Harry Wright Autograph
 

I was curious to find impressions on this piece. It is authenticated by a major company yet there are some concerns. I spoke with Rob Lifson (who gave permission to be mentioned) and we are baffled as to can a telegram be written by Wright? Would he call in the telegram or could he have written one to then be sent? I would appreciate any help I could get right now.

Thanks,
CJ

Just for clarification
 

This is what I responded with reference to this item:

"I am concerned that maybe JSA made a mistake in their authenticating this Wright piece. This is a telegram not a letter. Wright would have not written this message by hand – The telegraph company operator would have. I am no autograph expert – just a common sense person – and this is my common sense understanding, which I think is supported by comparing to other Harry Wright handwriting samples (again, I am not an authentication expert but I did compare with one letter and had to say wait a minute – something’s wrong here). I will do a little more research and report back. If I am uncomfortable with the piece from a common sense layman’s point of view (which at this point seems likely) even if Spence likes it we would not want to auction this. If I find Harry Wright writing samples that I think are similar, then of course we would want to run it, and I would have to say that my understanding of how the telegram company operated must be very incorrect. I am not a telegram expert and have done no formal research on the subject, I just thought I understood how the process worked. (Hopefully I do not!) Hopefully this all makes sense and I am available to discuss at any time.

Sincerely,

Robert Lifson

Robert Edward Auctions LLC"

I once had a telegram sent by John Ward. Of course, it was not in his hand. Telegrams are dictated to and written by a Western Union employee.

I think Sal Bando wrote that telegram out.

Can anyone please help me out with this? I just don't understand why a major company would authenticate this knowing it isn't even possible? Could this signature in any possible way be legit?

Thanks,
CJ

I've seen quite a few Wright signatures and there are certainly some similarities between this one and an authentic one. The body of the text clearly does not look to be in Wright's hand. Does anyone know if it's possible that Harry dictated this letter in person at a Western Union office, and then was asked to sign it himself? That makes no sense to me; however, a genuine Wright signature is awfully close to the one at the bottom of the telegram. Any other auto experts have some thoughts here?

I don't know anything about it but the g in "get" in the body of the note sure looks different in structure to me than the g in "Wright" in the signature.

You can have a telegram that is signed, but it is very rare. For example, I have a few telegrams that Jacob Ruppert and Harry Sparrow from the Yankees front office would write out, then have them sent and would keep the originals in their files.

Back in the 19th century/early 20th century you would walk into a Western Union office and pick up a telegram slip, write the message you wanted on it and take it to the clerk to have him send it. He would read it off your handwritten telegram and send it. These were then 99.9% of the time thrown away and were only kept for business purposes. On the other end, the telegram would come over the wire and the operator would write it in his hand and put it in a sealed envelope to have it delivered.

Since yours has the envelope with the name of the recipient, you have the latter version.

I owned this item at one point in time along with 40-50 other telegrams from the Bob Allen estate and I sold it as a telegram for the Wright/Delahanty content. While not signed by Harry Wright, it is still a 100% original item pertaining to (2) of the biggest names of the 19th century and a valuable and desirable piece and still is worth in the $500-$1000 range.

I hope that expains the process a little better. There is a neat little portayal of this in the Movie "The Assassination of Jesse James" from a few years ago where Bob Ford walks into an 1870's Western Union office and writes out his telgram and hands it to the operator and then explains "You might want to keep that" because of the significance of the content.

I was clearly misled because it was sold as an autographed telegram by Harry Wright and as mentioned authenticated by the leader in the industry. This should be quite interesting to try and obtain a refund. Just another reason you can't trust authenticating companies.

CJ

Will you tell us who sold this item to you?

Probably the people I sold it to. I think that when I sold it, I just "sold it" with some other items and although I knew exactly what it was, and assumed they did too, appearantly it was a bad assumption if even third party authenticators dont know. I think they had no idea how telegrams worked and thought it might have been signed and submitted it and it came back as signed and never questioned it or suspected anything. I know the seller very well and they rely heavily on 3rd party grading and I know there was no malice involved on their part. I think the beef is with the authenticator and not the seller in my opinion.

I'm certainly not a handwriting expert and as a casual observer of the conversation, I appreciate the background on how telegrams work. However, there is one thing that still has me curious (as brought up by someone earlier as well).

From a strictly layman's perspective, the handwriting on the telegram, and the purported signature, seem to be in two different styles. Aside from the fact that certain letters do not match up (i.e., the "g" as already pointed out), just the overall slant and letter spacing is clearly different. The actual writing has a noticeable right slant, while the signature doesn't.

I guess I'm still not sold that this can't be an original signature of Wright.

While I won't argue authenticity one way or the other on this one, here are 3 exemplars of Harry Wright's signature.
Compare to the signature on the telegram.

If anyone has a scan of the little pencil signatures in one of the Harry Wright scorebooks, I think it will look at lot closer to the one on the telegram. When Wright signed a letter, he did so with a bit of a flourish. I believe he signed the scorebooks a little less formally. I'm not suggesting the one on the telegram is genuine, but it would be worthwhile to make this comparison. There was one in the recently closed Legendary Auction.

I agree with Barry in that the scans Richard posted above are of the more "ornate" variety. While this is a Wright letter, I think this type of signature is similar to those contained in the score books, and which I also think is more similar to the telegram.

I do not want to out the seller because I also believe it was not sold in malice. But that being said it was sold as a Harry Wright autographed telegram and I feel a refund would be appropriate. I will contact him and hopefully everything goes smoothly.

IMO you should go after JSA for the refund, not the seller. I don't imagine the seller purported to be an expert, which is why they had it authenticated by JSA. Does JSA have a buyback policy?

The seller should always be the one to give a refund. If the seller then wants to take it up with JSA that is his business, but the seller is the one with the ultimate responsibility.

I don't think it would hurt to ask the seller, but the seller sold a JSA authenticated autograph and the buyer received a JSA authenticated autograph. I don't think the seller is accountable if the auto is a fake.

So you think that the seller should profit from selling a questioned autograph, even if he did not know it?
If I am an employer and one of my employees makes a mistake in my business and it costs a customer, who is responsible? The employee or me?

I have contacted the seller and am waiting for a reply. Does anyone know if JSA frequents these boards? I would love to hear them weigh in on this issue.

They might prefer not to post on this board, and deal with the matter privately.

Let's be linguistically careful - I am not discussing "should." We can all agree that no one should be profiting from forged autographs. In this particular circumstance, I don't think the seller is at fault for selling the bad autograph. Recognizing he wasn't an expert, he had it authenticated and then sold it; the buyer received a JSA authenticated autograph as advertised.
You are. Of course, that's not analogous to this case as JSA does not work for the company owned by the seller. If they were all part of the same company the responsibility is at the top; however, here the seller did not make any mistakes - the mistake was purely on JSA; as such, I don't believe the seller should be held responsible. Would you feel differently if it wasn't the seller who submitted it to JSA, but rather, the seller bought it already authenticated?

My feelings would always be the same.
The seller should be responsible.

But wouldn't this hobby be in better shape if the authenticator was held responsible?

There wouldn't be these "pass anything authenticators", and the better authenticators would have to take their time and not make so many mistakes.

You should ask the seller and see what happens. Then go to Spence and see what happens and report your findings here.

Good luck!

DanC

But do you really think the pass anything authenticators would ever give a refund to anyone??? And if the other authenticators did give refunds that would not change the policy for the pass anything guys.
In my opinion no way would those guys give refunds.
But wait, I should not pass judgment quickly, why don't the pass anything authenticators come on here and add a post to this thread and let us know what they would do :):).
And furthermore, as many of us know, many of the top dealers in the country, such as yourself DanC, do not use any third party authenticators. The knowledge of the top dealers in the country is more than sufficient to give their clients the confidence in their material.

The word "forgery" should not be used even remotely with this item. It is an authentic 1891 telegram from Harry Wright to his field captain regarding Ed Delahanty. It is worth $1000 on its own merits and is no way illegitimate or shady in ANY way. It is similar to finding out an authentic 1891 Phillies letter on team letterhead had a secretarial Wright signature or something along those lines.

Please do not refer to items like this as something it is not. Nothing about this item is forged it is a legitimate valuable sports antique which is simply misidentified by an authenticator.

Prewar sports is 100% correct...this is not a forged item. It is an authentic item just mislabeled by an authentication company. It is a great piece just not what I set out to buy. The seller has agreed to issue a refund and has been a class-act about the whole situation.

CJ

From my Harry Wright scorebook (I don't have a full signature in it).

Rob M.

Attachment 27970

The seller, in my opinion, is certainly doing the right thing and I commend his actions in this matter.

Regarding the issue of who should pay . . the seller or the authenticator? . . I thought I'd chime in on a similar issue I recently had.

Nine years ago I purchased an autograph for from a rather prominent autograph dealer. The piece was acquired by him through a major auction house and was accompanied by a PSA/DNA auction house letter. In my recent attempt to sell the item it was determined that the signature was not genuine but was in fact a stamp. By the same authenticator's admission, when the item was authenticated nine years earlier, this stamp variation was not known. When I informed the dealer who sold me the item about this discovery I had significant difficulty obtaining a cash refund despite the written lifetime guaranty that he provided at the time of sale. While he did offer a credit towards items in his inventory, we were far apart on what constituted equal value. After several weeks of back and forth, his outright refusal to provide a cash refund, and my threat of litigation, he called on Joe Orlando from PSA/DNA to get involved.

I agree with Rich's point where he states that "The seller should always be the one to give a refund. If the seller then wants to take it up with (the authenticator) that is his business, but the seller is the one with the ultimate responsibility." Afterall, my dealing were not with PSA and this guy gave me his own written guaranty. And as far as I know, neither PSA or JSA have a buyback guaranty as all they are offering is a professional opinion.

Nonetheless, Joe Orlando called me and asked that I deal directly with him to resolve the matter. Within a week I had a check from Collector's Universe reimbursing my full cost of the item. I had never before used PSA/DNA's services and had no prior dealing with Mr. Orlando. I haven't mentioned the dealer by name as it is not my intention to drag his name into a public forum. My intention here is to illustrate how a similar situation the Wrght signature was handled and to express how impressed I was with the way Mr. Orlando handled the matter. While I was greatly disappointed in the way the dealer handled things I thought this would be a good place to say something nice about an authenticator for a change. They had no obligation to me, but for the sake of good business, they did the right thing. I only hope the dealer they bailed out is as appreciative as I am.

Hungry?..................More?
 

A prominent dealer, do tell? :-)

The pass anything guys would no longer exist if they were responsible for their own opinions.

RFS no longer. How about Costa Rico-rd (or Costo Richard).

You ever notice how the "pass anything authenticators" don't delve the very few shows to advertise their wares? It may have something to do with facing the public who has knows all about their practices, but I think they would do a bang up business. Go to the JSA or PSA/DNA booth and have something denied and then go to their booth.

DanC

Just out of curiousity do you do a ton of business with PSA? I'm just wondering if that factored into their decision to refund you.

nm

I do not. Had them slab a ticket stub for me once at a show but that's it. A refund from them was unexpected and still not something I would "expect" as there is no obligation on their part. I don't use third party authenticators often (sometimes when I plan to sell an item). However, in light of how this was handled, if the need arises I would certainly be inclined to use them and recommend them.

So if this Harry Wright is not an authentic handwritten note and signature, is "the authenticator mislabeling it" just a kind way of saying that they authenticated a signature which they assumed was of the subject, but is not.

Sure it's not a forgery, but it's also "not authentic". I guess the difference between a forger and what this is is the lack of intent to defraud I guess. The same way the hobby regards wife signed stuff and clubhouse signatures.

Larry

This is why I try not to deal in a lot of autographs. I do handle them in my field but turn down a large majority of those I am offered.

As a general question to what people's thoughts are:

What are the circumstances in which a seller is obligated to give a refund to a buyer on an autograph?

#1. PSA says it's bad

#2. JSA says it's bad

#3. PSA says it's bad, but JSA says it's good...........or visa versa.

#4. You're one of these "knowledgeable" dealers..........but PSA or JSA says it's bad............or "questionable". Others, possibly a few posters on NET54, says it's good.

#5. PSA or JSA or both says the autograph is good..........but certain posters on NET54 think it's bad.

Since PSA and JSA only give "their opinions" and are not monetarily on the hook for a "bad opinion"....are the opinions of the dealer allowed to be taken into account if "their opinion" does not jive with that of the 3rd Party Authenticator in regards to a refund.

I guess what I'm getting at................is who has the final say? Is every autograph ever signed in question, until such time somebody, somewhere says........."This is no good", and then whoever has it at that time is left holding the bag? Or whichever dealer touched it last?

I know of a couple major dealers in my main field of "Boxing" who have decided that "They" have the final say, because they don't trust the 3rd Party Authenticators anymore, and will not give refunds based on their conclusions.

The claim is that these 3rd Parties do not have the experience in boxing and there is just too much evidence of them passing bad autographs and rejecting good autographs. Or more to the point............deeming them "questionable" because they just don't have the answer, and causing buyers to decide "questionable" is the same thing as "Not Good".

Let me be clear..........I don't have the answers here and am not on one side of the fence or the other. I reject most autographs that come across my desk and limit myself generally to low end autographs, for the most part because I don't want to deal with these particular questions myself.

I'm Just curious on where the line is drawn.

Well stated Dave, and I'm curious as to others opinions on what you wrote. To me, if an autograph comes JSA or PSA authenticated, it has more weight, based on OVERALL perceptions in the hobby. But, even they make mistakes. It all comes down to "trust" and "leap of faith" unless you had something signed in front of you. But, when buying, say Gehrig, Matty, Ruth, Harry Wright, etc, its an awful big leap of faith to take.

Tinker, Bergin and Ghost...good points. You take a signature that is perceived to be bad by a number of experts who aren't authenticators, but solid dealers, specialized in the area of the signature or auction house heads and it comes with a top authenticating cert, it will forever be good in the minds of those who totally trust these companies, while the expert or dealer would pass on it. There is so much weight placed on the cert in this instance as there is a solid following and trust with them. All authenticators make mistakes. Some more than others. Some never get it right and are discussed here with venom...monthly.

DanC

This Harry Wright telegraph has appeared for sale again in the latest Clean Sweep auction

I absolutely believe the seller is responsible.
Third party is just an opinion. The seller is ultimately on the hook for knowing what he's selling, UNLESS it is sold at the time of sale as no returns for ANY REASON with item sold AS IS on baisis of JSA authentication.
BG

Telegrams
 

I'm not sure if this has been settled or not, but the practice when sending telegrams for a long period of time was not only to dictate to the Western Union employee, but also to fill out a telegram form by hand, sign it and hand it over to Western Union for an employee to transmit at some later point. This was done to avoid the time it took for each telegraph sender to stand at the clerk's window dictating, whereas the written submission form could be handed over and then queued up to be sent when time was available. This was also done to ensure accuracy of the text being sent, and to ensure that any discrepancy between what was received (or intended to be sent) could be compared against the written and signed submission form.

There was recently available a written and signed Western Union telegram form from, I believe, Lou Dials of the Negro Leagues, which follows the same pattern.

Harry Wright Telegram
 

I was not aware of any controversy with this piece. I believe it was consigned to us with a full LOA from JSA and beyond that, we physically showed it to JSA at our offices.

I have sent the image again to JSA once again to review. We are not looking to be misleading in any way, and this is all we know about the piece. If JSA changes their mind, the item will CERTAINLY be withdrawn right away.

This will be my final post on this thread. If anyone wishes to contact me, kindly email me at info@csauctions.com and I will respond with any degree of detail requested.

Thanks much, Steve Verkman Clean Sweep Auctions

Well I asked a lot earlier in the thread but never really got an answer.

WHO DOES have final say on the matter?

6 out of 10 experts say it's good?
7 out of 10?
8 out of 10?
9 out of 10?
10 out of 10?

Is every autograph out there a hot potato until somebody, somewhere, says it's no good?

What I don't understand is that it seems to be marked "received" and the recipient's name is on the envelope. Isn't this the handwritten note from the receiving end of the telegraph?

This has been pulled from the CS auction.

This has been pulled from the CS auction.

Harry Wright
 

Hey Guys - lets address the Harry Wright Telegram - First JSA took over 30 days to give the ok on the auto - Jimmy Spence came to my shop and spent the whole day working on my stuff - he then told me he was taking a box of auto's with him - JUST TO MAKE SURE - The Harry Wright Telegram was one of them. I clearly saw the auto was much different the the body of the telegram - and if you take the time to google Telegrams, it was common practice in the 90's for the western union person to either have you write it out yourself - or - sign it as to agree the information to be correct. Jimmy stands by his findings that the auto is correct and different then the paragraph above the auto. I don't by any means put myself out there as an expert - but I do take every measure to make sure what I sell is true - can we all make mistakes - of course - but this autograph is real. It's ashame a few of you scared CS autions and we pulled the item.

What about the fact that the accompanying envelope has the adressee's name on it? And that the telegraph seems to be marked "received"? Wasn't it also common practice to have the receiving telegraph operator write the message out?

Many times there were 2 copies and no it wasn't always common pratice for the receiving operator to write it out - lets be real - it's 2 sets of handwritting - look at the value of letters - slant - size - look at the T and G and compare to the body - also compare to similar Wright auto's - i have - Jim has and it's on point. Fact of the matter PSA/DNA also gave it a thumbs up and i could have ruined a piece of baseball history by cutting and mounting on a 3x5 - The debate can continue and I know everyone wants to say it's bad - it's popular to expound knowledge - but many staements in this blog are only assumptions without fact - while I respect each person - it's my opinion based on my experience and the professional knowledge and opinion of JSA - JIM SPENCE - I beleave this auto to be true -and i can't explain the receiving party or who wrote the body of the message - but i can say I did my best without destorying the telegram - So it's also noted i've been turned down on many other auto's Jimmy took with him. I went through similar agruments about grading cards.