Autographs related question

[dwinters]

These are two Paul Andrews autographs that I have purchased over the last year. I feel really good about the one with Dimaggio. However, the other one seems really different than what I have seen before. Both are supposedly confirmed by PSA. Is it common to have this kind of variation between autographs? I have no reason to believe that either is a fake. I would think that more time would be spent on faking Cobb or Ruth.

Thanks!

[David Atkatz]

They were not signed by the same person. The signature on the partial team sheet is that of Paul "Ivy" Andrews.
The other is not. It's not a fake, though. It was signed by Paul Andrews.

Just not the right Paul Andrews.

This tells you more about PSA's "expertise" than it does about signature "variations."

[dwinters]

The signed business card came out of a mastro auction lot (see link below). I didn't pay very much for the autograph (<$30 as I recall). But, now it would be nice to know who signed it. On the back of the business card, it has "NY Yankees" written on it (by hand using pencil).

I can easily see how a mistake could occur, but I would think that PSA would have noticed this error.



http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...px?lotid=83709

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by dwinters

I can easily see how a mistake could occur, but I would think that PSA would have noticed this error.

Why would you think that? Aside from their own horn-blowing, what evidence of their expertise is there?

The absurd errors they have made--and continue to make--are legion.

[dwinters]

I may be too forgiving. 71 autographs shoudn't be that difficult to confirm authenticity.

Perhaps this is a "systematic" Matro/PSA issue. Maybe I should contact the FBI

This is the reason that I will always be shy in putting money into autographed items.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by dwinters

This is the reason that I will always be shy in putting money into autographed items.

This is the reason you become your own expert.

[dwinters]

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...l?itemid=16285

I have been searching for another sample of the "variant" Paul Andrews autograph that I purchased on an index card several months ago.

I found the same variation on this 1932 Yankees team signed ball.

This autograph has again been authenticated by several "leading" companies.

So, would it be safe to say that Paul Andrews had two autograph styles or signed his name differently in 1932 (for whatever reason)? Perhaps he had a doppleganger?

Thanks again for any and all input!

[Vintagedegu]

Those PSA blanket auction lot letters don't mean much; they apparently just skim through the stuff. The Bill Daniels lawsuit (scandal largely ignored by the hobby press) shed light on this practice a couple years back. They're far better than, oh, STAT or Morales, but that ain't saying much...

As far as Andrews goes, I don't know his signature and can't offer any advice...wish PSA would do the same instead of making like they have total knowledge of all signatures in all fields throughout the history of the universe. David's 'the man' as far as Yankee stuff goes, I'd listen to him over them any ole day.

Apologies for the rant, but I can't resist sometimes...

[mr2686]

Sorry...a little off topic but can someone shed some light on the Bill Daniels lawsuit that was mentioned in the previous post? Not sure I ever heard about that.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Why would you think that? Aside from their own horn-blowing, what evidence of their expertise is there?

The absurd errors they have made--and continue to make--are legion.

And the people said, AMEN!

[Vintagedegu]

-

[mr2686]

Thanks for the info. I've found more good and usefull information from this site in the past week than I have in the last 5 years in any hobby publication.

[JasonL]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

This is the reason you become your own expert.

I try to get all my autographs in person.
But that becomes extremely difficult with respect to obtaining signatures from dead guys

[mr2686]

Well...with the dead guys, it's harder for them to say no to autograph requests

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I too will keep tabs on this variant Andrews style from now on. I'll let you know of my findings once a significant amount of information can be gathered. Please keep in mind that the rest of the signatures on the ball are unquestionably valid. The Andrews signature is bookended by genuine examples of other signatures. Normally, clubhouse signature(s) are found on the sweet spot, as well as the tops and (especially) bottoms of side panels. This leads me to believe that Andrews could very well have employed two separate styles during the same period. Odd, to be certain, but not unique. I cite players like Randy Johnson, Albert Pujols and Mark McGwire as modern-day examples. Due to contractual obligation, Robinson Cano can apparently only sign using his full first name for a well-known collectibles company. Bob Dylan is known to sign using either hand. I sign my checks differently than I do other items; so did Frank Zappa.

Also, the auction house has erroneously listed Eddie Phillips as signing the bottom of the east panel. In fact, it's the signature of team mascot (and little person) Eddie Bennett, a tough autograph due to his early death.

Originally Posted by Vintagedegu

They're far better than, oh, STAT or Morales, but that ain't saying much...

You must keep in mind that the descriptions found on all auction LOAs are the words of the auction house and not those of the authenticator(s) who examined the items. I have never been especially fond of the auction LOA format, either.

I wouldn't be too critical of PSA's autograph department. Yes, they have made mistakes. I have made mistakes. Everyone in this industry has erred more than once. I certainly haven't encountered anyone on this message board whose knowledge eclipses theirs, so please choose your battles with caution. Some of you certainly have areas of expertise/enjoyment, and that is to be commended. I wouldn't burn you in effigy if you slipped up. Until a computer is built to authenticate holographic material, nobody will be batting 1.000 in this game. While some are quick to point out each foible on the part of an authenticator, very few care to mention the hundreds of thousands of correct calls made by respected authenticators. Perhaps instead of fixating on the negatives, why not spend your idle hours studying about signing habits, signature evolution, and historical facts and figures? Anyone can regurgitate information they read on the internet. A person's opinion only deserves respect if they possess a consistently proven track record of reliability and erudition. Learn as much as there is to be learned, then feel free to drop the gauntlet.

[JasonL]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Well...with the dead guys, it's harder for them to say no to autograph requests

And they usually just appreciate the attention!

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by JBirkholm

Perhaps instead of fixating on the negatives, why not spend your idle hours studying about signing habits, signature evolution, and historical facts and figures? .

I agree 100 percent. One of the most enjoyable parts of this hobby, at least for me, is learning everything I can about a persons signing habits, signature and what can and cannot have been signed. God knows it wasn't as easy as it is now with the vast amount of info that's available via the internet, through email and boards like this. For me, the bottom line is this - it doesn't matter if an authenticator says it's good...even if it's the most respected person in the hobby, If I don't think it's good, then I need to find the proper info to prove to myself that it's good or just walk away and not purchase.
On the flip side, just because one of the questionable authenticators says it's good, doesn't mean it's not. If I feel it's good after analyzing it, than I'm comfortable purchasing it. If I end up being wrong, then it's my bad for not knowing enough.