Mathewson Secretarial Autograph OK'd by JSA??

[gnaz01]

Am I missing something here?? I saw this on Hauls of Shame:

http://haulsofshame.com/

And then I saw this one on eBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Christy-Math...#ht_500wt_1180

Are they both secretarial?? They both look as if they have been signed by the same person, yet both are "authenticated" by JSA.

How can this be??? (No worries Leon, my name is posted as I am not ashamed of it) It is just that SOOOO many people put their trust in JSA, what ever happened to just comparing to KNOWN exemplars and that was good enough??

[Mr. Zipper]

The author would do a lot better if he just stuck to the facts and avoided "Autograph Alert School of Journalism" passages such as:

"Sources indicate that authentications like these by JSA and PSA are far from “mistakes” and show that these companies continue to certify non-genuine items to avoid the refunds and returns that would be requested from their clients if, in fact, they were to correct their flawed opinions."

Really? Shouldn't something this inflammatory be from a named source? Who is the source?

"Another source told us he believes the Matty secreterial signatures will be probed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

Again, really? Shouldn't something this important be from a named source?The FBI is ignoring the thousands and thousands of questionable items coming from the preferred document experts at Coaches Corner, yet are focusing on a handful of items from JSA? Who is the source again?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

The author would do a lot better if he just stuck to the facts and avoided "Autograph Alert School of Journalism" passages such as:

"Sources indicate that authentications like these by JSA and PSA are far from “mistakes” and show that these companies continue to certify non-genuine items to avoid the refunds and returns that would be requested from their clients if, in fact, they were to correct their flawed opinions."

Really? Shouldn't something this inflammatory be from a named source? Who is the source?

"Another source told us he believes the Matty secreterial signatures will be probed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

Again, really? Shouldn't something this important be from a named source?The FBI is ignoring the thousands and thousands of questionable items coming from the preferred document experts at Coaches Corner, yet are focusing on a handful of items from JSA? Who is the source again?

More than likely, the "source" is some disgruntled collector who's had a submission or two rejected by JSA. The small faction of the hobby with displaced anger and resentment towards JSA/PSA does more damage than good (IMO).

With the hoards of other blatant fradulent and criminal sellers/authenticators out there, I am perplexed as to why they funnel all of their anger towards the two outfits that are as close to reputable as we have. Perhaps it's because they're successful and/or well respected? I really find these "rebel rousing" blogs disturbing... but to each his own, I suppose.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by perezfan

More than likely, the "source" is some disgruntled collector who's had a submission or two rejected by JSA. The small faction of the hobby with displaced anger and resentment towards JSA/PSA does more damage than good (IMO).

Here's a "axe to grind alert website" translation guide for you:

Unnamed source = I think that...

Many think = Me

Concerned collectors = submitters whose items were rejected

Expert dealers have contacted us... = dealers whose items are okay with the court approved forensic experts, yet they routinely fail other TPAs have been whining...

It is reported = My cohorts think that...

The FBI should investigate = I wish the FBI would put these guys out of business so we can go back to the good old days when I had the run of the place...

[Leon]

I get emails many times, as recently as today, from people claiming they were ripped off, scammed etc (not on the board but have found me through it)... Anytime they don't have a name and contact info I always respond that I appreciate the info but it holds no weight (to me) and I won't help or respond, without knowing who is behind the email(s) to me. I just won't do it.

[travrosty]

It's funny how it all gets flipped around when the topic of the article is the christy mathewson sigs.

That's exactly what the companies want, the topic and discussion to go off track, so they can ignore it an cert the next round of questionable autographs.

If collectors only knew what really went on at these places, i doubt they would ever send in another autograph to them.

The mathewson story is one out of hundreds, almost all which haven't been reported yet. again , these companies use the forensic examiner as their bogeyman, so they can try to look good.

They WANT the forensic examiner in the game, so the focus stays off of them. no forensic examiners to push around= the spotlight on the authentication companies.

I dont care about the forensic examiners, but people want it to be an either/or game, and it's neither. you have to call out the mistakes and the bad apples when they occur, from ALL sides, not just ignore it if it is a large authentication company.

If an FDE did the mathewson's, lots of people would be calling bloody murder, but it was an acronym company that they like, so let's just all move on, nothing to see here?

Investigate EVERYBODY! Because the bread crumbs are out there, and they don't just lead to forensic document examiners.

Travis Roste

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

Am I missing something here?? I saw this on Hauls of Shame:

http://haulsofshame.com/

And then I saw this one on eBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Christy-Math...#ht_500wt_1180

Are they both secretarial?? They both look as if they have been signed by the same person, yet both are "authenticated" by JSA.

How can this be??? (No worries Leon, my name is posted as I am not ashamed of it) It is just that SOOOO many people put their trust in JSA, what ever happened to just comparing to KNOWN exemplars and that was good enough??

Is there a consensus opinion on the Mathewson bookplates in Won in the Ninth? I have probably seen 15 different signed copies over the last twenty years, but have never been interested enough (or have enough spare change, more appropriately) in a signed copy to keep scans or investigate further.

(I'm still more interested in finding out whether this book ever had a dust jacket, but I'm probably the only one)

Max

[Exhibitman]

Does it matter? I mean that seriously. The only proven fact is that opinions can differ among reasonable people as to whether a given autograph is authentic because none of us saw the signature being put in place. You either take the authenticator's word or you don't. It's your choice. We've shown over and over again that they make mistakes. Nothing we write here will change that situation. But having a reasonable difference over an item or two is a far cry from the Coach's Corner @$$-clowns who authenticate blatant fakes as a standard business practice. That's like comparing an occasional outbreak of Hep A to intentionally poisoning a food supply. Personally, I find the tactics of Haul of Shame/Peter Nash in tarring JSA and PSA/Dna with the same dirt as the Moralesteers et al. despicable and especially offensive and hypocritical given his checkered history of admitted fraud. In other words, Y-A-W-N.

I'm Ad@m W@rsh@w and I approve this message...

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Does it matter? I mean that seriously. If an item is passed by one of the Big 2 authenticators, many if not most collectors will simply buy it and not give it a second thought.

Adam

I understand what you're saying about the bizarre nature of autographs and their marketability with authentication. However, I really would like to know (after all, I named my dog "Matty")

Many of the Mathewson's are offered in the antiquarian book world, where dealers have barely heard of computers, much less JSA/PSA. I am interested in what others think of whether the signatures are Matty or secretarial.

(I have zero expertise in this area and can barely recognize my signature from letters I signed the day before)

Max

[prewarsports]

What I find disturbing is that the opinion that all these Matty's inside the books are fake is the opinion of ONE GUY and now people are acting like it is proven gospel that it is true. There is no iron-clad proof these are fake and if you look at the real Matty examples the author gives to prove his point you can see that Mathewson's autograph varied WILDLY over the years including the slants and letter formations. Keep the pitchforks in the garage until you have some actual proof other than the "opinion" of one guy to hang onto.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

What I find disturbing is that the opinion that all these Matty's inside the books are fake is the opinion of ONE GUY and now people are acting like it is proven gospel that it is true. There is no iron-clad proof these are fake and if you look at the real Matty examples the author gives to prove his point you can see that Mathewson's autograph varied WILDLY over the years including the slants and letter formations. Keep the pitchforks in the garage until you have some actual proof other than the "opinion" of one guy to hang onto.

Ron K is a pretty good guy to hang onto though.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Ron K is a pretty good guy to hang onto though.

EXACTLY what I was thinking. When I started this post, all I was asking is "WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO GOOD OLD FASHIONED COMPARING TO KNOWN EXEMPLARS?" I was not bashing any company, etc. Just that I trust Ron K.'s judgement a lot.