I agree with the comments posted and Michael has discussed this subject with me. Very disturbing if true. It makes no sense to me to reject an autograph merely because its vintage, or on a vintage item. When I submit a signed item to a TPA, I'm buying a professional opinion as to the autograph's authenticity. They were not there to see it signed, so all they are providing is an opinion, since they can't be 100% sure about it. In my mind, the question is how sure does an authenticator need to be before he is willing to say "I'll authenticate it." 51%?, 75%?, 90%?, 99%? I sort of understand the basis for charging more to authenticate an 18th century player than someone like Darold Knowles, because of the effort involved. Does their standard for declaring authenticity vary as well? For example, would they want to be 95% sure before they are willing to put their seal of authenticity on the likes of Al Spalding, Candy Cummings, Monte Ward, Kid Nichols, whereas for Darold Knowles or Milt Pappas, they are willing to certify it if they are 60% sure about it. Should the standard for authenticity vary based on the age of the item or age of the autograph?
It also makes no sense to me that some TPAs want to charge more for authenticating the same autograph if it is on a vintage item than if it is on a recent item. What justifies that? Certifying a Hank Greenberg signature on a 1939 Playball should be no more difficult than certifying it on 1980’s reprint.
|