church and they said their skull was john the baptists skull also! What gives?"

the caretaker then said "well, their skull is john the baptists skull as an adult, we have his skull as a young boy."

it parallels the tpa's seemingly refusal to do even the lightest work to check out some of these artifacts or in this case autographs.

I have an autograph of Willie Heston on ebay (and another in my personal collection). I was contacted by his grand daughter who told me it was fake because Willie REFUSED to sign anything "Willie" because she told me he HATED that name because he was teased about it since it can be another name for a Penis (true story). I respectfully told he in a nice way that I knew more about her Grand Fathers autographs than she did having collected early Football autographs and owning or handling at least 20 Hestons in the last 10 years and she was like 8-10 years old when he died. She refused to believe me and said she was going to contact authorities and all that. SO, I dug into my files and asked some friends for help and provided 5 different examples of handwritten letters completely in his hand in which he signed his name "Willie". Having completely proven her wrong, she just disappeared, never even bothered to apologize for questioning my ethics.

Moral of the story (and I have at least 5 -10 other similar stories over the years) FAMILY USUALLY DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, especially when you are talking about children or grand-children. I would absolutely trust a spouse's word on something (my wife knows me better than I know myself) but be careful taking the word of "family" as gospel in the collecting world.

Rhys

Nice message Rhys..

I will stay with the Coopers daughter's story. I will also stay with Rons opinion that the signiture is bad. Daughter top authenticator win win.


Leon stick with the card side.:eek:

I am going with Rhys's personal and definitive experience on this one. To each their own. And yes, if it were a card I could tell you if it is fake or not. Not so with autographs unless you got it in person or saw it in person.

Just having fun. Your to serious.

Oh Leon, by the way would you do this in your auction.The bidder is off the hook but this what took place unless the high bidder renegs.

The current high-bidder on the item at $8,000, however, reached out to Haulsofshame.com after recently learning about an article published on this site in 2010. Said collector, Ralph Gary Brauner, “After bidding $8,000 on the above item in the ongoing REA 2013 auction, I found an article saying it is a fraud. It has 3 COA’s. They will not remove my bid. Can you help me?”

One of the coa's came from Gutierrrez while with Mastro, second coa Psa 2007 and finally back to Mastro in 2010 authenticated by Spence seems Mastro had a big interest in this piece.

This is crazy.

Note to auction houses: DO NOT check provenance on items like this. What if the family told you it is a forgery? Then you would be forced to state in your description that the family says it's impossible that Ruth could have signed this, but sometimes family members have bad memories, so they could be wrong.

Holy cow.

Actually, we already know this piece is good and that the family members are either lying or have bad memories - the TPA's SAID it is good.

Good thing PSA isn't authenticating the family's line of descent. All they have to do is issue a certificate stating that the children actually have different parents, and that's that. Now I get the 'DNA' part. ...or is it 'Do Not Argue' ? :confused:

Going back to Shelly's original quote from Cooper's daughter, it sounds to me like this is a little different than someone's grandchild saying "Grandaddy never signed with that nickname" or something similar. I would also note that Cooper's daughter did not make any statement, yea or nea, as to whether she thought the autograph was authentic or not (at least, not in the quote). No offense intended to Rhys, but I think this situation is a little different. What she did say is that there has never been a Ruth-signed photo of Cooper and Ruth in their archives.

I don't know what the "family archives" of the Cooper family look like, or how they are catalogued, but it strikes me they are probably a bit more organized than the typical photo album and firebox full of important papers that most families keep. Even if not, as Jim said originally, "Certainly this photo would have been one of her most PRIZED rememberences of her father." Moreover, this doesn't seem like something that Cooper would have given away before his passing, given that it was personalized, and that he kept other, unsigned photos.

Bottom line is, you can poke at the reliability of provenance and question relatives' memories all you want, but I don't think this is as easy to dismiss. Cooper's daughter doesn't have anything to gain either way, and her remembering whether or not her daddy had a photo signed by arguably the most famous baseball player in history is a different thing altogether than her looking at a Gary Cooper signature and opining whether her daddy signed it or not. The latter requires training and experience. The former requires an average ability to remember very basic details.

Just my 2 cents on it :D

no opinion on the sig, but i have to agree with rhys. going by family member's account or memory can be an iffy proposition. unless she was the curator or cataloger for her dad's collection, her account is just one piece to the puzzle and not the be all end all to the discussion.

So if you can't prove that something is bad, it must be good. And negative provenance from family members can't be used? :confused: Forgers all over the world are making a great living based on collectors who use that logic.

Think about it - this should make you kind of sick: A good forger is sitting in a coffee shop, creating a signed item. When he's done, he can send it to a TPA and probably have a good chance of getting it authenticated. Then he sells it to someone who is unscrupulous, but who has a good imagination and no integrity.

Now all he needs is an auction house that relies on the expertise of the said TPA (and certainly could not care less what people on an internet forum have to say), and two bidders who want the said autograph, and who put all of their faith in TPAs as well.

Job done.

Could I get a refill please? ...and could I borrow a pen? cha-ching

(edited to remove 'Ruth' references, as you can't get the required pen at a coffee shop)

USC School of Cinematic art. has been dealing with her since her farther died. She was 21 and in total control of everything and anything. I would trust her more than anyone that is part of this story.UCS cant even buy anything from her. They are really hopeing that she will give them her collection in the future. If you doubt what I am saying. Please email the above.

I didn't say it was the "be all and end all to the discussion," but am saying don't just throw it out completely with a catch-all "family members' memory can be iffy" disclaimer as others seem so quick to do.

Was she the curator for Cooper's collection? Does she have intimate knowledge of the "things" he left behind when he passed? Or was she just speaking offhandedly about some photos she vaguely recalled of her dad in a baseball uniform? Based on Shelly's quote, I would tend to believe she is more the former than the latter, but either way, I think it bears further exploration rather than immediate dismissal.

Edited to add: There you go. Thanks Shelly for clearing up what kind of authority she is on the subject. That's what I get for taking longer than 6 minutes to type a post :)

SERIOUS QUESTION:

Does anyone know if any of the TPA's have annual reports that they release? Data detailing Total # of rejects, verse accepts?

obviously some opinions from family members are more weighted than others due to their level of involvement. i'm not dismissing the testimonial at all, and shelly has done some research into the daughter so we can put hers higher up. however if you ask my wife, or most members' wives here...i don't think they can differentiate whether i own a jeter or a pujols, much less a cobb or a wagner.

and the forgers in their basements perfecting their craft on ruths and gehrigs, it won't be for the "cooper ruth" where the lineage can possibly be traced back. it will be some bland 3x5 or scuffled reach ball, so at the end of the day it'll be whether the sig is good or not...and as often the time comes like the ruth 700th hr ticket you'll have some experts believe it's good while others don't.

I would agree if this was not a very significant piece. This was given to her father from someone as famous or more famous than him. It was for a movie where he was nominated for an Oscar. I really dont think you would forget seeing it no matter what.

Well...not so sure about that. Chris wrote last year about a Babe Ruth signed bat to Gary Cooper that was bad, so just because the lineage can be traced doesn't mean that people will do it before buying.

no data ever gets released from the tpa's to help collectors, ever.

I said it before and I believe it to be true...they make a lot of money off of the forgers. If there were no forgery there would be no need for TPA's.