Harry Wright Autograph

[RichardSimon]

Will you tell us who sold this item to you?

[prewarsports]

Probably the people I sold it to. I think that when I sold it, I just "sold it" with some other items and although I knew exactly what it was, and assumed they did too, appearantly it was a bad assumption if even third party authenticators dont know. I think they had no idea how telegrams worked and thought it might have been signed and submitted it and it came back as signed and never questioned it or suspected anything. I know the seller very well and they rely heavily on 3rd party grading and I know there was no malice involved on their part. I think the beef is with the authenticator and not the seller in my opinion.

[canjond]

I'm certainly not a handwriting expert and as a casual observer of the conversation, I appreciate the background on how telegrams work. However, there is one thing that still has me curious (as brought up by someone earlier as well).

From a strictly layman's perspective, the handwriting on the telegram, and the purported signature, seem to be in two different styles. Aside from the fact that certain letters do not match up (i.e., the "g" as already pointed out), just the overall slant and letter spacing is clearly different. The actual writing has a noticeable right slant, while the signature doesn't.

I guess I'm still not sold that this can't be an original signature of Wright.

[RichardSimon]

While I won't argue authenticity one way or the other on this one, here are 3 exemplars of Harry Wright's signature.
Compare to the signature on the telegram.

[barrysloate]

If anyone has a scan of the little pencil signatures in one of the Harry Wright scorebooks, I think it will look at lot closer to the one on the telegram. When Wright signed a letter, he did so with a bit of a flourish. I believe he signed the scorebooks a little less formally. I'm not suggesting the one on the telegram is genuine, but it would be worthwhile to make this comparison. There was one in the recently closed Legendary Auction.

[canjond]

I agree with Barry in that the scans Richard posted above are of the more "ornate" variety. While this is a Wright letter, I think this type of signature is similar to those contained in the score books, and which I also think is more similar to the telegram.

[old13man]

I do not want to out the seller because I also believe it was not sold in malice. But that being said it was sold as a Harry Wright autographed telegram and I feel a refund would be appropriate. I will contact him and hopefully everything goes smoothly.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by old13man

I do not want to out the seller because I also believe it was not sold in malice. But that being said it was sold as a Harry Wright autographed telegram and I feel a refund would be appropriate. I will contact him and hopefully everything goes smoothly.

IMO you should go after JSA for the refund, not the seller. I don't imagine the seller purported to be an expert, which is why they had it authenticated by JSA. Does JSA have a buyback policy?

[RichardSimon]

The seller should always be the one to give a refund. If the seller then wants to take it up with JSA that is his business, but the seller is the one with the ultimate responsibility.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

The seller should always be the one to give a refund. If the seller then wants to take it up with JSA that is his business, but the seller is the one with the ultimate responsibility.

I don't think it would hurt to ask the seller, but the seller sold a JSA authenticated autograph and the buyer received a JSA authenticated autograph. I don't think the seller is accountable if the auto is a fake.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Matt

I don't think it would hurt to ask the seller, but the seller sold a JSA authenticated autograph and the buyer received a JSA authenticated autograph. I don't think the seller is accountable if the auto is a fake.

So you think that the seller should profit from selling a questioned autograph, even if he did not know it?
If I am an employer and one of my employees makes a mistake in my business and it costs a customer, who is responsible? The employee or me?

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Matt

I don't think it would hurt to ask the seller, but the seller sold a JSA authenticated autograph and the buyer received a JSA authenticated autograph. I don't think the seller is accountable if the auto is a fake.

I absolutely believe the seller is responsible.
Third party is just an opinion. The seller is ultimately on the hook for knowing what he's selling, UNLESS it is sold at the time of sale as no returns for ANY REASON with item sold AS IS on baisis of JSA authentication.
BG