[Mr. Zipper]

Hi

I am really late to this conversation, but wanted to add a few thoughts that haven't been covered elsewhere.

* In my view, an authenticator needs to look at the whole picture, and a big part of the picture is provenance. If an item appears to have originated from a known source of forgeries -- no matter how "good" the autograph looks -- the provenance should weigh heavily on the findings. If The Marino family was submitting items, would anyone want PSA or JSA ignoring that fact when evaluating?

Also, some items JSA reviewed had hologram stickers peeled off. Is it possible they took note of that fact and that also weighed on the evaluation? Why would an authentic item be altered?

I think JSA probably should have returned a "no decision" rather than a rejection. But, autographs are not like people. I'd rather see a good autograph condemned than let 10 fakes walk free.

JSA and PSA are far from perfect, but they are still right probably 90% - 95% of the time. Compare that to the track record of their critics.


* Regarding the comments that authenticators are not necessary and all collectors have to do is educate themselves...

This viewpoint is somewhat ego-centric and ignores the eality of the modern market.

Not all of us have been collecting for 40 years. We all haven't had the opportunity or access to amass a collection of in-person signatures to study.

What if my wife wants to buy me a signed photo for my birthday? Should she study for years prior to making the purchase?

In a perfect world we wouldn't need PSA, JSA or Richard Simon... but the world is far from perfect. These services are popular because they are obviously serving a need.

Steve Zarelli