The creator of that pdf file has no clue regarding the Reagan autopen, or is ignoring the obvious. JSA is correct. It IS an autopen. Here's another one to show it:
The author makes some totally erroneous statements regarding the Reagan such as:
Erroneous statement : "An autopen signature is like a printed signature and is the same as printed text"
Fact: That is 100% incorrect. An autopen machine of that era holds a writing implement, IE, pen, marker, pencil, etc. and replicates the signature by using a matrix. The writing implement is held up and actually writes on the item that is receiving the autopen signature, it is NOT like printed text.
Erroneous statement "Autopens don't bleed through the paper"
Fact: Autopens quite frequently bleed through the paper because their is "ink", "marker", etc, being applied to an item. If the paper is porous enough for a human signature to bleed through, then an autopen signature done in the same type of ink, will bleed through as well.
Erroneous statement "Try printing with your printer, which is like the autopen process"
Fact: Printing with a printer is NOTHING like the autopen process
Erroneous statement "Things don't bleed through"
Fact: As indicated above, yes, autopens can bleed through, and frequently do.
Basically, the author's total analysis of the Reagan is wrong. I find it entertaining that he/she takes exception with the JSA rejection letter (which in a spirit of full disclosure does have several errors with it, but their conclusion is correct) when his/her analysis is full of similar type of inconsistencies . He/she let their bias against JSA, cloud their judgement on that item. Additionally, what proof does any of us have that every item that the writer claims was a copy, was in fact a copy?? I could take any item in my collection that I've had authenticated, post a story up on the web and say it was a copy and people would quote it as gospel. Autograph Alert has a very big axe to grind with PSA/DNA and JSA. You need to take EVERYTHING they say with a grain of salt.
I have no doubt that PSA/DNA and JSA frequently make mistakes. I've seen it with my own eyes and personally witnessed a lot of the politics of the autograph business, and it all involves around $$$, and Autograph Alert and it's contributors are not immune to their own questionable tactics when $$$ is involved.
If the author of the pdf can't even tell the difference between an autopen applied signature and a printed signature and/or believes they are the same as indicated with their erroneous statements, then how the heck are we to believe the rest of their analysis?? As mentioned in my post above, it's also possible the jersey number was switched out, but yet many believe the author. Does the author even know the difference between a laser copy and the originals. How do we know he/she actually didn't send the originals to get the certs? They would do themselves a big service if they would simply eliminate the portions of that pdf that apply to Reagan.
If someone blindly believes that story, then I can easily see how on the other hand there are those that blindly believe that PSA/DNA and JSA get it right every time (they don't and in my dealings with them, they've never claimed too).
Mike Navarro
Mike