Warning: Disturbing Autograph "Authentication" Material!

[slidekellyslide]

Thanks for the info...it's good to know that auction letters don't mean shinola. And if you get stuck with what turns out to be a forgery nobody is going to take responsibility.

[David Atkatz]

Ain't that the truth!

[slidekellyslide]

David, I had your baseball in mind when I started this line of questions. Hopefully there is some way you will get restitution otherwise it really is just one big racket.

[Leon]

I am not an autograph collector but obviously deal with a lot of folks who are. Here are a few random thoughts I have come up with pertaining to this thread.

1. I can't help but every time I see a Nash article think of the hot water he is in and alleged fraud he has committed. If I am not mistaking there is still an outstanding (large) judgement against him and a civil bench warrant for his arrest. Kind of like Sandusky lecturing on child abuse. That being said I do applaud his work in trying to uncover fraud in the hobby...but I can't help wondering the motive.

2. The quick opinions from TPA's don't seem to be worth the paper they are written on, from what I am reading.

3. TPA's and LOA's don't guarantee anything except an invoice for TPA services.

4. Lastly, I do understand "experience" but I don't think it's right to call into question someone's age in this argument. Casey is an adult and he is putting his money where his mouth is in this hobby. Many of the people who yell the loudest have the least vested interest. Casey isn't one of those guys.

Now back to the card side....at least things are civil over there.

[RichardSimon]

(quote)(Travis)"These TPA's should slow down at least some and make sure they look for erasures on every piece, and really do a good thorough job, even if it takes awhile and the profit on that piece isn't as much as they would like. Integrity of the process to protect the collector should trump profit at ANY cost."

Some of you may know that I was on the first PSA authentication team along with Jimmy Spence, Jim Stinson and Ron Gordon.
We all flew to California for the work. (once a month when authentication first started).
At one point in time we all asked to stay over for an extra day, because we knew the amount of items we had to inspect would not get the time allotted to them that would have been necessary to make the proper decisions for the items.
Our request was denied by a higher up at the company. I don't recall who.
"Get it done by tonite" was the reply.

[johnmh71]

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

[steve B]

Pushing the schedule that hard seems like a good way to ensure mistakes. I'm not sure I'd be willing to work that way with any of the stuff I do. There are always rush jobs, but not at the expense of quality either for that job or the ones it's putting off till later.

From the APS
http://stamps.org/DisplayPage.aspx?id=197
"12.No item will be accepted if the owner insists upon a deadline date for its return. Owners should allow 90 days before expecting a certificate. Since items are submitted to expert committee members for their opinions by mail, unavoidable delays are often experienced."

Of course their guarantee is a bit better. Not much for very high end stuff, but great for most items.
http://stamps.org/APEX-Guarantee

The certs are atually meaningful, and it's only $8 if they decline to make a decision. Most items get through the system reasonably quickly, but some really special ones can take a while. And controversial ones can take years and still get what's essentially a no decision. One batch of questionable Hawaiian stamps literally took years, and involved actual experts in printing, paper, inks, and probably a few specialties I didn't hear about. The English equivalent to the APS took it on, and ended up writing a book. And they're still controversial, although most likely fake. I've seen them in person, and they're spectacular fakes -assuming they're not actually real.
If you've got time there's lots of info here. delay in certs? These have only been waiting since 1919.....
http://www.hawaiianstamps.com/mi_grinnell.html

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

...
Now back to the card side....at least things are civil over there.

As in 'civil war'.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

1. I think its pretty clear that the items he recently uncovered are online at the auction house archives. that's not taking his word, it is using your own eyes to see that a certified wagner signature wasn't there (very light), and two years later, it was! (added dark signature).

2. I think it is made clear that the autographs that are questioned are Ron K's opinion unless you have something against him I think he is a very good source for an opinion on these autographs.

3. If the item is bad with a TPA cert, then what's the difference, other than people feel more comfortable buying the forgery with the TPA cert. Forgers use the TPA to legitimize their forgeries, that is why it is important to get them right. if the TPA's got them right, i would have nothing to complain about. But they obviously don't.

[HRBAKER]

Good points Leon, especially #1. Assuming the worst as far as a motive, it doesn't make the information any less damning IMO if true.

The reality is this, the only thing that is certain to me about a TPA LOA is that the item is likely to be more "liquid" in today's hobby.
And that my friends is a result of marketing more than anything IMO.

[RickGallway]

Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone.

edited due to identity issue...(leon)

[slidekellyslide]

I already warned this side about swearing...please stop it.

As far as Pete Nice goes, I think what he is doing now is admirable, but I can't help but think this is all about taking others down with him. As long as he's taking down the bad element I can go with that.

[Caseyatbat]

First off, Leon Thank you very much, that is very much appreciated. And now second, as for you "Rick", why are you even still talking? Your last post said it all, you said - "I don't collect autographs or know anything about them" At this point Rick, you are wasting everybody's time. And I no longer want to respond back to your foolishness. How are you going to sit there and tell me what is authentic and what is not when you do not have any experience at all to base it off? zero experience and you were the first one to admit it to us. Honestly, why are you even involving yourself in this thread? The rest of us involved in this discussion actually care about the hobby. You are just posting stupid ridiculous things hoping to piss somebody off. What is this your day off work today?

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

IMO, one of the big problems is too many people who feel the way you do. The alphabet boys mistakes keep getting dismissed as just a few mistakes and nobody is ever held responsible for them. In reality, it seems to be a lot of mistakes. Not to mention, is there really any excuse for authenticating a preprint? Absolutely not. Zero reason why that should EVER happen. But it happens over and over.

How many times do these TPA's have to authenticate a preprint, a secretarial, an autograph with no known exemplars, or outright obvious forgeries before people say enough is enough. Instead, they are dismissed as honest mistakes that could happen to anyone. WHy not hold them accountable for these mistakes and quit listening to THEM tell us all how great they are at authenticating. How many times do they have to make these same mistakes to make people realize, something isn't quite right or they just aren't as good as they claim to be.

Whether you have someone intentionally forging and putting items into the marketplace, or you have someone authenticate something without real knowledge or credentials or authenticating in a rush and doing a poor job, the end result is the same. Forgeries hit the market.

Just the face that the TPA's and auction houses don't answer questions about these issues should send up red flags. Sadly, they have done so much marketing that they have convinced the world they are the best.

IMO, it is completely unethical to charge a fee for a preliminary authentication, only to later charge another fee to do a "real" authentication. If people can't see where this is wrong.......

[HRBAKER]

Chris,

It's an uphill climb, not many collectors want to consider the possibility that some of what they have may be bogus. And many dealers have become very reliant on the TPAs as a "sales tool" and price enhancer.

[vintagechris]

BTW, I might add that I don't believe a person's age means anything in regards to their knowledge. I know a lot of young guys under 30, some well under 30, who have done their homework and have way more knowledge than some older guys.

The number of years you have been on this earth means nothing compared to the total number of hours you have studied something.

For an example, I saw a story on 60 minutes about this 12 year old math genius in college and I would venture to say there are few people in this world at any age who can match his knowledge.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Chris,

It's an uphill climb, not many collectors want to consider the possibility that some of what they have may be bogus. And many dealers have become very reliant on the TPAs as a "sales tool" and price enhancer.

You are right Jeff and it is a very unfortunate situation for collectors. I can't imagine how David Atkatz must feel. He seems to be taking it much better than I would.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

I agree with Leon. You need to do your own research regarding Nash and his history with REA before you take his word for anything on his site. He is an example of what is wrong with the hobby.

In regards to third party authenticators, what would be the state of autograph collecting if they didn't exist? The forgers and fraud running wild? I'm not saying that either JSA or PSA is perfect, but based on my experience with them, I prefer to stick with them than the alternative.

John- the viable alternative is to stick with the dealers who know their material and whose knowledge is not second guessed, and IMO have greater knowledge than the TPA's. I have posted names in the past Stinson, Corcoran, Albersheim, Ron Gordon, Keating, Phil Marks and Lelands who authenticates their own stuff. If you stay with them that is the best alternative that I know.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by vintagechris

You are right Jeff and it is a very unfortunate situation for collectors. I can't imagine how David Atkatz must feel. He seems to be taking it much better than I would.

It's not the end of the world, Chris. There are far more important things in life than a signed baseball, or even the money it cost.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by RickGallway

Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone.

So what you are saying is Sandusky should lecture on child abuse?

[Leon]

RickGallway is now suspended until he and I talk on the phone. It is not for anything he, whoever he is, said in this thread. It has to do with his registration, which, at a minimum, is against board rules. thanks

PS- Rick, or whoever you are, please email me at leonl@flash.net if you want to be reinstated. We will have a nice long chat on the phone before that happens. I will go out on a limb and say I won't be getting an email.

[johnmh71]

My point was that neither JSA or PSA rubber stamp anything. I've submitted numerous items to both and I have had several items rejected, but none since I've focused on purchasing from more reputable dealers as suggested before. I approach every autograph with some doubt until I study it, purchase it from someone reputable, and then have it authenticated.

I also want to clarify that I do not believe that having them eliminates forgeries from the marketplace. That will always be a problem. And for the auction houses or any dealer that does their own, why should we believe that they are any more infallible than PSA or JSA?

I believe, that for most people, autograph collecting would be reduced to getting each one in person without TPAs. And even after building a collection that way, good luck trying to sell them down the road with no certification.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by vintagechris

IMO, one of the big problems is too many people who feel the way you do. The alphabet boys mistakes keep getting dismissed as just a few mistakes and nobody is ever held responsible for them. In reality, it seems to be a lot of mistakes. Not to mention, is there really any excuse for authenticating a preprint? Absolutely not. Zero reason why that should EVER happen. But it happens over and over.

How many times do these TPA's have to authenticate a preprint, a secretarial, an autograph with no known exemplars, or outright obvious forgeries before people say enough is enough. Instead, they are dismissed as honest mistakes that could happen to anyone. WHy not hold them accountable for these mistakes and quit listening to THEM tell us all how great they are at authenticating. How many times do they have to make these same mistakes to make people realize, something isn't quite right or they just aren't as good as they claim to be.

Whether you have someone intentionally forging and putting items into the marketplace, or you have someone authenticate something without real knowledge or credentials or authenticating in a rush and doing a poor job, the end result is the same. Forgeries hit the market.

Just the face that the TPA's and auction houses don't answer questions about these issues should send up red flags. Sadly, they have done so much marketing that they have convinced the world they are the best.

IMO, it is completely unethical to charge a fee for a preliminary authentication, only to later charge another fee to do a "real" authentication. If people can't see where this is wrong.......

This is exactly right. its the advertising that has told the masses what to believe in regards to these tpa's. They don't give interviews and answer any hard questions, only softball interviews that let them crow about how great they are.

[Bilko G]

One thing i have to ask after reading the Haulsofshame.com article and this thread, is are we sure that the original auctions only contained "auction loa's" and NOT full loa's? No where in the Haulofshames article does it say that only auction loa's were given for each item. In Fact the article only says “Offered with LOAs by James Spence and Mike Gutierrez.”, it does not say that they were only auction loa's offered, yet when someone mentioned it in this thread, it seems everyone took it for fact that it was only auction loa's offered in both auctions in 1999 and 2 years later in 2001. In fact when someone mentioned that they were only "auction loa's", it seems that the thread turned focus and only centered mainly around these "auction loa's" when really the article does not even mention if it was full or just auction loa's offered for these two auctions.

Now my next question is, would JSA offer ONLY an "auction loa" on a high profile item like this? An item that has 11 signatures of the original HOF inductees? An item like this, that has some of the most forged signatures in the history of autograph collecting? Would JSA only give a "auction loa" on an item that sells for tens of thousands of dollars? It would be interesting to talk to JSA and ask them this because i can not see them offering only an "auction loa" on an item of this magnitude, that nowadays sells for $40K+++!! An auction loa just basically means "that we believe this item could be authentic, but we would have to examine it further to be sure". Now i can see JSA giving these letters for lower priced items, but would they do that on a big priced item like this? On an item that would basically be an auction "center piece" in most auctions???

[J.McMurry]

My question in regards to the article and comments on this thread center on Spence himself. Taking out the TPG aspect of the situation,what is the opinion of James Spence the person? is he considered to be a crook? incompetent? untrustworthy? unknowledgeable? I noticed Richard did not list him among the names that were reliable,but about 10 years back,Spence fell into the category of "dealer who authenticates his own material". Just curious to hear opinions.

[drc]

I'm not an autograph expert and won't comment on expertise, but I dealt with Spence a few times several years ago when he was at PSA. I thought he was a nice guy and he was very helpful to me, including when I was not a customer. Had nothing bad to say about him.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by J.McMurry

My question in regards to the article and comments on this thread center on Spence himself. Taking out the TPG aspect of the situation,what is the opinion of James Spence the person? is he considered to be a crook? incompetent? untrustworthy? unknowledgeable? I noticed Richard did not list him among the names that were reliable,but about 10 years back,Spence fell into the category of "dealer who authenticates his own material". Just curious to hear opinions.

Jody - the people I listed are autograph dealers who buy and sell.
Spence is not a dealer.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

One thing i have to ask after reading the Haulsofshame.com article and this thread, is are we sure that the original auctions only contained "auction loa's" and NOT full loa's? No where in the Haulofshames article does it say that only auction loa's were given for each item. In Fact the article only says “Offered with LOAs by James Spence and Mike Gutierrez.”, it does not say that they were only auction loa's offered, yet when someone mentioned it in this thread, it seems everyone took it for fact that it was only auction loa's offered in both auctions in 1999 and 2 years later in 2001. In fact when someone mentioned that they were only "auction loa's", it seems that the thread turned focus and only centered mainly around these "auction loa's" when really the article does not even mention if it was full or just auction loa's offered for these two auctions.

Now my next question is, would JSA offer ONLY an "auction loa" on a high profile item like this? An item that has 11 signatures of the original HOF inductees? An item like this, that has some of the most forged signatures in the history of autograph collecting? Would JSA only give a "auction loa" on an item that sells for tens of thousands of dollars? It would be interesting to talk to JSA and ask them this because i can not see them offering only an "auction loa" on an item of this magnitude, that nowadays sells for $40K+++!! An auction loa just basically means "that we believe this item could be authentic, but we would have to examine it further to be sure". Now i can see JSA giving these letters for lower priced items, but would they do that on a big priced item like this? On an item that would basically be an auction "center piece" in most auctions???

Bilko,

That is exactly right. Someone threw out the 'auction loa' out there as speculation to try to lessen the blow of the story and cause a diversion from the issues at hand.

No where in the auction listings did it say 'auction loa'. It said it had Loa's by spence/guttierez. that's it. not auction loa. So I think spence/guttierez need to explain themselves, there is no hiding behind an auction loa that was only was bandied about as speculation. We have to go by the information we know like the original auction listings.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...px?lotid=20189

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by J.McMurry

My question in regards to the article and comments on this thread center on Spence himself. Taking out the TPG aspect of the situation,what is the opinion of James Spence the person? is he considered to be a crook? incompetent? untrustworthy? unknowledgeable? I noticed Richard did not list him among the names that were reliable,but about 10 years back,Spence fell into the category of "dealer who authenticates his own material". Just curious to hear opinions.

I had heard that, and didn't know for sure either way, then I saw this.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...px?lotid=17131

This sure looks like a Spence created display, certed by Spence, so going by this description, it looked like he certed what was or what once was his own item., He should have recused himself.



An absolutely phenomenal signed display that features the autographs of 10 of the 11 living members (at the time) of the 1939 Hall of Fame dedication ceremonies during baseball's centennial year (Ty Cobb arrived too late to be in the famous photo). The piece was crafted by the inimitable James Spence, whose signed displays are the "cream of the crop". Includes: Babe Ruth (personal check); Walter Johnson (check); J. Honus Wagner (cut); George Sisler (cut); Eddie Collins (cut); Connie Mack (cut); Tris Speaker (cut); Cy Young (cut); Grover Cleveland Alexander (index card); Larry Lajoie (index card). Every one of the vintage ink signatures rate a solid "9-10" in strength, and each of the "cuts" are large examples. Accompanying the signed items are... an 11" x 14" black & white photo of the 11 Hall of Famers; seven original black & white Hall of Fame postcards (Wagner, Ruth, Collins, Young, Johnson, Alexander & Lajoie); copies of the other three postcards (Sisler, Mack & Speaker); a reproduction of the colorful 1939 Baseball Centennial program. Majestically framed & matted to 33 x 41 inches. LOA from James Spence/PSA DNA.

[travrosty]

I think it should be mentioned that auction loa's and quick opinions are more of a recent concept.

I don't see these auction listings for 10, 12 years ago mentioning auction loa's, because I don't believe the concept didn't exist back then, the concept of giving an item a lesser, quick, preliminary, cursory review and then trying to get the buyer to send in the item for the full loa after they give in a full inspection to certifying that it is "really" real.

if it had an loa from spence/guttierez or whoever, then it had an loa from them.

[RichardSimon]

Ya gotta just laugh and cry about the balls, the gonads not the baseballs , of the auction COA con.
The alphabets charge an auction house thousands of dollars when they visit them, they issue an auction COA, then they stick the collector with another $100+ or whatever jab, to actually examine the item.

[yanks12025]

Did anyone notice in the next April Heritage's auction, they have 6 Ruth signed balls in mint shape.

[Caseyatbat]

I had mentioned the item in question here may have been issued an auction LOA rather than a full LOA because there is evidence in the story that suggests that. The original auction description mentions it has LOA's from so and so. It does not mention whether it is a Full LOA or an Auction LOA, so it could be either.

In the story, it mentions the LOA itself reads that all the autographs are 9's and 10's in the description. This does not happen in a Full Letter. Spence does not "grade" autographs and this service was not available until years after this by any TPA. This would only happen in a Auction LOA, because in an auction letter the entire Lot description is used as the description in the Auction letter. And that sounds like what is going on here to me.

And this should clear up a little about "Auction Letters". They are not issued by the actual TPA. The Auction Letter is actually issued by the Auction House itself. The Auction House uses their own lot description in it, and it is not signed by the TPA either. It contains a facsimile pre-printed version. An auction letter is a way for "The Auction House" to guarantee the item. They guarantee the item to pass a Full LOA from that particular TPA within a certain amount of time (45 or 90 days I believe), or you have the option to return the item to the auction house if not. So the tough part to understand here is, it is not the TPA guaranteeing it is going to pass the full authentication process. It is the Auction House saying it is guaranteed to pass the full authentication or you can return if it does not. So it is very important to get a Full LOA ASAP within the allotted time or you will not have the guarantee anymore from the auction house. Because all an auction letter really is, is a letter from the auction house itself. And of course, we all know how risky that can be when you think about it.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

I had mentioned the item in question here may have been issued an auction LOA rather than a full LOA because there is evidence in the story that suggests that. The original auction description mentions it has LOA's from so and so. It does not mention whether it is a Full LOA or an Auction LOA, so it could be either.

In the story, it mentions the LOA itself reads that all the autographs are 9's and 10's in the description. This does not happen in a Full Letter. Spence does not "grade" autographs and this service was not available until years after this by any TPA. This would only happen in a Auction LOA, because in an auction letter the entire Lot description is used as the description in the Auction letter. And that sounds like what is going on here to me.

And this should clear up a little about "Auction Letters". They are not issued by the actual TPA. The Auction Letter is actually issued by the Auction House itself. The Auction House uses their own lot description in it, and it is not signed by the TPA either. It contains a facsimile pre-printed version. An auction letter is a way for "The Auction House" to guarantee the item. They guarantee the item to pass a Full LOA from that particular TPA within a certain amount of time (45 or 90 days I believe), or you have the option to return the item to the auction house if not. So the tough part to understand here is, it is not the TPA guaranteeing it is going to pass the full authentication process. It is the Auction House saying it is guaranteed to pass the full authentication or you can return if it does not. So it is very important to get a Full LOA ASAP within the allotted time or you will not have the guarantee anymore from the auction house. Because all an auction letter really is, is a letter from the auction house itself. And of course, we all know how risky that can be when you think about it.

no it couldn't because there were no auction loa's yet, that concept wasn't invented yet. they were all full loa's back then. show me any auction listing from 1999 to 2001 that says auction loa anywhere. There just wasnt auction loa's back then, there was no 'upgrade service' , give us more money then we will say it is 'really' real.

[Caseyatbat]

you are right, I am not sure if they had Aution LOA's that far back either. But show me a full LOA where it states all the autographs are 9's and 10's as well.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

you are right, I am not sure if they had Aution LOA's that far back either. But show me a full LOA where it states all the autographs are 9's and 10's as well.

nowhere does it say that that is what the full loa says. it simply says that the sigs are graded as such in the auction listing.

Those grading terms were informal back then, not official grades like they have now, and the only one saying that the loa's say the grade on the actual loa, thus making them an auction loa, is YOU!

The listing says loa by spence and guttierez, so thats what it is, loa from spence and guttierez, you just have to live with it, that they inspected the piece, blew it big time, or certed a piece they had seen two years prior and forgot? that the wagner was barely there the first time.

I'd like to get answers too as to how they could do that. but "auction loa" is not the answer, and is not the skirt to hide behind for these authenticators.

[RichardSimon]

So basically what this post of Casey's is saying is that there is a good chance that if you buy an item from an auction house, with an alphabet auction COA, it might not have even been looked at by a TPA.
WOW!!

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by travrosty

nowhere does it say that that is what the full loa says. it simply says that the sigs are graded as such in the auction listing.

Those grading terms were informal back then, not official grades like they have now, and the only one saying that the loa's say the grade on the actual loa, thus making them an auction loa, is YOU!

The listing says loa by spence and guttierez, so thats what it is, loa from spence and guttierez, you just have to live with it, that they inspected the piece, blew it big time, or certed a piece they had seen two years prior and forgot? that the wagner was barely there the first time.

I'd like to get answers too as to how they could do that. but "auction loa" is not the answer, and is not the skirt to hide behind for these authenticators.

Hey Travis,

I don't have a dog in this fight but what do you think of this Ali with COA on Ebay. I just ran across this by accident and it was certed just a few days ago. Doesn't look like any Ali I've ever seen.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/MUHAMMAD-ALI-AUTOGRAPHED-8X10-PHOTO-CERTIFIED-J-SPENCE-/230733986662?_trksid=e11010.m8&_trkparms=algo%3DMW%26its%3DI%252BC%26itu%3DUCC%26 otn%3D5%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D5865993226508237477

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Hey Travis,

I don't have a dog in this fight but what do you think of this Ali with COA on Ebay. I just ran across this by accident and it was certed just a few days ago. Doesn't look like any Ali I've ever seen.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/MUHAMMAD-ALI-AUTOGRAPHED-8X10-PHOTO-CERTIFIED-J-SPENCE-/230733986662?_trksid=e11010.m8&_trkparms=algo%3DMW%26its%3DI%252BC%26itu%3DUCC%26 otn%3D5%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D5865993226508237477

Dave,

I havent seen anything like that before either. i've seen messy ali signatures, but that h is muhammad is something new for me. As well as the A in Ali. I wouldn't be able to cert it with certainty, and thats what certs are for, when someone is certain. I'd have to take a lot longer look, but as it is right now, I don't particularly like it.

[perezfan]

How can you tell definitively, with the level of Parkinson's that has set-in?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Did anyone notice in the next April Heritage's auction, they have 6 Ruth signed balls in mint shape.

Brock:
I cannot find that auction on-line. Can you send or post a link, if you have access?

Thanks!

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by perezfan

How can you tell definitively, with the level of Parkinson's that has set-in?

Because that is not a later signature, or if it is forged, its suppose to mimic an earlier signature, not later. a later parkinsons affected signature is very shaky, and this one is not shaky, it looks rushed, but doesnt look like other rushed ali signatures, it looks too rushed. like he was signing a photo out of the window from a moving car going 60 miles an hour. its just very weird looking.

it generally has some of the tell tales signs of his signature, but looking at it closely it looks a little different with some things that don't add up.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Ya gotta just laugh and cry about the balls, the gonads not the baseballs , of the auction COA con.
The alphabets charge an auction house thousands of dollars when they visit them, they issue an auction COA, then they stick the collector with another $100+ or whatever jab, to actually examine the item.

yea, and collectors put their faith in companies with these types of practices. If it isn't obvious they only care about the almighty dollar, then I don't know what will ever convince people.

[yanks12025]

Mark,

Here you go. Go to page 7

http://sports.ha.com/common/search_r...6&chkNotSold=0

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Dave,

I havent seen anything like that before either. i've seen messy ali signatures, but that h is muhammad is something new for me. As well as the A in Ali. I wouldn't be able to cert it with certainty, and thats what certs are for, when someone is certain. I'd have to take a lot longer look, but as it is right now, I don't particularly like it.

I wouldn't buy one that looks like that. He was a prolific signer in his asymptomatic days so there is a ton of material out there. As for rushed versus not rushed, I've shown these before but they seem aporpos:

Lennox Lewis I obtained in person at a promotional event for the Klitschko fight. He was on the move:



Lennox Lewis a friend of mine obtained back stage at an HBO event:



No way could a TPA authenticate the one I got.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I wouldn't buy one that looks like that. He was a prolific signer in his asymptomatic days so there is a ton of material out there. As for rushed versus not rushed, I've shown these before but they seem aporpos:

Lennox Lewis I obtained in person at a promotional event for the Klitschko fight. He was on the move:



Lennox Lewis a friend of mine obtained back stage at an HBO event:



No way could a TPA authenticate the one I got.

That's right, you know it is real, but it really can't be authenticated. but all too often you will see something like this or an autograph of muhammad ali signed M.A. authenticated and they really shouldnt be because there isnt enough to go by.

Not able to authenticate doesnt mean fake, it just means for various reasons they can't conclude positively that it was signed by the celebrity or athlete in question. One of those reasons is that it is an abbreviated really quick, short signature that doesn't leave enough of the autograph to study.

a rejection letter means fake. but a lot of collectors will take offense to get an unable to authenticate but not every autograph is able to be authenticated. A lot more autographs should receive the unable to authenticate, or no opinion than currently receive it. they like to push it one way or another and its not fair to do that in many circumstances.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by travrosty

That's right, you know it is real, but it really can't be authenticated. but all too often you will see something like this or an autograph of muhammad ali signed M.A. authenticated and they really shouldnt be because there isnt enough to go by.

Not able to authenticate doesnt mean fake, it just means for various reasons they can't conclude positively that it was signed by the celebrity or athlete in question. One of those reasons is that it is an abbreviated really quick, short signature that doesn't leave enough of the autograph to study.

a rejection letter means fake. but a lot of collectors will take offense to get an unable to authenticate but not every autograph is able to be authenticated. A lot more autographs should receive the unable to authenticate, or no opinion than currently receive it. they like to push it one way or another and its not fair to do that in many circumstances.

I will say that I asked PSA for a Quick Opinion a few months back on a Francis Schmidt (Ohio State coach in the 1930's) auto because I wasn't comfortable saying Yes it was authentic in my opinion or no it was not because I had never seen one like the item I was viewing. He signed his initials, which wasn't unusual, but he connected his two initials, which was unusual. The S was different than he typically signed Schmidt, but the chmidt in his last name was close to the way he normally signed. When the Quick Opinion came back, it said they weren't comfortable enough to offer an opinion and I was refunded the $8 or so a QO costs.

[johnmh71]

Let's all believe everything Nash says. He would never do anything phony or fraudulent himself. I wonder how the fresh slice of humble pie tastes?:

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...series-trophy/

[travrosty]

What was written about the Honus Wagner signature on the induction covers (disappearing and then reappearing) is not a matter of opinion, you don't have to "believe" anyone. It is a matter of record.

The auctions that are referred to are available to anyone and everyone, they are public information. Look at the 2001 auction listing online and the other auction in the catalog that is mentioned, and you will see the same pictures that haulsofshame showed.

Do you believe your own eyes?

And I would like to ask Leon to ask these posters to please post their own full name as I was recently asked to do so, and I graciously obliged.

[Vintagedegu]

-