Being in the authentication field myself at least as a hobby and on a non paid basis, I wonder how the paid authenticators such as Jimmy Spence can authenticate a litho such as this which has been signed by over 150 Negro League players.
http://www.premierauctionsonline.com...rchvalue=negro
Going by the standard on which these authenticators claim to operate, it would seem they would have to authenticate a signed litho like this using:
1. Multiple exemplars for all 150+ signatures, many of which are more obscure, non household name Negro League players.
2. Examine - the flow slant, pen pressure, letter size and formation of all 150+ men. (Is anyone familiar with the letter size, pen pressure of most of these players without spending some quality time looking at the multiple exemplars they claim to use on each autograph?)
3. At least a few to several minutes if not more per autograph, that is after identifying some of the signatures, which would take more than a moment on some of these if not most, matching them up to the multiple exemplars per player, and physically keeping track of the ones you already authenticated so you don't miss any. Wouldn't that add up to more than several hours if not a couple of days to authenticate just this one litho?
If that is the case, going by Spence's rate of presumably a couple thousand dollars for a days work authenticating for dealers or auction houses, wouldn't it make an authentication like this very cost prohibited making the authentication more costly than the item may be worth?
If this is a litho that was signed in bulk, and the person submitting the stack of lithos would have got them all certed, with the first one taking the time to be authenticated, and the rest getting the LOA based on the first one (remember, this is not touted as an in-the-presence wittnessed item), would JSA still have to cross check all the signatures from one litho to another to make sure that all 150+ signatures were the same ones and are present on all the lithos and that no extra signatures were squeezed in on the subsequent lithos that weren't on the one they painstakingly examined? Wouldn't that take a long time to cross check each one from the 'control' litho to the other ones if indeed there were more than one submitted?
If this was just a single that they certed, and there was not a stack of subsequent similarly signed lithos, then we can assume that Spence identified each one, even the sloppy signed ones, many who are not household names, used multiple exemplars for each of the 150+ signatures, checked for flow,slant, pen pressure, size and formation for each one, spend several, several hours doing such and evidently charging a fee that was not more than the signed litho could be worth or fetch at auction?
Got it, it had to be done this way, right? As this is the proper and thorough way of doing it. I would like JSA to come on here and explain just exactly how they certed this 150 players signed item - where the examplars are and the number of hours it took and the fee, since it seems to be a monumental task that would preclude the formal authentication process as a viable vehicle based on time and monetary considerations.
I have heard in the past how Christopher Morales has certed an item with 100 plus signatures on one item, and people have blasted him, (and maybe rightfully so) on how he can use his forensic abilities to spend hours upon hours it must have taken painstakingly examining the signatures and not charge the thousands upon thousands of dollars it must have cost in his time and labor doing so. I am just wondering where those people are and if they don't question Mr. Spence in the same way, and if not, why not?
Is Spence above questioning in the same way other examiners are questioned when certing an item with well over 100+ signatures? We ask for Morales' examplars, but we don't ask for Spence's, why not? Why aren't we asking James Spence how long he took to examine these 150+ autographs and at what cost like we rightfully question Chris Morales when he examines a multi-dozen autographed piece? Why are some authenticators not to be mentioned or confronted?
Why are there sacred cows?
If I were examining this piece, I would have had to tell the submitter.
1. I will have to spend a considerable time identifying all the 150+ signatures. This will take quite awhile and a considerable charge just to do this. Unless they could identify them ahead of time for me and provide me with a key, but I would still have to take considerable time to cross check each one to make sure before I even began the actual authentication process.
2. I would have to have solid exemplars of all 150 negro leaguers in my exemplar files. If I don't, I would have to take considerable time to search other collectors, dealers, and online to find such exemplars. There may still be some that I would not have exemplars for.
3. I would then have to start the actual authentication process for each signature. Checking the formation, slant, flow, etc. to make sure each signature is legitimate. This would take many, many, many hours to do this.
4. I would then list on my COA exactly how many signatures were on the signed litho, how many I could authenticate, and how many I could not, and the names of the players that I authenticated, the names of those I could not authenticate, and any others that I couldn't identify. This is to make sure no one could fraudulently squeeze in a name of one or several negro leaguer in the future thus adding money to the piece, especially if the player's signature was rare and valuable. (The JSA LOA just lists 150+ autographs, not the exact number, and only lists a few of the most famous players, not every one.)
5. If the lithos were a stack of lithos all signed at the same private signing or show, (this was presumably a negro league reunion), and they wanted them all certed, (I am not claiming this is the case, but if it were), I would still have to perform steps 1-4 on at least one of the lithos, even if the submitter said he was at the show and had all the players sign them and who would fake these signatures? (We know where that road leads, don't we?) It's autograph authentication, not autograph trusting.
Then I would have to compare each and every signature on that litho to the other signed lithos, keeping track of all the autographs, noting any additions or substractions in the number of signatures on each subsequent litho and noting any anomolies and creating a separate LOA for each litho listing each players signature.
Even if there were no additions and subtractions and each litho was signed in the same spot by the same player on each one and the autographs matched up beautifully to the one I had already authenticated, I would still have to go through each signature and match them up and keep track.
This would take considerable time, especially if the number of lithos signed were of a large number. Not doing this is authenticating the provenance, or taking someone's word that all the lithos are the same, and it is not authenticating autographs, it is doing something else in my opinion, and not following the procedures that even these authenticators list as what they are paid to do. I take JSA at their word that they look at EACH autograph on EACH piece, even if they are the same, signed as duplicates en masse at a private signing or show, and look at slant, flow, pen pressure, letter sizing, and formation of EACH individual autograph as their LOA for each piece states.
5. Even if the signed litho is a single and they didn't submit any more, (like I assume is what happened with the submitter to JSA, but I don't know for sure as I couldn't find any evidence otherwise,) steps one through four would take many, many, many hours at considerable expense and I would have to bill them for my time to properly authenticate the lithograph. They would have to decide if such a time consuming project with a hefty price tag would be worth it. Multiple signed pieces, even signed exactly the same, would seemingly have a monumental fee attached to it if it were properly authenticated cross checking each autograph.
Someone tell me if what I have described is overkill, or if it is the way the hobby should expect for a thorough examination of such a piece as is stated on a JSA LOA.
I assume by how they describe their authentication process that they did it this way, proper and thorough. But I would still like to see their examplars for all these autographs and find out just exactly how long it took to authenticate and at what cost for this monster of a piece.
I would like your thoughts -