STAMP of approval for jsa, psa? what's going on?

[travrosty]

Stamp of approval for jsa and psa? why do they keep doing this? Is this a stamp, what else could it be?

http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/A...cott&offset=10

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROCKY-MARCIA...#ht_500wt_1054

How can 2 photos, one creased and worn with rounded corners, and one in perfect shape with square corners, be offered as "genuine" with the exact same signature and the exact same inscription?

one "signed" photo went through american memorabilia with a psa auction loa, as described by them, and is very worn, and the other is on ebay with sharp corners, in perfect shape, with a jsa loa?

the ebay seller is adamant that his photo is not a restored photo, does not have built up corners and is in great condition. So two different photos with the same signature and inscription, "authenticted" by psa and jsa. Great job guys!

what is going on? at least one of them has to be a copy and of course it is possible they both are?

Why can't they figure it out by now? Who made the mistake, psa, jsa or both?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Stamp of approval for jsa and psa? why do they keep doing this? Is this a stamp, what else could it be?

http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/A...cott&offset=10

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROCKY-MARCIA...#ht_500wt_1054

How can 2 photos, one creased and worn with rounded corners, and one in perfect shape with square corners, be offered as "genuine" with the exact same signature and the exact same inscription?

one "signed" photo went through american memorabilia with a psa auction loa, as described by them, and is very worn, and the other is on ebay with sharp corners, in perfect shape, with a jsa loa?

the ebay seller is adamant that his photo is not a restored photo, does not have built up corners and is in great condition. So two different photos with the same signature and inscription, "authenticted" by psa and jsa. Great job guys!

what is going on? at least one of them has to be a copy and of course it is possible they both are?

Why can't they figure it out by now? Who made the mistake, psa, jsa or both?

I could see one being a reproduction of the other, but find it doubtful that anyone would have made a stamp for the inscription (unless Marciano got a heck of a lot of autograph request from guys named Sam )

[D. Bergin]

Travis,

I have no opinion on the signature, but they appear to be the exact same piece to me.

Only difference is the scanning/picture taking process. The cleaner one looks like it was scanned in a flatbed scanner and a bit of care was taken in it's presentation.

The other looks as if a cheaper digital camera took the picture, while the photo was curled up, throwing off glares and artifacts from the flash, and appearing to give the photo a different color tone then the other.

Placement is exact on the signatures, as are various defects in the photo. The digital flash just appears to give the ink in the signature a thicker hue.

[Fuddjcal]

with all these mistakes being made in regards to letting copies of originals into their database, If these "experts" can't tell the difference, how the hell am I supposed to see it? I usuall ylook at the signature with a 10X magnifier with a light on it and I can't tell the difference between an original and a copy... what are some tell-tale signs that you have a copy, other than the obvious (8 1/2 X 11) is a excellent sign that it's a copy, I can't tell what I'm even looking for.

Obviously, neither can these bozo's

[JimStinson]

Look for "stress marks" on the photo these are easily seen under magnification, and especially on the reverse , look at pen pressure. and then look at the areas where ink intersects , it will be obvious under magnification. Where the ink crosses will be darker.

[RichardSimon]

Good catch Travis, nice work.

[Lordstan]

Why can't it just be the same picture? Person A buys it from American in 2004 and is now selling it again.
As for the appearance, I think that could be explained by, not only different scanners, but different scanner settings. I know there can can be significant differences in appearance depending on scanning techniques used. I know sometimes it happens to me when I don't want to, and I have to fiddle with the settings to get and accurate image.
I do think that if it is the same picture, some restorative work must've been done to the edge of the picture. I blew up the upper left corner and I think I can see some "filling in" color, but am not sure.

[packs]

The eBay photo could be cropped too. If a buyer complained I could see the seller saying the whole photo wouldn't fit into his scanner.

[travrosty]

one has obviously rounded corners and says it has toning to borders and light crazing, and you can see creases at the top left border.

the ebay sellers has sharp corners and is listed as in perfect shape, because I asked the seller, he said NO creases and no restorationm perfect shape. It is interesting that the ebay photo has a copy of the crease in walcotts left leg that appears to be IN the photo as the seller says the photo is in perfect shape, the same crease that is in the other photo.

they are not the same photo according to the listings.

[Mr. Zipper]

Same photo. The bottom one has simply been pressed flat through a process or carefully placed under a scanner lid that pressed it down. The top one has some turned edges, which catch the glare and give an appearance of being more rounded than they are. You can see some matching markers around the edges of both photos in the top and bottom right corners. not sure if the white flecks on the left edge are in the photo or damage, but they match as well. There also appears to be an identical thumb mark to the upper left of Walcott's head. If that is not enough, the crease in the area of Walcott's left knee is identical.

Hard to believe an eBay seller would describe something as "NM" that wasn't. But apparently, the whole theory is based on that presumption.

This is what happens when someone is so eager to trumpet the next "screw-up." They rush, don't take their time and mistakes are made.

[travrosty]

i could have called it a preprint of approval, or a copy of approval, i dont know how it was done, there is also ink transfer, laser copies out there, imagination runs wild, anything you can imagine, they have done it, but it's definitely the same signature and inscription on two different photos and that i can't explain if both are purported to be original signatures.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Same photo. The bottom one has simply been pressed flat through a process or carefully placed under a scanner lid that pressed it down. The top one has some turned edges, which catch the glare and give an appearance of being more rounded than they are. You can see some matching markers around the edges of both photos in the top and bottom right corners. not sure if the white flecks on the left edge are in the photo or damage, but they match as well. There also appears to be an identical thumb mark to the upper left of Walcott's head. If that is not enough, the crease in the area of Walcott's left knee is identical.

Hard to believe an eBay seller would describe something as "NM" that wasn't. But apparently, the whole theory is based on that presumption.

This is what happens when someone is so eager to trumpet the next "screw-up." They rush, don't take their time and mistakes are made.

It's NOT the same photo in my opinion, the one photo has rounded edges, duh! Look at that top right corner, and put it in a photo viewer program and blow it up. does it look sharp, no it does not.

the ebay seller says that their are NO creases on the photo, the corners are sharp. the seller was asked if there were creases because the prospective buyer wanted to know exactly the condition the photo was in.

you can see crazing and creases on the american memorabilia version. is that not clear?

the reason the picture looks identical to you is that one or both are most likely copies! I didn't say I knew which one or which company is at fault or how they did it. I don't have the photos, but to say the american memorabilia copy has sharp corners is way out there.


i see the LOA from jsa lists it as a knockout of ezzard charles, duh! it's walcott, they can't even get the players right, what the odds the authentication is any better??????

again, you cant tell me with a straight face that the top right corner on the american memorabilia photo is a square corner. its ragged and rounded.

the reason there are identical flecks on both photos along the edges is that one was probably scanned and printed COMPLETELY on another photo, including the white border, so all flecks transferred is my guess.

I don't say I know which company is guilty, but these are not the same photo so is it one or both that is wrong?

american memorabilia lists it in ex cond. ebay seller in nm, and ebay seller was contacted personally and he said NO creases whatsoever, perfect condtion, no restoration and no built up corners, perfect shape and never been tampered with.

there are obvious creases in the american memorabilia photo so your wild theory is disproved.

A photo doesn't show up in creased condition at one place and perfect in another. do you think the ebay seller would say NO creases, sell it for 2200 dollars only to get it back for a refund because he misrepresented it?

of course the crease in walcott leg is the same, when photos get copied, creases copy too. if the ebay seller said no crease, then the crease in walcott's leg is IN the photo, which means it was probably copied from another creased photo at one point.

[Mr. Zipper]

The corners are not nearly rounded as they appear. They are curled slightly up giving an exaggerated appearance of rounding.

I've stated my piece logically and reasonably and I am not the only one who thinks they are the same photo.

You may now resume with your predicable ranting and childish carrying on.

[packs]

The original auction description doesn't mention any creases either. They say the photo is in EX condition with some crazing and light toning. It is possible that the eBay seller also doesn't consider crazing to be a crease and his description would be in line with the original auction's.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

The corners are not nearly rounded as they appear. They are curled slightly up giving an exaggerated appearance of rounding.

I've stated my piece logically and reasonably and I am not the only one who thinks they are the same photo.

You may now resume with your predicable ranting and childish carrying on.

sir, if you don't see an obvious rounded and ragged right top corner in the american memorabilia copy then you bias has shown through.

the only reason i posted both of these is that their are obvious differences in the photos, i.e. corners and creases. if they were the same, it would be the same photo, it's not.

blow up the photo, you can see that corner is ragged and dirty and very rounded, and the ebay corner is sharp like a razor.

another question, where did the creases go if the seller on ebay was asked point blank if there were any creases on the border AT ALL, because condition was important, He said none.

he's lying i suppose but jsa knows it was ezzard charles in the photo being knocked out. thats a lot of presumption on who knows what they are talking about. go hold hands with spence.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by packs

The original auction description doesn't mention any creases either. They say the photo is in EX condition with some crazing and light toning. It is possible that the eBay seller also doesn't consider crazing to be a crease and his description would be in line with the original auction's.

when the seller says point blank -no restoration or creases in great shape, does the damage shown in the american memorabilia photo look like great shape to you with no creases. yeah, right.

you cant turn a rounded corner into a sharp one without restoration and he said no restoration.

i never said i knew which company made a mistake, but those aren't the same photos without restoration. that's why i ask what is up with this? If i knew I wouldn't ask that question.

[travrosty]

besides the obvious creasing on one and the seller saying there are no creases on the other, here is the biggest reason i believe they are different physical photos.

one razor sharp corner, one obviously ragged and rounded. make up your own mind.

i never declared one fake and one not or both fake, but gave my opinion i believe at least one to be a copy since the evidence appears that they are two different physical photos. i don't have the photos in my hands but it looks obvious to me.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by travrosty

besides the obvious creasing on one and the seller saying there are no creases on the other, here is the biggest reason i believe they are different physical photos.

one razor sharp corner, one obviously ragged and rounded. make up your own mind.

i never declared one fake and one not or both fake, but gave my opinion i believe at least one to be a copy since the evidence appears that they are two different physical photos. i don't have the photos in my hands but it looks obvious to me.

Sorry, they are identical photos. The corner you show is curled not rounded. Note the small defect to the left of the corner. Similar comparisons can be made to the other corners. It appears to have restoration, but *I* believe it is a difference in presentation (photo vs. scan). The fact that the seller is telling you that it is perfect should have no bearing on the issue. The AM auction description states "This glossy B&W press photo is solid EX with toning to borders and light crazing." That's it.

[steve B]

That's how it looks to me too. Not a "razor sharp" corner, but a worn corner made to appear better by a lack of contrast and very tight cropping. Almost to the point of cropping off a tiny bit of wear.

"Excellent condition" can be interpreted differently by different people. And traditionally has been. It's worn and VG when buying but excellent when selling. Even with standards there's a bit of interpretation. Which is why on the card side we now have TPG and also why we have arguments about TPG.

Of course, I could be wrong, and either could be completely fake. The overlooked thing is that if someone can and will fake a photo and signature, well, they'd obviously stop at the next step of faking a cert.
Or would hesitate before claiming something was in excellent condition to make an Ebay sale

Steve B

[D. Bergin]

They are the same piece.

Laying a photo flat in a scanner will do wonders to a photos appearance compared to taking an image of it with a 2004 or older, middle of the road digital camera.

Scanning software also has a way of washing out whites and off-whites in photos, hiding crazing, light creases and those cracks in the emulsion that tends to show up in the borders of glossy press photos.

Top right corner definitely looks flattened out in the Ebay version.

I'm convinced most people have no idea what NM even means.

Probably closer to VG on a good day.

[travrosty]

here is a photo from the net, it is described as soiled, neglected, etc. and it is obvious the corners are rounded.

theres no difference between the top right corner on this one and on the american memorabilia marciano.


if it is a sharp corner rolled up then the one below is too. if people think it must be a rolled corner because they see other things and the rolled corner theory helps bolster it that's okay, i disagree and peoples opinions are welcome. But there isnt a dime's worth of difference between this photo's upper right corner and marciano and to know it's rolled on one and to admit its rounded on this one takes a distinction that isn't supported by what we see visually and that's all we have to go on.

[markf31]

I can understand the rolled corner theory, and there even appears to be a slight shadow of the roll evident in the top picture. The top version is a photo of the picture, while the bottom verision is a scan of the picture.

I tried to reproduce the effect here, it's not a perfect example but I think it shows that the rolled corner theory is quite possible especially since we are dealing with scans and pictures and are unable to hold the documents to examine in person.

I stressed the corners of a business card. I took a picture of the card first, this is the bottom image. Then I tried to uncurl the corners and placed it on a flatbed scanner and scanned the card second, this is represented in the top image.

Same card, images taken mere minutes apart and there is a world of difference in their appearance.

[Lordstan]

Mark,
Thanks for posting that. That example is exactly the point a few of us have made.

Travis,
It's not that I think that it couldn't be a duplicate image that was certed incorrectly, as we all know PSA/JSA have made blunders similarly before. IMHO, I don't think there is enough evidence here to say for sure that that is what has happened.

I tend to agree with Jim, Dave, and Steve that people have no idea of accurate grading. It's also very possible some repair was done in between the last purchase and when this seller obtained the item. Perhaps, they have no idea anything had been done to it, and are only reporting what they see.

Best,
Mark

[Mr. Zipper]

Mark:

Spot on. Thank you for demonstrating this.

I have purchased thousands of comics and periodicals over the past 14 years on eBay. I have seen hundreds of cases where the combination of a curled corner, a shadow and pixilation creates the appearance of a very rounded corner, and when it is in hand it is not bad at all. And on eBay, “Near Mint” descriptions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Further, there are restorative techniques such as leafcasting that can infill areas of paper loss. If the color match is good, it is very difficult to detect.

I can’t say with 100% certainty these photos are the same item. But I think the likelihood of it being the same item and the difference being due to the explanation above is much higher than the likelihood of JSA missing a copy of a ballpoint signed and personalized photo.

Additionally, if it was a copy, how did they make a copy onto “old” photostock? Even the supposedly “near mint” newer version is still has signs of aging such as crazing.

In his zeal to post another “gotya” and collect some “attaboys,” I believe the OP didn’t think this one through.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Mark:
In his zeal to post another “gotya” and collect some “attaboys,” I believe the OP didn’t think this one through.

This OP?

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=155315

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

This OP?

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=155315

He's on a tear lately. After the Mastro indictments, there appears to be a coordinated campaign to attack and link PSA/DNA (the autograph division) to the negative news about Mastro and PSA (the card grading division).

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

Mark:

Spot on. Thank you for demonstrating this.

I have purchased thousands of comics and periodicals over the past 14 years on eBay. I have seen hundreds of cases where the combination of a curled corner, a shadow and pixilation creates the appearance of a very rounded corner, and when it is in hand it is not bad at all. And on eBay, “Near Mint” descriptions should be taken with a grain of salt.

Further, there are restorative techniques such as leafcasting that can infill areas of paper loss. If the color match is good, it is very difficult to detect.

I can’t say with 100% certainty these photos are the same item. But I think the likelihood of it being the same item and the difference being due to the explanation above is much higher than the likelihood of JSA missing a copy of a ballpoint signed and personalized photo.

Additionally, if it was a copy, how did they make a copy onto “old” photostock? Even the supposedly “near mint” newer version is still has signs of aging such as crazing.

In his zeal to post another “gotya” and collect some “attaboys,” I believe the OP didn’t think this one through.

i never said i knew which one was a copy, i asked what was going on, and opinions came in. I didn't say the jsa one was bad, or the psa one was bad, i said I believed one of them to be a copy.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

He's on a tear lately. After the Mastro indictments, there appears to be a coordinated campaign to attack and link PSA/DNA (the autograph division) to the negative news about Mastro and PSA (the card grading division).

there's a lot more can't get even get to right now, and when the hammer falls, i just want all you guys to still be there for them. Please don't pretend you never really cared for them when no one wants to be associated with them someday.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by travrosty

here is a photo from the net, it is described as soiled, neglected, etc. and it is obvious the corners are rounded.

theres no difference between the top right corner on this one and on the american memorabilia marciano.


if it is a sharp corner rolled up then the one below is too. if people think it must be a rolled corner because they see other things and the rolled corner theory helps bolster it that's okay, i disagree and peoples opinions are welcome. But there isnt a dime's worth of difference between this photo's upper right corner and marciano and to know it's rolled on one and to admit its rounded on this one takes a distinction that isn't supported by what we see visually and that's all we have to go on.

Travis,

Problem here is you are comparing a completely different flattened "scanned" photo with a digital camera capture of a curled up photo from 1' to 3' feet away.

IMO the corners were either flattened down or reinforced (or both) somewhere between 2004 and 2012.

Also looks like the same type photo stock to me. Difference in tone generally boils down to the scanner/camera settings used 8 years apart.

As far as the NM description by the seller. Here's another item he describes as EX/MT. While it's a nice photo, I don't think anybody would purchase it solely based on his accurate personal grading scale. Maybe GD/VG or VG. Thank goodness this isn't the old days of print ads and lack of photos so you can draw your own conclusions based on the photo he provides.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/8-7-1943-FRITZIE-ZIVIC-PITTSBURGH-SIGNED-5X8-PHOTOGRAPH-/150623322890?pt=US_Autographs&hash=item2311d9830a

Not making a run at you either Travis. I think you are great for the hobby and questions need to be raised. Notice I'm not critiquing the autograph itself, as I know you do a fine job of weeding those out yourself.

The same seller has other JSA Boxing Stuff (particularly Ali) that doesn't exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside either.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Travis,

Problem here is you are comparing a completely different flattened "scanned" photo with a digital camera capture of a curled up photo from 1' to 3' feet away.

IMO the corners were either flattened down or reinforced (or both) somewhere between 2004 and 2012.

Also looks like the same type photo stock to me. Difference in tone generally boils down to the scanner/camera settings used 8 years apart.

As far as the NM description by the seller. Here's another item he describes as EX/MT. While it's a nice photo, I don't think anybody would purchase it solely based on his accurate personal grading scale. Maybe GD/VG or VG. Thank goodness this isn't the old days of print ads and lack of photos so you can draw your own conclusions based on the photo he provides.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/8-7-1943-FRITZIE-ZIVIC-PITTSBURGH-SIGNED-5X8-PHOTOGRAPH-/150623322890?pt=US_Autographs&hash=item2311d9830a

Not making a run at you either Travis. I think you are great for the hobby and questions need to be raised. Notice I'm not critiquing the autograph itself, as I know you do a fine job of weeding those out yourself.

The same seller has other JSA Boxing Stuff (particularly Ali) that doesn't exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside either.

okay, nope no problem at all. it sold at am in 2004, do people build up corners, yep, do they flatten out creases, yep, is the corner rolled, some think so, i don't. i never even said that the ebay photo is a copy of the am one, it could be the other way around, as we all know that people copy perfect photos and artificially age them and round corners to suggest wear.

do i know that is the case, no, and i never said i knew for a fact that either one was the copy, i suggested that by looking at the two offerings, that one of them had to be from what i see, and that is using a working model that there are two photos, which is what i believe but others don't. i realize that.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

Look for "stress marks" on the photo these are easily seen under magnification, and especially on the reverse , look at pen pressure. and then look at the areas where ink intersects , it will be obvious under magnification. Where the ink crosses will be darker.

Thanks Jim, I'll give it a try next time I break out the photos...

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by travrosty

there's a lot more can't get even get to right now, and when the hammer falls, i just want all you guys to still be there for them. Please don't pretend you never really cared for them when no one wants to be associated with them someday.

Is this really the way that you view things? We either love them or hate them?

If/when "the hammer falls," we won't "be there for them," we will deal with the reality of the hobby as it then sits, just as many of us are now. Not that hard.

[alexautographs]

Not sure if the photo is still available, but why not ask the seller for a high resolution scan?