Very, very, interesting...

Exhibitman · #1 12-14-2011, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travrosty

Richard mentioned the rare boxing signature with no exemplars.

It was 'deemed authentic' by two companies, then the certs were pulled after people complained and called them on it. But instead of pulling the item from the auction, the auction house mentioned that although due to a lack of exemplars, these companies both feel this piece is authentic. Based on what?

The auction place still wanted to sell the item. And they kept the listing up, and sold it. No exemplars, still sold it.

Based on what? We are looking into a crystal ball now? Why were the certs issued in the first place? They didn't have exemplars. They knew they didn't have any, and this auction listing should be investigated to figure out what is going on with these authenticators.

People want answers, because if they issue certs without exemplars in this instance, what other signatures have they done the same thing, only it went through undetected? The free pass has expired.

One of these companies recently certified a James Jeffries (boxing) autograph at a sunday memorabilia show and they listed the name as 'James Jeffers' on the certificate. If you look at the sig, the last name does look like it is signed jeffers, only because that's how his signature sometimes looks to the naked eye. They had no idea who this guy's name was, they went with what they saw. It's gone beyond silly now to crazy.

But they know Babe Ruth, and don't ever question them or you are a Monday morning quarterback!!! They can't get James Jeffries, Luis Firpo, John L. Sullivan, Robert Fitzsimmons, Joe Louis, Jack Sharkey, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Battling Nelson, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, Max Schmeling, or Mike Tyson correct, and those screwups were no brainers, but let's trust them with one of the most expensive autographs in the hobby because these world experts must know something we don't.

Travis Roste-boxing expert

That Sayers thing was appalling but not surprising; big packs of whores on both sides of that table when there's money to be made. No expert is beyond question; they are human beings and prone to human errors.

I spend a lot of time and study on the autographs I want and usually try to get them on a legal document, a contract, or a check. To me those are better media for likely authenticity than some random scrap of paper. But nothing is perfect. I've been burned a few times, fortunately on cheap items that I could return.

Sometimes the forgeries are innocent and look damned good; I was very disappointed with a Marciano 1950s postally used PC that turned out to have his wife's signature and I have secretarials of La Motta and some others on vintage postmarked PCs.

Even with the truth of everything said in this thread, and given the demonstrable incompetence of the TPAs, the vast majority of the public accepts their verdicts and that makes their products fungible. I don't think that is ever going to change. It is too entrenched. After all, misgraded cards abound but PSA and SGC chug along.

Ad@m W@rsh@w

RichardSimon · #2 12-14-2011, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

That Sayers thing was appalling but not surprising; big packs of whores on both sides of that table when there's money to be made. No expert is beyond question; they are human beings and prone to human errors.

Ad@m W@rsh@w

No human error in the Sayers thing,, just greed, unethical behavior and "faith based" authenticating.
autographalert.com has a picture of Sayers' passport, dated one year AFTER the supposed handwritten note was written.
In the space for Sayers' signature is a big X. He could not write his own name.

aaroncc · #3 12-15-2011, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

No human error in the Sayers thing,, just greed, unethical behavior and "faith based" authenticating.
autographalert.com has a picture of Sayers' passport, dated one year AFTER the supposed handwritten note was written.
In the space for Sayers' signature is a big X. He could not write his own name.

I have been told before that his manager John Gideon wrote for him on occasions. Since his literacy was very low. I know somewhere in H.D. Miles, Tom Sayers, 1866 that he was reported as signing some articles for a match. Can't remember the specifics. Anyway the buyer of this letter took a leap of faith. The same as the seller did when he bought it a few years ago in the Sotheby's auction.

Exhibitman · #4 12-15-2011, 06:10 PM

Actually, I typed the two sentences as separate paragraphs. They got together when I posted. Kind of a "Nice guys. Finish last." thing.

Scott Garner · #5 12-16-2011, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by thebigtrain
What makes these Ruths so unlikely to be authentic isn't the sig itself, but rather that utterly pristine condition of the balls themselves. I could see maybe 1 or 2 surviving in that condition, but not the quantity posted on Hauls of Shame.

A.) A large number of people must have presumably presented pristine balls for Ruth to sign, rather than balls that were game-used (fouls, bouncers etc) or balls they themselves (or their kids) had "used" a bit beforehand. New baseballs were relatively expensive at the time for the average Joe, and the idea you'd buy a brand new ball, take it to Ruth, have him sign it, and then put it away where it wouldn't fade or acquire the slightest bit of soiling/handling for 50+ years is just too hard to swallow with respect to the QUANTITY of them out there in the auction circuit.[/I][/I]BigTrain,

It's important to note that early professional baseball games did not allow patrons to keep baseballs that were hit into the stands. On the contrary, teams required that the fan return the ball to play. As such, very few baseballs were used in a game and they were used for most or all of the game.

BTW, baseballs were very expensive relative to the amount of dollars that it cost to attend a game and attendance was much lower back in the day. To put this in perspective, a baseball in the deadball era would have cost a team owner approximately $50 in todays dollars according to what that I have read.
In an attempt to reduce the cost of replacing baseballs in a game, team owners frequently hired security guards to remain in the stands and actively enforce the patron's returning of the ball to play.

Surprisingly, the practice of allowing the fan or patron to keep a ball that was hit into the stands came much later, say the 1940's or so. Even then, many teams were slow in adopting this policy. I'm not 100% sure of this, but I believe that Bill Veeck was the 1st team owner to allow fans to keep a game ball as a souvenir that left the field of play.

My point being here, is that I don't believe it was uncommon for a fan to present a pristine ball for Ruth to sign, because game used pro balls from ballgames may not have been seen in great numbers as you might think....

mr2686 · #6 12-16-2011, 08:29 AM

I'll add to Scott's reply and say this - I think with the advent of the internet and archival baseball footage and documentaries, we all know that someone like Ruth traveled around with "a lot" of new baseballs that he would sign and then throw to his fans from his hotel window or off the platform of a train etc. That doesn't mean that they stayed "like new" or that they're even still around today, but they were new at the time.

slidekellyslide · #7 12-16-2011, 11:15 AM

It is a ridiculous notion that 20-30 "pristine" Ruth balls can not have survived the last 70 years. Babe Ruth was considered to be the greatest baseball player of all time (still is IMO) and something didn't have to have monetary value to have been saved. Imagine meeting Babe Ruth, your childhood idol and having him sign a baseball for you...do you just let Junior take it out in the backyard and play with it? No, you keep it hidden in a closet so Junior can't find it...and because it has sentimental value and not monetary value it stays hidden in there and forgotten until dad passes away. Junior finds the ball in 1995 and knows that it has value, gets it authenticated and places it in an auction. It is not hard to believe that this has happened more than a few times..it's not like Ruth was a difficult signer.

travrosty · #8 12-14-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

That Sayers thing was appalling but not surprising; big packs of whores on both sides of that table when there's money to be made. No expert is beyond question; they are human beings and prone to human errors.

I spend a lot of time and study on the autographs I want and usually try to get them on a legal document, a contract, or a check. To me those are better media for likely authenticity than some random scrap of paper. But nothing is perfect. I've been burned a few times, fortunately on cheap items that I could return.

Sometimes the forgeries are innocent and look damned good; I was very disappointed with a Marciano 1950s postally used PC that turned out to have his wife's signature and I have secretarials of La Motta and some others on vintage postmarked PCs.

Even with the truth of everything said in this thread, and given the demonstrable incompetence of the TPAs, the vast majority of the public accepts their verdicts and that makes their products fungible. I don't think that is ever going to change. It is too entrenched. After all, misgraded cards abound but PSA and SGC chug along.

Ad@m W@rsh@w

That's the status quo and it is only going to change if the public demands change, and a regulatory agency forces them to change. The vast majority accepts it because they havent even seen one of these ridiculous errors but they need to be reached. The sayers autograph is not human error, as Richard has pointed out.

That listing started out as psa/dna LOA - JSA LOA,

then one of them dropped out first and it just listed the other company as issuing an LOA.

Then it was changed to no authentication, just a belief by these companies that they believe it is real. We have screenshots of all three scenarios.

It wasn't an error, even heritage acknowledged that there was no authentication due to lack of exemplars. so psa and jsa never had exemplars to begin with, but still felt that they could issue LOA's for the piece.

I honesty believe that they think they can do what they want because they don't think people are paying attention, but many, many people are constantly paying attention, every auction, every auction house.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's the most interesting collection you've heard of that is not yours?	almostdone	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	0	08-07-2011 07:49 PM
Share an interesting fact about a t206 player	David R	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	46	10-18-2010 09:26 PM
Interesting & Funny 19th Century Baseball Stories	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	04-02-2009 07:21 PM
Interesting story regarding the T-206 Wagner	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	11-29-2007 06:27 PM
I saw three very interesting items today (N310 Anson, E90-1 Clarke, E103 Lajoie)	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	24	11-18-2004 08:18 AM